You may have thought that a major impetus for healthcare reform was the looming spectre of 30 or 40 million Americans who lacked insurance. It may even be that that notion was planted by Presidential rhetoric such as this, from a 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress pitching health care:
We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
So how is ObamaCare doing at enrolling the uninsured? Don't ask, because they can't tell:
"That's not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way," Cohen [of HHS] told the insurance-industry crowd on Thursday when asked how many of the roughly 4 million enrollees were previously uninsured.
Why would they want to know whther they were meeting their goals or not?
AllahPundit has a more vigorous beatdown here.
POIGNANT: The Times editors admit that the delay in banning junk, skimpy, sub-standard plans is purely political but back it anyway because Obama, Evil Republicans, duh. Do they have any reservations about this endless exercise of transitional powers by the President? Any concerns that one day an Evil Republican President might impose an endless transition on gun control or environmental regulation or expanded access to abortion? Those are worries for another day.
They do preserve their sense of humor, or at least tickle ours, with this:
Administration officials point to an analysis by the RAND Corporation, which estimated that enrollments in the exchanges could drop by 500,000 people because of the extension last November. That’s a small segment of the roughly 11 million people who have health insurance policies from the individual market, usually under one-year contracts. There is always enormous turnover in the individual market; about half of the policyholders leave the market within 18 months, usually because they get a job with health benefits or become eligible for Medicare.
Uh huh. Sooo 1980's. Every free-lancer who is now their own brand, including many former NY Times employees who took the buy-out rather than face the ax, are now candidates for the private insurance market. Will most of them land new jobs with benefits, or be free-lancers for life?