Nevada health insurance exchange far short of sign-up projection

The Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, according to a tweet sent out Tuesday, has had 17,673 people sign up for health plans and 10,547 actually pay for a plan.

In a yawning understatement in a brief inside the business section, the Review-Journal reports, “Enrollment is still below the 118,000 sign-ups exchange officials projected based on the number of uninsured Nevadans. More than 600,000 residents lack coverage.”

Still below? That’s 9 percent of the projection and less than 2 percent of those lacking coverage.

According to the Nevada Division of Insurance, 24,623 people have had their existing individual insurance policies canceled β€” unable to keep their plans, whether they liked them or not. And ObamaCare was supposed to increase the number of people with insurance? Looks like a net loss in Nevada along of 14,000.

52 comments on “Nevada health insurance exchange far short of sign-up projection

  1. Anonymous says:


  2. How long can the insurers sustain the cost of providing insurance coverage for those who are surely the most desperate to sign-up: the older and the sicker?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Pretty long.

  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    Anonymous lacks the courage of his convictions, regardless of the stated reason that health care is a concern, the sicker and older matter little, the real concern for government is lack of the tax income they had high hopes for. What nitwit/nitwits in the plan’s designers expected that income would equal outgo on day one, especially when it involves trillions of dollars? The answer is none of them, they knew it would be like herding cats or pushing a chain, the plan was to make government the sole payer and that part is working.

  5. Steve says:

    March 31 will tell the story.

    Then November comes along for all those employer sponsored plans that have not been modified to fit within the mandates of Obamacare.
    If current trends continue the near future does not look pretty.

  6. nyp says:

    No,it wont.

  7. I’d take that bet if I had any money.

  8. It’s a given…sooner or later companies / corporations WILL DUMP almost all employees into Obamacare. At that point, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE will rule America

  9. Steve says:

    nyp, probably betting a dictate from the East Wing will come along “extending” the March 31 sign up date, indefinitely until the “goals” are reached.

    It may well be a bet with a moving target!

    Thanks for the reminder that Obamacare regulations and dates final are written with disappearing ink and pencil, nyp… πŸ™„

  10. nyp says:

    That may be why you don’t have any money. The system is designed to avoid the sort of actuarial death spirals you so gleefully predict. Among other things, the ACA sets up a sophisticated system of risk corridors, reinsurance arrangements and risk adjustments to protect against the adverse consequences your predict.

    Click to access AAA-SOA_research_brief_on_3Rs_060412.pdf

  11. Steve says:

    Ahh, I see. If none of the young dummy’s sign up then money will grow on trees. πŸ™„

  12. nyp says:

    Why would it be “dumb” to purchase health insurance if one is young? Do you really think a 26-year old should be without health insurance??

  13. Steve says:

    Oh, sorry nyp. Sure I meant to type “Invincables”.
    Please, oh please forgive my understanding of what you guys prefer to call that demographic.

  14. nyp says:

    Feel free to call them whatever you want. My objection is to the idea that it is “dumb” for someone to have health insurance. Everyone needs health insurance.

  15. Steve says:

    Yeah, well that was not what I stated, nyp.

    I used the word “dummy” in place of the chosen fav you guys like “invincible”.

    Either word, it still does Obamacare no good if they don’t sign up and it appears they have other uses for their limited finances.

  16. nyp says:

    I disagree.

  17. Steve says:

    Who says they need to pay their rent? Obamacare comes before food and shelter.

    Damn those priorities.

  18. nyp says:

    I am afraid that is very dumb. If the lowest available plan costs more than 8% of your income you don’t have to buy health insurance at all. In any event, up to 82% of uninsured young people will either qualify for subsidized private insurance or for coverage through Medicaid. Most of the rest will be able to get coverage through their employers, through their parents’ plans (as required by the ACA) or through student health programs.

    There is very little excuse for not being covered.

  19. Steve says:

    No wonder they are all flocking to to the gateway and signing up! (not)
    Got to be SOME reason for the low numbers.
    Somehow, I don’t believe its the old, infirm and pre existing condition patients who are waiting the wings.
    Nope nyp, they simply aren’t buying what you guys are pushing.

  20. nyp says:

    You guys really seem to be disturbed by the fact that already more than 9 million Americans have quality health coverage under ObamaCare.

  21. Steve says:

    6 mil are on medicaid. Didn’t need 2000 pages of legislation (no one read) and 11,000 pages of regs to make that happen.

    You guys are just happy you got an even larger segment of the population on the teat.

  22. nyp says:

    You are wrong yet again. Approximately three million have been made eligible through Medicaid.

