November Obamacare Exchange Numbers in an Easier to Read Format

As I did in October, here are the Obamacare Exchange activity numbers to date, based on their recent report.  Hopefully this presentation is a lot clearer than the report.

I know the nomenclature is kludgy, but it is the report that is a pain to work with.  No CEO would ever let one of his business units get away with this garbage.  The report shifts from visitors and applications to people covered by applications, presumably to pump the numbers up.  This means, for example, that the 364,682 number of people who have selected a plan is actually the number of people covered by plans that have been selected (yeah, awkward, I know).  Given that they have on average 2 people covered per plan in their application pool, the actual number of selected plans is half this number.

That is the kind of cr*p one has to put up with in this report.  Further, there is no actual enrollment data, just number of people who have put a plan in their online shopping cart.  Worse, they have a split of subdidized vs. unsubsidized in their applicant pool, but not for the plan selections.  How many of the selected plans are subsidized.  My bet is that it is a high percentage, which is why they won't tell us.  Someday we will find that few of these people are actually selecting plans they intend to pay for with their own money.



  1. David in Seattle:

    Remember folks, this is the most transparent administration ever. I saw it on the news.

  2. herdgadfly:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that ACA insurance is made up of individual policies, where adult family members and kids over 26 have separate policy identifications similar to Medicare. The ACA applications, on the other hand are family-based - except for married taxpayers filing separately. This is a sore point with seniors where one spouse is over 65 and the the other is not - since the earnings of the spouse covered by Medicare inflates the "family" earnings used for pricing the policy for the under-65 spouse.

  3. mesaeconoguy:

    Yes but in regressiveland, Ezra EineKleinekopf is calling for “heads to roll” [LMFAO]

    Not literally, of course, only a minor governmental reprimand while he convenes the next "journolist" convo.

    Good to finally see accountability for Kevin Dumb’s cats.

  4. Matthew Slyfield:

    Yes, heads must roll because the people Obama hired to do the impossible embarrassed the president by allowing the obvious to become public knowledge.

  5. mesaeconoguy:

    Correct, and the same people hired the signlanguage interpreter the other day.

  6. mesaeconoguy:

    This shit kinda writes itself, doesn’t it?

  7. Matthew Slyfield:

    Yes, it does.