After reading Leader Pelosi’s tweet below (actually a tweet of LA Times information, not a retweet of LA Times) and posting it here with my comments, we received the following note from Leader Pelosi’s office. They take issue with my posting below — but frankly I assumed the Leader would not tweet a number to her hundreds of thousands of twitter followers that she did not believe was correct.
I am bit confused – does Leader Pelosi believe the 9.5 million number in LA Times is correct or not?
Here is the message we received:
FROM LEADER PELOSI’s office ABOUT THE TWEET BELOW:
“We are directly quoting the LA Times story… there are quote marks in the tweet. Not our numbers. Greta should examine the LA Times story if she has an issue with our tweet. We are just quoting their reporting.”
click here for the LA TIMES article (her tweet is at the bottom)
Here is my posting:
I want all people to have access to medical care. I don’t want one person suffering. Of course, we need to be smart about it – make the right decisions.
In evaluating Leader Pelosi’s tweet below – 9.5 million previously uninsured gained coverage – we need to examine a few other numbers. Is she correct or misleading?
First, the goal with Obamacare was, as I recall, to figure out a way to cover about 30 million. We sure did not hit that target. So…since it is only 9.5 m (assuming her number correct in her tweet), was it worth turning the industry and the nation upside down? Would it have been smarter – and maybe cheaper – just to figure out how to take care of 9.5m? (assuming that number is correct.) But even that 9.5 number may be inflated. See my next point.
Second, who are the 9.5 million? I have heard all sorts of numbers of how many people lost their insurance with Obamacare. That range is usually 5m to 6m so I will give Obamacare the benefit of the doubt and assume 5 million lost their policies and not 6m. If you read Pelosi’s tweet, she suggest that 9.5 previously uninsured gained coverage – which would mean the number that signed up on the website is really 14.5m. That is just not so. Hence…I think her math is way off the target, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, the number should be maybe her 9.5m (assuming that is correct) minus 5m who were forced out of insurance = 4.5m. (Of course if I used the number 6m who lost their insurance, than the number gained would be 3.5m.)
So…was it worth it to turn the healthcare of the nation upside down to cover 4.5m (or 3.5m?) Would it not have been smarter or wiser to just figure out how to get them access to medical care? Would it not have been less disruptive to the others who were pleased with their access?
Of course cost is a consideration. Did Obamacare make sense financially? We need correct numbers on how many of the balance number (4.5m) are medicaid (completely subsidized)…and how many are partially subsidized and how many are under the age of 35 (and paying 100% of the cost.) That will give us a good idea of cost and thus give us an idea of the wisdom of Obamacare vs. another way to provide healthcare access.
Finally, against all the issues above, one must consider that some people LOST their doctors and most have increased premiums (although premiums would have gone up for those insured anyway as they do yearly…the question is did they spike with Obamacare.)
Of course I am not putting into this calculus the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on websites etc. and much of that was just plain throwing money out the window. That amount might have been better spent getting some healthcare for the 3.5 million who have just gotten healthcare access.
(and did I miss a question or understate or overstate anything?)