(07-20-2015 12:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So basically you think that if there are 11 million undocumented there are about 10.5 million that don't have insurance. If you are correct then that would put the total uninsured in the US at 37 million rather than 33 million. It would also put those old estimates off by about 4 million as it appears that those preACA estimates of the uninsured estimated the undocumented as having about 4.5 million down as covered.

Dude.... I have no idea where you are going with this.

Estimates are estimates. The moment you start using one set of estimates to 'correct' another set of estimates you are by definition, muddying the waters.

When the government estimates 33mm uninsured, they are using SOME set of rules, SOME set of definitions and SOME estimate of illegals.

50% is obviously way too high unless you are counting 'coverage' as 'insured', which for the purposes of a discussion of the ACA is a change of the definition of 'insured'... and that is intentionally misleading.

I don't care if the number is 33 or 37mm and neither should you. All you should care about is consistency in the numbers...

and you and your buddy Gaba are repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.

As for your attempts above, no.... because in addition to the 4.5mm 'illegals' who have coverage but no insurance, there are millions of poor citizens or legal aliens in the US who similarly have coverage but no insurance. You have to adjust BOTH groups of people, not just one. It would be a wild guess, but as with illegals, a number near 50% wouldn't surprise me... but 50% of the previously uninsured, not the currently uninsured.... because many of the previously uninsured who had coverage now have 'free' insurance. In my mind, that actually explains why unless you completely dismantle these 'secondary' coverages, there will ALWAYS be a sector of the population with coverage but not insurance, on top of an independent/separatist group who would decline even free insurance, even at the threat of fine or incarceration.

We are now going WAY off the rails.

(07-20-2015 01:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 12:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So basically you think that if there are 11 million undocumented there are about 10.5 million that don't have insurance. If you are correct then that would put the total uninsured in the US at 37 million rather than 33 million. It would also put those old estimates off by about 4 million as it appears that those preACA estimates of the uninsured estimated the undocumented as having about 4.5 million down as covered.

Dude.... I have no idea where you are going with this.

Estimates are estimates. The moment you start using one set of estimates to 'correct' another set of estimates you are by definition, muddying the waters.

When the government estimates 33mm uninsured, they are using SOME set of rules, SOME set of definitions and SOME estimate of illegals.

50% is obviously way too high unless you are counting 'coverage' as 'insured', which for the purposes of a discussion of the ACA is a change of the definition of 'insured'... and that is intentionally misleading.

I don't care if the number is 33 or 37mm and neither should you. All you should care about is consistency in the numbers...

and you and your buddy Gaba are repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.

As for your attempts above, no.... because in addition to the 4.5mm 'illegals' who have coverage but no insurance, there are millions of poor citizens or legal aliens in the US who similarly have coverage but no insurance. You have to adjust BOTH groups of people, not just one. It would be a wild guess, but as with illegals, a number near 50% wouldn't surprise me... but 50% of the previously uninsured, not the currently uninsured.... because many of the previously uninsured who had coverage now have 'free' insurance. In my mind, that actually explains why unless you completely dismantle these 'secondary' coverages, there will ALWAYS be a sector of the population with coverage but not insurance, on top of an independent/separatist group who would decline even free insurance, even at the threat of fine or incarceration.

We are now going WAY off the rails.

UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

This is now the 4th or 5th explanation you've given for your responses since that question was asked and answered a week ago.

(07-20-2015 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

This is now the 4th or 5th explanation you've given for your responses since that question was asked and answered a week ago.

And you just can't seem to grasp it.

(07-20-2015 03:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

This is now the 4th or 5th explanation you've given for your responses since that question was asked and answered a week ago.

And you just can't seem to grasp it.

I'm literally laughing out loud at you right now.

You haven't said the same thing multiple times or in multiple different ways, you've said multiple different things. You've asked questions. I've answered them. You remain willfully uninformed.

Trust me, when it comes to healthcare, I've grasped it... and everyone on here, including you knows it.

As I said.,..

Regardless of what numbers your buddy uses, his estimate of illegals with insurance is WAY WAY off, not even remotely resembling logical... and his explanation of the support for his numbers wouldn't qualify under the ACA as being 'insured'. If you'd like to change the definition to match his... that is fine... but we need to use that same definition for ALL of these measures... STARTING with how many uninsured there were prior to the ACA.

and not merely to go back and forth as you have done... counting them as 'insured' when you're trying to talk about how many people 'now' have 'coverage' and NOT counting them as insured when talking about why we need even MORE of the ACA/Medicaid expansion.

