Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.

From the Washington Post:

The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submited a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

“In the data that will be released this week, ‘enrollment’ will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

To state it plainly, the Obama Administration is changing definitions so that the statistics they report don’t look as abysmal as they otherwise would.

Not surprising for a socialist government. If the plain facts don’t support your conclusion, change the facts so that they do.

This curiously reminds me of ambulance drivers in the vaunted NHS being told to wait before bringing the patients into the A&E department…in order to help the hospital make its 4 hour wait time metric (“stacking”)

This is not surprising. This is the same administration that has changed how the unemployment figures are counted so that things will appear better than they actually are.

DGB

This is hardly surprising. It is from the party that wants to change the definition of marriage, has already changed the definition of pregnancy, tried to argue the definition of “is”, and ignored the definition of recess appointment.

Feel free to add to the above list. I am sure there are many more examples.

It is really difficult to have a respectful discussion of issues with people who are dishonest to the core.

Regretfully, it seems that America is headed down the broad highway to hell. I am despairing of our future as a nation.

I disagree with the posters that say the administration is being dishonest.

They are counting the people for whom they have done their part. They are going a little overboard by counting people with plans in the their cart that haven’t been sent to carriers. Plan sent to carrier should be the metric being measured. The government has no control on when people actually pay.

So, payment is not in control of the government. BUT, “sent to carrier” is the last healthcare.gov action, not consumer placing plan in cart. Some of those people are kibitzers and will never pull the trigger to actually buy the plan.

And, by the way, they do get points for being able to extract how many people have plans in carts but haven’t purchased them.

The Obama administration should really spend some time on Your Logical Fallacy Is… I’m pretty sure this would fall under special pleading, ambiguity, appeal to authority, and possibly the Texas Sharpshooter. Four fallacies with one decision, I wonder if that’s some sort of record…

A little trade secret. It is nothing new in insurance to have these different levels of application. I was an IT guy in a small insurance agency (100 or so agents). The CEO demanded the daily number of counts in each of the following stages:

(1) prospective customers
(2) partial applications (wasn’t unusual to spend days to finish an application)
(3) completed applications
(4) completed physical (if applicable)
(5) in underwriting
(a) recent
(b) over 30 days
© over 60 days
(d) over 90 days
(6) declined or withdrawals
(7) accepted with stated premium and mode of payment
(8) customer acceptance of policy
(9) commission received

It was important to identify the stages as they would trigger letters sent to the customers or carrier with the appropriate verbiage.

The difference being that the White House counts every one of those you listed as an enrollee.

Numbers looking good, Kathy!

On our master database they counted as one customer with a customer id. We could have called them enrollees with an enrollee id. I suppose the stockholders were the only ones concerned with the terminology; it made no difference in the internal processing…:wink:

I would be happy with disclosure that included these details. If HHS leaves out the details and counts all of the above as equal, that would be dishonest, and SOP for the most honest and transparent administration in history. (gack!)

I agree.

The DC numbers released over the weekend.

5 completed enrollees

About 325 with plans in “shopping cart”

Abysmal numbers by any measure

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has started calling termination notices from insurance companies “transition notices!”

Also, the state of Oregon, who decided to create their own exchange that was going to be the model for the rest of the states to copy, has not enrolled one single person in six weeks. While the federal site performs very badly, Oregon’s doesn’t even work at all.

Changing the definition of an enrollee is like trying to polish a turd; it just ain’t gonna work.

It will really be interesting to see the results of this in the November elections. Between this and the economy, democrats should be shaking in their shoes. Hopefully, Americans will be wise enough to effect a desperately needed change. I don’t think that the republicans have a solution, either, but I can’t believe they could do any worse than what we have now. What a pitiful choice.

By having an expansive definition of enrolees that includes people who have not paid is like counting items as fully sold on eBay when people have won an item on eBay but not paid and on eBay there are ways to get out of paying, to cancel the transaction as I bet there are ways for people to cancel their enrolment on health insurance.

I doubt the White House will release information on who has signed up for the plans, by age, because then I bet, it will be revealed that few young people have enrolled and the White House might not want that information revealed.

By having an expansive definition of enrolees that includes people who have not paid is like counting items as fully sold on eBay when people have won an item on eBay but not paid and on eBay you can get out of paying, to cancel the transaction, such as by contacting the seller, so I bet there are ways for people to cancel their enrolment on health insurance.

I doubt the White House will release information on who has signed up for the plans by age, because then I bet, it will be revealed that few young people have enrolled and the White House might not want that information revealed.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

I wonder if this would extend to the IRS as well, will Obama report my taxes as being paid if I have check filled out but not mailed?

Maybe the low numbers should be applauded. Less Medicaid money going out. Just saying.

Why would young people sign up for a program that will cost them over $2000 a year, yet the penalty for not having it is only $98?

The ACA (and social security) do the exact same thing that Bernie Madoff did; have the stream of new people paying for the older established ones. The difference is that Bernie Madoff is going to spend the rest of his life in prison for what he did. Ironic, huh?

For the record, that’s only for the first year.

It will still be far less than what healthy young people would pay for a basic policy.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.