Very Late Obamacare Schadenfreude

Yeah, yeah; I'm way late today.  I had stuff to do in the morning, and didn't get home until late.  By they, our storm system passed by early this morning after three days of rain, most of which fell yesterday.  Nice and warm and clear all day until about an hour ago when it clouded up, and thunder was heard in the distance.

As of April 15, Only 67 Percent of Enrollees in Federal Marketplace Had Paid First Month’s Premium

Data provided to the committee by every insurance provider in the health care law’s Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) shows that, as of April 15, 2014, only 67 percent of individuals and families that had selected a health plan in the federally facilitated marketplace had paid their first month’s premium and therefore completed the enrollment process. Nationwide, only 25 percent of paid enrollees are ages 18 to 34. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations today invited the leaders of some of the nation’s largest insurance providers and their trade groups to testify at a hearing, “PPACA Enrollment and the Insurance Industry,” on Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

House Energy and Commerce Committee members sent letters requesting specific enrollment data, including the number of individuals who have paid their first month’s premium and demographic breakdowns. The committee has compiled the data that provides a snapshot of the true enrollment picture as of April 15, 2014, after the official end of the open enrollment period. Due to the administration’s repeated and unilateral extensions and changes, as well as the fact that many insurers have reported that individuals will still have time to pay their first month’s premium, the committee plans to ask the insurers in the federally facilitated marketplace to provide an enrollment update by May 20, 2014.

And you know what that means:

No money, no coverage, which means the widely touted figure of eight million enrollments that Barack “Mission Accomplished” Obama’s been pushing lately is flatly bogus. Anyone who hasn’t paid by the end of the grace period offered by their insurer — and some of those grace periods were undoubtedly extended beyond April 15th, the cut-off date for this analysis — will be tossed from the rolls.

The figure that’s been cited for months on payment rates is 80 percent. The Energy and Commerce Committee claims it’s actually significantly lower, at least when it comes to enrollees on the federal exchange, i.e. Healthcare.gov. As you read, focus on the following question. Why couldn’t HHS have calculated this?

Because they didn't want it to come out, of course.

That’s not disastrous for the White House, I think. They’ve got 31 percent overall who are paid up aged 34 or younger; I remember reading somewhere that they could probably function reasonably well as long as there are no fewer than 25 percent of “young invincibles” in the risk pool. It’s probably also true that young adults are overrepresented among the one-third of sign-ups who haven’t paid yet. Logically, older people who need insurance more desperately than younger people do will be scrupulous about making their payments on time to guarantee that the coverage is in effect. If the White House can do something to give young deadbeats more time (and incentive) to make their payments, they can probably tilt the risk pool a bit younger than it is right now. Which means those grace periods for payment that insurers have extended are likely to be extended quite a bit longer.

Exit question: How many of 2.45 million paid enrollees on the federal exchange were previously uninsured?

Mission accomplished: U.S. health-care spending soars nearly 10 percent in first quarter, most since 1980

Obamacare was pitched as a plan to reduce health care spending, and formally titled the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” In 2009, Obama called the status quo – in which health care spending was accelerating toward becoming one-fifth of the economy – “unsustainable.”

For several years, Obama and his allies had been crediting a slowdown in the rate of growth for health care to payment reforms imposed by the law. But other analysts predicted that spending would pick up as the economy improved and people started loosening the family purse strings.

[T]he 9.9 percent jump (on an annualized basis) came in the quarter from January through March, which was the first three months in which individuals who gaining coverage through the law were able to use it. That was the fastest rate recorded since health care spending grew at a 10 percent rate in the third quarter of 1980.

Shockingly or not, the added health care spending was the only thing that kept growth in positive (albeit just barely, 0.1%):

Prediction: ObamaCare won't be seen as "an important part of" today's story.

The other possible spin will be, "See how much pent up demand there was for health care? Sure it's expensive but damn it people needed it". (Added: Yep)

I'm sure Vox.com is figuring out all you need to know about this as we speak. Spoiler: It won't include "repealing ObamaCare".

But at least the Obama recovery is growing the economy so fast we can now afford this new spending.

Oh.