(07-14-2015 05:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Charles Gaba attempted to break down the numbers of the 33 million still uninsured. Here are his estimates.

6.5 million: Undocumented Immigrants
3.7 million: Medicaid Gap
3.5 million: Eligible for Medicaid/CHIP
7.9 million: Between 100-400% FPL (tax credits)
8.6 million: Over 400% FPL

Explain how this number is 6.5million, when the number of illegal aliens is MUCH more than that?

I'll ask Gaba.

Here I respond to his question.

(07-14-2015 08:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 06:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Charles Gaba attempted to break down the numbers of the 33 million still uninsured. Here are his estimates.

6.5 million: Undocumented Immigrants
3.7 million: Medicaid Gap
3.5 million: Eligible for Medicaid/CHIP
7.9 million: Between 100-400% FPL (tax credits)
8.6 million: Over 400% FPL

Explain how this number is 6.5million, when the number of illegal aliens is MUCH more than that?

Don't let the drag you into the minutia. The numbers of illegals are estimates and so is all this. Whether it is 6.5 or 20 depends on lots of other issues.

I'm just finding out how a big portion of the illegal aliens suddenly have health insurance. I was told that the number of uninsured illegals was a number between 2-6 times higher than that prior to Obamacare, and that Obamacare wouldnt cover illegals. Now, all of a sudden, the number of uninsured illegals has plummeted?

Evidently there are 4 or 5 million that have coverage, through an employer or bought from an insurance agent I suppose. They can't get Medicaid but there may be some state programs, California for instance that offer some coverage too. Who told you that the number of uninsured illegals was so much higher prior to the ACA?

Here I offer some possibilities.

(07-14-2015 09:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 08:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 08:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 06:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Don't let the drag you into the minutia. The numbers of illegals are estimates and so is all this. Whether it is 6.5 or 20 depends on lots of other issues.

I'm just finding out how a big portion of the illegal aliens suddenly have health insurance. I was told that the number of uninsured illegals was a number between 2-6 times higher than that prior to Obamacare, and that Obamacare wouldnt cover illegals. Now, all of a sudden, the number of uninsured illegals has plummeted?

Evidently there are 4 or 5 million that have coverage, through an employer or bought from an insurance agent I suppose. They can't get Medicaid but there may be some state programs, California for instance that offer some coverage too. Who told you that the number of uninsured illegals was so much higher prior to the ACA?

So while the economy has been in the crapper and emplyment rates at an all time low under Obama, in the past 15 months at least half of the illegals in American have been able to secure a job that also offers health insurance?

You are making assumptions and have some incorrect information there.

The economy has been slowly but surely improving since the 2008 recession so it really isn't in the crapper right now. Unemployment rates have been going down.

You seem to be assuming that the undocumented just recently got jobs and just got coverage. I think it is more likely that a large number of them if not most were already employed and a lot of them already had coverage. Unemployed undocumented go back across the border if they can't get work. Why would they stay, work was the whole purpose in coming here?

I found this regarding the undocumented and insurance from back in 2007.
"Pew's data indicate that 11.9 million illegal immigrants were in the United States in 2007. About 6.8 million of them did not have health insurance." That dovetails pretty well with those 2015 estimates. It seems that about the same percentage had coverage then as have it today.

Here I offer some pew data from 2007 that indicates there were a significant number of undoc with coverage back then, about the same as the estimates today.

(07-15-2015 09:34 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Charles Gaba included a blog entry today regarding undocumented coverage.
"What about the OTHER 4.5 million undocumented immigrants?"
http://acasignups.net/15/07/15/what-abou...immigrants

Here I offer a site where the subject we are discussing is discussed and an LA Times article specifically regarding California talks about it, though not exactly what we were discussing as it goes into care options as well as insurance coverage. No where do I say, or even imply that this site or that article settle anything, just that they offer some information.

(07-15-2015 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 08:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Evidently there are 4 or 5 million that have coverage, through an employer or bought from an insurance agent I suppose. They can't get Medicaid but there may be some state programs, California for instance that offer some coverage too. Who told you that the number of uninsured illegals was so much higher prior to the ACA?

