There is a lot of misreporting with ObamaCare numbers as the open enrollment period draws to a close March 31.<\/p>\n
Consider these two examples from California.<\/p>\n
First, Covered California \u2013 the state\u2019s ObamaCare exchange \u2013 announced recently that more than 1 million people had applied for coverage and chosen an insurance plan. Liberal bloggers at the Daily Kos<\/a> are cheering this news as a triumph. Before the enrollment period began last October, the state set as a goal 696,000 enrollments by the end of March. At 1,018,315 as of the end of last Saturday, ObamaCare supporters think they are 300,000 over their goal.<\/p>\n Except Covered California isn\u2019t anywhere close. Look again at the goal and the announcement. California wants at least 696,000 people to be enrolled<\/em> by the end of March. To date, they have over 1 million people who have applied<\/em> to be enrolled. That\u2019s not the same thing. In fact, in speaking recently to a source at Medi-Cal \u2013 the state\u2019s Medicaid program \u2013 I was told that thousands of applications are in limbo across the state because computer systems at the state and county levels don\u2019t talk to one another. This impacts Covered California\u2019s numbers because many of the uninsured applying for insurance through the exchange qualify for the state\u2019s expanded Medicaid program. To compensate for the technology failure, caseworkers are processing emergency requests by hand<\/em>. So to recap, don\u2019t be fooled by news about applications posing as enrollments.<\/p>\n The other example of misreporting is on the type of coverage most enrollees are choosing. The most popular plans also cost the least. That\u2019s not surprising since ObamaCare requires people to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. On one hand, the increased number of policyholders does allow ObamaCare supporters to say the law is covering more people. But at what price? \u201c[E]xperts worry plans with lower premiums could come with a different cost: Fewer doctors and hospitals could mean fewer choices and longer waits for care,\u201d reports the San Jose Mercury-News<\/a>.<\/p>\n