More satisfied with Obamacare plans than traditional plans

[Skjellyfetti]

People who bought coverage through ObamaCare are generally more satisfied than those with other types of insurance, according to a new national survey.

ObamaCare customers rated their satisfaction over the last year as 696 out of 1,000, compared to the 679-point rating by customers with employer-based plans, according to a large survey by the consumer research firm J.D. Power.
Customer satisfaction has increased sharply from ObamaCare’s tumultuous first year.

New enrollees rated their experience at 670 — a significant 55 points higher than the previous year, when ObamaCare exchanges were plagued by website failures.

People were more likely to be satisfied by ObamaCare if they had already enrolled in coverage. They gave even higher marks if they had auto-enrolled in their plans this year, with a rating of 744 out of 1,000.

The J.D. Power study, which surveyed more than 3,000 healthcare customers, offers the first comprehensive look at the Department of Health and Human Services's (HHS) efforts to improve the customer experience in ObamaCare’s second year.

Under new leadership this year, HHS officials had prioritized a smoother customer experience after the department had botched the launch of the ObamaCare marketplace the year before.

The good news on ObamaCare exchanges comes the same week a national poll found that the number of people who support the healthcare law is now greater than those who oppose the law.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/23 ... onal-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pwns]

Well if your baseline is being uninsured or having a s*** plan then of course you are going to like it. I don't think anyone has ever doubted O-care wouldn't fail to get people insurance, the question is how will it affect health care in the long term when we have an aging population and aren't increasing our rate of production of doctors.

[ASUG8]

I'm going to need to see this graphically to believe it.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm going to need to see this graphically to believe it.

[CitadelGrad]

I'd be pretty fucking happy also if someone else was paying for my shit.

[Ibanez]

True story: my colleague was told that her share for her daughters procedure yesterday was $450. If she had no insurance, $130. WTf?!

[houndawg]

Well if your baseline is being uninsured or having a s*** plan then of course you are going to like it. I don't think anyone has ever doubted O-care wouldn't fail to get people insurance, the question is how will it affect health care in the long term when we have an aging population and aren't increasing our rate of production of doctors.

It was heralded as the end of western civilization as we know it.

[JohnStOnge]

a national poll found that the number of people who support the healthcare law is now greater than those who oppose the law.

That's not true. The national poll they have linked does not provide sufficient evidence to support that Statement because the difference between favor/oppose is within the "margin of error" for the poll.

Also, if you go by the Real Clear Politics page (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1130.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) you come away with the impression that the split really hasn't changed much if at all recently. Remember, you're dealing with sampling data estimates that you expect to bounce around some from random sampling error.

But it really doesn't matter. Whether something is a good idea or not is not determined by public opinion at any particular time. I think we can all readily think of things in history such that public opinion at a particular time favored or disfavored something and nowadays pretty much everybody says public opinion at the time was wrong.

To me all you have to do to determine that the Affordable Care Act is wrong is note that it requires 57 year old males to buy maternity insurance (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/healthcare" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). That article I linked makes an argument for why that's "good" but it's nonsense. When you force someone to buy insurance for something that can't possibly happen that is wrong.

Heck, when government forces somebody to buy insurance at all that's wrong. A much broader issue that involves things that have been done for some time. But wrong.

[CitadelGrad]

Well if your baseline is being uninsured or having a s*** plan then of course you are going to like it. I don't think anyone has ever doubted O-care wouldn't fail to get people insurance, the question is how will it affect health care in the long term when we have an aging population and aren't increasing our rate of production of doctors.

It didn't really insure many previously uninsured. Many of those millions of Obamacare enrollees had to enroll in Obamacare because the it caused millions of insurance policies to be cancelled. Almost all of the rest of the enrollees are heavily subsidized, some at 100%.