The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery as the frigid winter appeared to have curtailed business investment and weakness overseas hurt exports.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast growth at a 1.1% pace for the quarter.
The broad slowdown to start the year halted what had been improving economic momentum during much of 2013. In the second half of last year, the economy expanded at a 3.4% pace. The first-quarter reading fell far below even the lackluster average annual gain of near 2% since the recession ended.

It seems the media has settled on a narrative here.

The U.S. economy grew in the first quarter — but very, very, very slowly. Frigid winter weather dampened forward progress. Improved economic data out since the quarter ended, however, caused many people to minimize the weight they were placing on the figure even before it was released Wednesday morning.

See, unlike every other year in recorded history, this year had....a winter. What can you do about that sort of freak occurrence? Certainly you can't blame Obama.

Predicted (and possibly true) Vox.com spin..."If not for all the government spending on healthcare there'd have been negative GDP growth! You're welcome."

See, Obamacare is going to cut healthcare spending except in months with R's and whenever the economy need boost.

Probably a wise decision on her part: Sebelius Now Refusing To Testify Before Senate Panel

Outgoing Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius is now refusing to testify before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, a Senate aide told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

Sebelius had originally been set to testify before the subcommittee about the department’s 2015 $70 billion budget request on April 2.

According to another aide, however, several weeks after confirming the hearing date, she requested a date switch with the National Institutes of Health budget hearing on May 7. The committee accommodated her request.

Now, after announcing her resignation on April 11, she is refusing to testify according to the two aides, even though she is still the sitting secretary — remaining at the post until her successor, OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell is confirmed.

If you don't testify you can't be forced to lie.

Bonus: Can Republicans Escape The Fauxbamacare Trap?

The Traps To Avoid

Doing nothing is no longer an option. The recovery of healthcare.gov and the “ten million Obamacare enrollees” have seen to that. So Republicans now have no choice but to play their “replace” card, if they want to keep Democrats from running demagogically on “the Republican plan to take away your health care.” But in doing so, they have to avoid falling into a number of traps:

1) They have to neutralize any demagoguery about those “ten million” people with existing benefits. They should close the gate on any further sign-ups. And make clear there’ll be a transition—that existing “beneficiaries” will have alternatives, and/or a few years to make alternative arrangements as the Republican reforms kick in.

2) They can’t let “universal coverage” (or comparative “coverage gains”) be the measure of their seriousness. That path will lead them into a policy cul de sac where the only choices are onerous mandates and Medicaid expansions—i.e., Fauxbamacare. Instead, they have to focus on reducing costs and expanding individual freedom, consistent with the Constitution.

3) They can’t let their replacement agenda be simply “another symbolic repeal vote.” It has to be a series of actual, serious reforms.

4) They can’t let themselves slip into merely “fixing Obamacare.” That will doom them with their own base voters. Instead, they need to give themselves maneuvering room, by broadening the debate to reforming health care in general.

5) They can’t blow up the employer-based system, from which half the US population get its health coverage. That will doom them with most voters. Instead, they need to leave workplace health benefits in place, but help more people to obtain individually owned insurance outside the workplace.

There’s only one way to avoid all these traps, in my view, and that’s to follow “regular order.” Instead of holding an up-or-down vote on some 2,000-page omnibus bill, take up a series of single-issue bills, and deliberately and thoughtfully consider each one, with plenty of time for careful review, debate, and amendment.

To put a cork in the Democrats’ mouth, Republicans should include in each bill a contingent effective date, along the following lines: “This bill shall take effect upon the enactment of the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, or on January 21, 2017, whichever is sooner.”

This formulation would enable opponents to navigate the treacherous waters between “reform health care” and “fix Obamacare.” It effectively makes the reform contingent on the election of a Republican successor to Obama, who would presumably be in a position to sign a full repeal, and thus subtly acknowledges the reality of Obama’s veto pen while clearly reaffirming the Republican commitment to full repeal. It also takes away the Democratic talking points about “no Republican plan” and “just another repeal vote”).

What, deliberately and thoughtfully consider each bill, with plenty of time for careful review, debated and amendment?  Never happen, alas, given who Congress is and how they behave.  Nice thought, though.