What California offers is not insurance by any measure. It is emergency Medicaid which reimburses the hospital 'some' for Emergency, life saving or otherwise vital care.... and nothing more. Texas has similar. I suspect other border states also do. It was and still essentially is to keep the picture the activist left always paints of people without coverage dying in the streets from bankrupting hospitals. Of course, if you want to call it Insurance, I suppose you can... it's just extremely limited.

As to his assumptions, I don't buy that for a minute. If you're here illegally, you don't have an SSN. How are you getting insurance through your employer? An employer is funding a policy for an employee that they're paying under the table? Alternatively, someone who has 'borrowed' someone else's SSN to get work is having healthcare deducted from his paycheck?

I'm not saying the number is zero... but it's nowhere near HALF of the illegal immigrants here. I might believe 1mm (10%ish) and maybe even 2mm based on those who have been here for a generation... but not anything remotely resembling 50%.

Based on what I see here, I'm betting that the +/- 4mm are those who actually get injured somehow and get that sort of 'Emergency Medicaid' coverage so they are counted as 'insured'. All of the others would similarly be covered, but they didn't go to the ER.

Here you offer some personal insight into the issue and express some opinions.

(07-15-2015 03:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-15-2015 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 08:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Evidently there are 4 or 5 million that have coverage, through an employer or bought from an insurance agent I suppose. They can't get Medicaid but there may be some state programs, California for instance that offer some coverage too. Who told you that the number of uninsured illegals was so much higher prior to the ACA?

What California offers is not insurance by any measure. It is emergency Medicaid which reimburses the hospital 'some' for Emergency, life saving or otherwise vital care.... and nothing more. Texas has similar. I suspect other border states also do. It was and still essentially is to keep the picture the activist left always paints of people without coverage dying in the streets from bankrupting hospitals. Of course, if you want to call it Insurance, I suppose you can... it's just extremely limited.

As to his assumptions, I don't buy that for a minute. If you're here illegally, you don't have an SSN. How are you getting insurance through your employer? An employer is funding a policy for an employee that they're paying under the table? Alternatively, someone who has 'borrowed' someone else's SSN to get work is having healthcare deducted from his paycheck?

I'm not saying the number is zero... but it's nowhere near HALF of the illegal immigrants here. I might believe 1mm (10%ish) and maybe even 2mm based on those who have been here for a generation... but not anything remotely resembling 50%.

Based on what I see here, I'm betting that the +/- 4mm are those who actually get injured somehow and get that sort of 'Emergency Medicaid' coverage so they are counted as 'insured'. All of the others would similarly be covered, but they didn't go to the ER.

click on the link in post 406 for further information

Here I note a post I hoped you would take a look at, go to the link and further elaborate, agree or disagree with what is there. No where do I challenge your knowledge or dispute what you said, just wanted you to take a look and see what you think.

(07-16-2015 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2015 03:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  click on the link in post 406 for further information

Dude... do you HONESTLY think you can tell me anything about California healthcare? Seriously?

Let's start with this. I don't know who Charles Gaba is. Is that you? According to the internet, He's not a professional statistician, healthcare expert or politician. So by all means, let's listen to him!

I read it, and while Liza has SOME credibility in the area, she isn't the one making the estimates.... and i suspect if she did, she'd be far closer to my numbers than yours/Gaba's.

Let's look at her list.

1) Student health plans. The number of illegal immigrants enrolling in those 'many' colleges and universities (meaning schools like Cal State and NOT schools like College of the Sequoia's) is probably fewer than 100,000. Probably fewer than 50,000. Since they aren't citizens, they don't qualify for aid, they are paying full freight. In state, but still not cheap. According to Jerry Brown QUOTED IN YOUR ARTICLE, there are only 170,000 undocumented children under 18 in California. How many 19-24 year old undocumented immigrants do you think there are going to the 'major' state Universities? Frankly, as I type this, we're probably talking about fewer than 20,000.

2) How many companies do you know of that hire people not legally allowed to work here and offer them benefits? As I said, it's more than zero, but it is also a number in the 5 digits AT MOST.

3) Yes they CAN purchase insurance... and I'm sure some do. This also isn't in the millions of people since they get no subsidy or assistance.