    And I am very pleased that so many American citizens who have low incomes are now eligible to receive medical care. Why would you oppose that? What alternative would you offer these folks?

  23. Steve says:

    Private: 2.17M β€’ Medicaid/CHIP: 4.44M β€’ Off-Exchange: 30K β€’ Sub26ers: 3.1M

    Looks like we are both wrong nyp. As usual the reality is almost perfectly in the middle.
    From your own link the other day.

  24. nyp says:

    I would be very happy if 4.4 million Americans has signed up for Medicaid thanks to ObamaCare. But, unfortunately for me, that number is too high. It includes people who would have been able to sign up for Medicaid anyway, whether or not ObamaCare was in effect.
    Weeding those people out of the statistics is very tricky. Dropping the number down to 3 million is a conservative estimate.

    But I agree with you — the more, the better!

  25. Steve says:

    “But I agree with you β€” the more, the better!”

    A mischaracterization of my comments nyp unless you are agreeing that you guys want to build the welfare state bigger and bigger until it encompasses the whole populace.

    In that case then I agree, you are well on your way to success.

  26. Vernon Clayson says:

    Whatever the figures it’s a long freaking way from the 300 million + people they dreamed of forcing into the program, maybe that is a misstatement, the dream was to get enough people, whatever the number, paying into the program to cover the many, also whatever number that is. It must be lost in the convoluted rules and regulations. It’s not only the largest tax increase in history, it’s also the king of Ponzi schemes.

  27. Nyp says:

    Anything else you don’t like about it?

  28. Steve says:

    Turns out there is another problem with attributing 9 million to the effects of Obamacare, nyp.
    A very large number already had coverage and were simply renewing.
    For your statement to be accurate you would have to have the figures that Obamacare directly influenced and those are difficult to come by. However it is very true the 9 million figure is much overblown.
    Reid overstated it and you attributed all the insured to Obamacare. Both of you are cherry picking your numbers.

  29. Wendy Ellis says:

    No matter how many sign up and actually pay a premium, this does not necessarily guarantee they will receive care when they need it.

  30. Steve says:

    A few interviews on TV tonight covering that very instance Wendy. It seems its already happening.

  31. nyp says:

    Millions of people who lacked either any insurance at all or insurance that did not terminate when it was most needed now have high-quality coverage. And more are getting covered every single day. And the best you can now say is that having good insurance coverage “does not necessarily guarantee” that you will receive care when you need it.

    As for the question of precisely how many millions of Americans have already gained quality coverage under ObamaCare, (a) you will notice that I chose my words very carefully: “9 million Americans have quality health coverage under ObamaCare.” Nothing innacurate in that statement.

    However, there is nothing in the links you provide to support the assertion that a “large number” of the 9 million previously had coverage or that the figure “is very much overblown.”

  32. Wendy Ellis says:

    nyp, just because they have “insurance” does not mean they will be able to receive the care they need.

  33. Steve says:

    “Showing how fuzzy these figures may be, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics argues few of the 4 million in sign-ups for Medicaid can be attributed to the Affordable Care Act. He says the real number could be as low as 190,000.”

    Well nyp? That sure qualifies as overblown in my estimation.

    “Avalere, a health consulting firm, estimates that, once the law is fully implemented in 2017, about 68 percent of the people who obtained insurance through the exchanges will be newly insured. Under that ratio, the number of people currently enrolled who did not previously have insurance would be about 1.4 million.”

    Your words attribute every one of the 9 million to the effects of Obamacare. You may have chosen carefully but it was not carefully enough. Probably a good thing you are in finance and not the legal profession. Being on more solid ground than Reid does not make you correct. It only makes you a little less RAWNG!

  34. nyp says:

    Ms. Ellis – isn’t it a good thing that all these people now have insurance that will not go away if they have a family health crisis and their medical expenses get too high?

  35. Steve says:

    As expected, on the first full day back to work after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, there was mass confusion for the four patients with brand-new coverage who called my office. And of course, because none had their insurance cards, it was almost impossible to get through to insurers to verify that these patients had coverage.

    But when we did get through, lo and behold, our four patients had absolutely not a clue that their deductibles ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. When my office manager explained to each patient that they would have to pay for the visit, you know how many chose to do so? Zero. They all left in a huff.

    This was Day One, and already the ACA enrollees aren’t sure what they signed up for in health care benefits. I can only shake my head as to what next week will bring.



    Letter To the Editor:

    Well now….people who get insurance through Obamacare law are finding they will have to spend even more money for their newly available services….so much so the doctors are losing patients.
    This could be good for all of us who have good insurance or are actually able to self insure…there might be MORE doctors available for people NOT on Obamacare!

