The ObamaCare mess I: There are losers ...
The number of Americans who buy their own insurance and stand to lose their existing policies likely will exceed the number of uninsured people who supposedly will gain coverage under the empty promises of ObamaCare, according to a new analysis.
The losers are the approximately 16 million people now receiving letters from their insurance carriers informing them that they must re-enroll or risk an interruption in coverage, says Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates.
That's approximately the same number of uninsured people projected to enter ObamaCare in 2014. But given system glitches and public frustration, it's far from certain whether that number will be reached, The Heritage Foundation reminds.
Team Obama projects 500,000 sign-ups by Oct. 31. But there are no confirmed reports on the number of completed applications.
“The insurance industry is literally receiving a handful of new enrollments from the 36 Obama administration-run exchanges. ... And a good share of those enrollments are problematic,” Mr. Laszewski told The Washington Post.
So ObamaCare's target group — the uninsured — probably will come up short while about 16 million Americans who already have insurance must re-enroll, with no guarantee of receiving the same coverage.
In the mangled logic of ObamaCare, this is called “reform.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- A chilly reception
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory
- The Tesla factory: Battery boondoggle