4) I mentioned the sort of benefits that are available to people regardless of their immigration status. It isn't insurance (at least it wouldn't qualify under the ACA as insurance, but someone wanting to fudge a number of 'insured' people and 'muddy the waters' could claim they are insured.

5) Community health centers. Yep, Texas does this as well just as I told you when you argued that by not expanding medicaid, these people were 'uninsured' by your definition. Now that you want to make a different point, you're calling these people insured. Typical. Just as in #4, It isn't insurance (at least it wouldn't qualify under the ACA as insurance, but someone wanting to fudge a number of 'insured' people and 'muddy the waters' could claim they are insured.

6) This is a repeat of 4... State based healthcare

7) This is a repeat of 5... a community health center.


Note about 4 and 5. all along I've differentiated between 'care' and 'insurance'... These people and programs provide 'care', but they do not provide insurance. So in a thread about counting the 'insured', you describe them as having insurance... but in a thread talking about expanding medicaid so that these people can get 'care', you point out that these people are uninsured. And you claim I muddy the waters?

Laughable.

1,2 and 3 combined are probably fewer than 250-300k. The vast majority of these people would therefore fall into categories 4 and 5 (as 6 and 7 are merely semantic differences of essentially the same groups)... which means that according to your own estimates, half of those illegals in this country are getting 'care'... of course, when you're trying to make things look good for you, you call it insurance and when you want to make it look bad you don't, but that is beside the point.

So why aren't those LEGALLY in this country getting that same care? The fact is that they are. Despite all the gloom and doom that was given to us and continues to be given to us, TENS OF MILLIONS OF UNINSURED AMERICANS (using the same math you did for illegals... 50%) WERE getting care. Could it be improved? OF COURSE we could always give more/better care and as I've always said, the BEST thing about the ACA is that it provides more money to be spent on healthcare... of course it comes in the form of what is essentially a tax on the young and healthy... but that was his party's choice.

Thank you for proving my points... and defeating your own.

Here you get all upset and read all kind of things into it that aren't there.

(07-16-2015 11:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2015 03:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  click on the link in post 406 for further information

Dude... do you HONESTLY think you can tell me anything about California healthcare? Seriously?

Let's start with this. I don't know who Charles Gaba is. Is that you? According to the internet, He's not a professional statistician, healthcare expert or politician. So by all means, let's listen to him!

I read it, and while Liza has SOME credibility in the area, she isn't the one making the estimates.... and i suspect if she did, she'd be far closer to my numbers than yours/Gaba's.

Let's look at her list.

1) Student health plans. The number of illegal immigrants enrolling in those 'many' colleges and universities (meaning schools like Cal State and NOT schools like College of the Sequoia's) is probably fewer than 100,000. Probably fewer than 50,000. Since they aren't citizens, they don't qualify for aid, they are paying full freight. In state, but still not cheap. According to Jerry Brown QUOTED IN YOUR ARTICLE, there are only 170,000 undocumented children under 18 in California. How many 19-24 year old undocumented immigrants do you think there are going to the 'major' state Universities? Frankly, as I type this, we're probably talking about fewer than 20,000.

2) How many companies do you know of that hire people not legally allowed to work here and offer them benefits? As I said, it's more than zero, but it is also a number in the 5 digits AT MOST.

3) Yes they CAN purchase insurance... and I'm sure some do. This also isn't in the millions of people since they get no subsidy or assistance.

4) I mentioned the sort of benefits that are available to people regardless of their immigration status. It isn't insurance (at least it wouldn't qualify under the ACA as insurance, but someone wanting to fudge a number of 'insured' people and 'muddy the waters' could claim they are insured.

5) Community health centers. Yep, Texas does this as well just as I told you when you argued that by not expanding medicaid, these people were 'uninsured' by your definition. Now that you want to make a different point, you're calling these people insured. Typical. Just as in #4, It isn't insurance (at least it wouldn't qualify under the ACA as insurance, but someone wanting to fudge a number of 'insured' people and 'muddy the waters' could claim they are insured.

6) This is a repeat of 4... State based healthcare

7) This is a repeat of 5... a community health center.


Note about 4 and 5. all along I've differentiated between 'care' and 'insurance'... These people and programs provide 'care', but they do not provide insurance. So in a thread about counting the 'insured', you describe them as having insurance... but in a thread talking about expanding medicaid so that these people can get 'care', you point out that these people are uninsured. And you claim I muddy the waters?