    Great job you guys did,nyp! I think I am beginning to like this Obamacare stuff. C’mon March 31 and November 2014!

  36. nyp says:

    So complains the podiatrist.

  37. Steve says:

    yeah….cause….as absolutely everyone should know….podiatry is not a medical service or specialty so it doesn’t count.

  38. nyp says:

    It is another Obama scandel that there are deductables that apply to the removal of ingrown toenails.

  39. Steve says:

    Ahh, I see. nyp is trying to limit services for Onychocryptosis. Thereby saving tons of money from those office visits.

    No its another bad part of the bad law you guys foisted off on this country. No scandal here, a pure slap in the face.

  40. nyp says:

    and plantar warts.

  41. Steve says:

    Course the real issue is insurance,,got to force everyone to pay for insurance,,,who gives a damn if anyone can actually get service with it..damn those priorities anyway.

  42. nyp says:

    Unless everyone is under the insurance umbrella people like Athos will either avoid having health insurance entirely or will purchase insurance that gives out just when you need it most. Then, when the Athoses of the world have a major accident or illness in their family, they will declare bankruptcy, and leave the rest of us responsible for their medical bills.

    It has been happening every single day in America for decades. It happened to Athos. It happened to Wendy Ellis. It can happen to you or I if we lose our jobs and our employer-sponsored health insurance.

    Everyone needs to be under the umbrella.

  43. nyp says:

    That video is just stupid. Why would anyone try to draw an analogy between buying coffee and protecting one’s family through health insurance? Are you saying that Nevada should not be requiring that health insurance sold to consumers meet certain standards? Are you also against government regulations that require seatbelts, airbags and crash-tested bumpers in cars? After all, think about how much cheaper your auto would be if it did not have to come with all that government-mandated safety equipment!

  44. nyp says:

    The young woman who sits down the hall from me doesn’t see why the health insurance she purchases through our company has to cover treatment for prostate cancer. Wouldn’t her insurance be cheaper if prostate cancer wasn’t covered?

  45. nyp says:

    The fifty-year old guy who works next to the young woman thinks our company health plan should allow him to opt out of purchasing a policy that covers breast cancer. He thinks it is unfair and ridiculous.

  46. nyp says:

    Our receptionist is 23-years old and in excellent shape. She thinks our company plan should allow her to purchase coverage for pregnancy, breast cancer and fibroids, but not for diabetes, heart bypasses operations or degenerative back disease. But she tells me that after she goes through menopause she would like the option of paying for coverage for those conditions but not for pregnancy.

    I guess all of that makes sense to you.

  47. Steve says:

    Nerve…found it! It appears a bit frayed too.

    The trouble is NOT with employer sponsored plans because you are NOT required by the employer to purchase them! In fact my new employer will actually PAY its employees if they choose not to participate in the company sponsored plan.

    OTH you guys create the problem then your attempt to solve it is to triple its size.

    And once again you guys are in no way about access to services, instead its all about taking the money.

  48. nyp says:

    But the young woman down the hall definitely wants health insurance. And of course she needs it, just like everyone else. But she doesn’t want to pay for coverage for medical conditions she is unlikely to encounter – such as prostate cancer. Just like the older guy who works next to her wants coverage for prostate cancer but not for breast cancer. Of course, the fellow across the hall from them is both over 50 and married, so he wants coverage for prostate and breast cancer, but not for maternity. Each of them thinks they are paying too much in premiums for coverage they don’t need.

    You agree with them.

  49. Steve says:

    They (used) to ahve a choice. In fact in today’s world many people work for two outfits and have the choice (even under Obamacare) of which insurance plan they want to join. On top of all that, while Obamacare sets minimums accross the board (one size fits all) it does not prevent covering more than other insurance covers. (up to that point it becomes defined as “cadillac”,,another dig at the well off, ironically union insurance) Also other insurance may take a smaller portion of your paycheck. (As is the case of my current coverage when comapared to my old employers plan. Even some of the copays are lower.)

    Obamacare prevents this style of choice and limits people to the high deductible slim network provider structure that is guaranteed to limit access to service.

    We keep repeating this because its true, you guys created the problem then you triple its size in an effort to fix your creation.
    March 31 is coming and the numbers are not looking good. November is next and many employer sponsored plans are going to be ended…just in time for the election cycle.

    Getting a warm fuzzy from that frayed nerve yet?

  50. Steve says:

    Two outfits means two people in the household. (Before you get yer knickers in a bind.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s