Laughable.

1,2 and 3 combined are probably fewer than 250-300k. The vast majority of these people would therefore fall into categories 4 and 5 (as 6 and 7 are merely semantic differences of essentially the same groups)... which means that according to your own estimates, half of those illegals in this country are getting 'care'... of course, when you're trying to make things look good for you, you call it insurance and when you want to make it look bad you don't, but that is beside the point.

So why aren't those LEGALLY in this country getting that same care? The fact is that they are. Despite all the gloom and doom that was given to us and continues to be given to us, TENS OF MILLIONS OF UNINSURED AMERICANS (using the same math you did for illegals... 50%) WERE getting care. Could it be improved? OF COURSE we could always give more/better care and as I've always said, the BEST thing about the ACA is that it provides more money to be spent on healthcare... of course it comes in the form of what is essentially a tax on the young and healthy... but that was his party's choice.

Thank you for proving my points... and defeating your own.

Calm down Ham. You are so defensive. This isn't a competition. We are just wondering how 4 or 5 million undocumented immigrants have coverage. Gaba hasn't claimed to be an expert on the subject, just looking into it. The LA Times article is simply a resource that at least partially addresses the subject. It is addressing health care which would include "care" and "insurance". You seem to think everything is an effort to win points but it isn't. It is an effort to look at the issue.

Personally I always assumed that basically all the undocumented immigrants were uninsured. I'm surprised that a large percentage of them appear to have insurance. Are the numbers accurate? I don't know.

Look I what I bolded. It is pretty simply saying we are wondering about the possible 4 or 5 with coverage.

(07-16-2015 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Ham, that was a lot of typing that has nothing to do with what we were presently talking about. We were looking at who might the 33 million or so of the uninsured be. UofM noted that the uninsured undocumented immigrant number didn't match the number of undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the country. Like him, I always figured the two numbers would be about the same. It appears that that isn't the case. Estimates from 2007 seem to indicate that there are about the same percentage of insured and uninsured undocumented in the country over the last several years. So some questions are, how are these people getting insurance, are these muddied numbers confusing care with insurance, how accurate are the number?

Sometimes we should be able to just discuss something without butting heads.

Here once again I say we are trying to figure out undoc insurance numbers.

(07-19-2015 03:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Ham, that was a lot of typing that has nothing to do with what we were presently talking about. We were looking at who might the 33 million or so of the uninsured be. UofM noted that the uninsured undocumented immigrant number didn't match the number of undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the country. Like him, I always figured the two numbers would be about the same. It appears that that isn't the case. Estimates from 2007 seem to indicate that there are about the same percentage of insured and uninsured undocumented in the country over the last several years. So some questions are, how are these people getting insurance, are these muddied numbers confusing care with insurance, how accurate are the number?

Sometimes we should be able to just discuss something without butting heads.

What you don't seem to understand or admit that the only one 'confused' about these numbers is you. I've repeatedly and correctly told you exactly what they are, and you repeatedly deflect me to 'blogs' or other quotes from people with an agenda as if they are correct and I am not.

Stop spreading lies (Evidently there are 4 or 5 million that have coverage,) and deflecting my truth (click on the link in post 406 for further information) and we won't butt heads. I clicked on the link. I explained it to you, and NOW you're saying I typed a lot and didn't address the issue

WTF... YOU GAVE ME THE DAMN LINK AND THEN REFERRED ME BACK TO IT!! HOW DOES EXPLAINING THOSE 'MUDDIED' NUMBERS NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT MUDDIED NUMBERS?

I explained it to you, but I can't learn it for you.

The only people confused are those who aren't paying attention to informed people or those who find value in the confusion. I'm not yet sure which one you are. If you ARE this blogger, it's the latter. That's how you drive traffic. Clear and direct answers rarely get much attention... with the evidence being that you don't want to hear my factual and supported response to your blogger.

Ham you are just some piece of work. Just humor me.

1. How many undocumented immigrants do you think are in the country? About 11 million is the most often estimate I've seen. Do you think that is incorrect?
2. How many of those undocumented immigrants do you think have insurance? That would exclude any care options other than insurance coverage.
3. What would be the sources of coverage?

Here I try again.

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 01:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 12:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So basically you think that if there are 11 million undocumented there are about 10.5 million that don't have insurance. If you are correct then that would put the total uninsured in the US at 37 million rather than 33 million. It would also put those old estimates off by about 4 million as it appears that those preACA estimates of the uninsured estimated the undocumented as having about 4.5 million down as covered.

Dude.... I have no idea where you are going with this.

Estimates are estimates. The moment you start using one set of estimates to 'correct' another set of estimates you are by definition, muddying the waters.

When the government estimates 33mm uninsured, they are using SOME set of rules, SOME set of definitions and SOME estimate of illegals.

50% is obviously way too high unless you are counting 'coverage' as 'insured', which for the purposes of a discussion of the ACA is a change of the definition of 'insured'... and that is intentionally misleading.

I don't care if the number is 33 or 37mm and neither should you. All you should care about is consistency in the numbers...

and you and your buddy Gaba are repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.

As for your attempts above, no.... because in addition to the 4.5mm 'illegals' who have coverage but no insurance, there are millions of poor citizens or legal aliens in the US who similarly have coverage but no insurance. You have to adjust BOTH groups of people, not just one. It would be a wild guess, but as with illegals, a number near 50% wouldn't surprise me... but 50% of the previously uninsured, not the currently uninsured.... because many of the previously uninsured who had coverage now have 'free' insurance. In my mind, that actually explains why unless you completely dismantle these 'secondary' coverages, there will ALWAYS be a sector of the population with coverage but not insurance, on top of an independent/separatist group who would decline even free insurance, even at the threat of fine or incarceration.

We are now going WAY off the rails.

UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

Here once again I say it.

(07-20-2015 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

This is now the 4th or 5th explanation you've given for your responses since that question was asked and answered a week ago.

It is the same explanation every time. See above posts.

(07-20-2015 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 03:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 02:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  UofM just wondered why the estimate for undoc uninsured was 6.5 million. You are reading way to much into it.

This is now the 4th or 5th explanation you've given for your responses since that question was asked and answered a week ago.

And you just can't seem to grasp it.

I'm literally laughing out loud at you right now.

You haven't said the same thing multiple times or in multiple different ways, you've said multiple different things. You've asked questions. I've answered them. You remain willfully uninformed.

Trust me, when it comes to healthcare, I've grasped it... and everyone on here, including you knows it.

As I said.,..

Regardless of what numbers your buddy uses, his estimate of illegals with insurance is WAY WAY off, not even remotely resembling logical... and his explanation of the support for his numbers wouldn't qualify under the ACA as being 'insured'. If you'd like to change the definition to match his... that is fine... but we need to use that same definition for ALL of these measures... STARTING with how many uninsured there were prior to the ACA.

and not merely to go back and forth as you have done... counting them as 'insured' when you're trying to talk about how many people 'now' have 'coverage' and NOT counting them as insured when talking about why we need even MORE of the ACA/Medicaid expansion.

I've said the same thing over and over. How do be have an estimated 6.5 undocs without insurance if there are around 11 million undocs? That and related questions is all we are talking about.

You've offered some opinions about the questions with some important facts included in coming to them, and there is certainly merit to them.

You have dismissed the data that others have developed. Gaba is basing his work on the data work of others as he makes clear. So you are incorrect to call them his numbers. I am sure if you will offer your own data that disputes what he is looking at it would be considered.

The LA Times writer wasn't writing specifically about how many are "insured" as we have been doing. You are confusing her writing in a general way about undocs and health care with anything Gaba has used in his number crunching or anything in the Spin room I have used. I certainly understand the difference and in fact noted earlier that mixing the two served to muddy the water. The LA Times article made no effort to deal in numbers or percentages by the way. And certainly while there are a great many undocs in California that is just one state so we can't consider it as model for the whole country.

Confirmed Exchange QHPs: 12,095,380 as of 7/27/15
Estimated: 12.98M (9.86M via HCgov) as of 7/27/15
Estimated ACA-Enabled Policy Enrollment: 33.3M
(10.4M Paid/Effectuated Exchange QHPs, 8.2M OFF-Exchange QHPs, 180K SHOP, 14.5M Medicaid/CHIP)

Do those numbers still include the fake enrollments set up by the IG in 2014 that the administration has yet to catch and purge?