How Much Does State Obstruction Affect Obamacare Enrollment?

See important updates below.

Dylan Scott points to an interesting chart from Theda Skocpol that shows the signup rate for Obamacare in various states, ranked by how cooperative the various states have been in implementing the law. However, I draw a different conclusion than Scott does. It’s obvious that Medicaid signups are going to be way lower in states that have declined to join the Medicaid expansion, so it’s no surprise that this is exactly what Skocpol finds. What’s more interesting is how state cooperation affects signups on the exchanges. I’ve modified her chart to show only that:

If you take a look at just the exchange signups, it’s obvious that one, and only one, thing matters: whether a state has its own exchange or relies on the federal exchange. States running their own exchanges are well on the way to meeting their first-year goal for signups. States that rely on the federal exchange, no matter how cooperative they are, are barely signing up anyone at all. The disastrous rollout of the federal exchange website has obviously had a far greater impact on Obamacare signups than lack of cooperation in red states.

POSTSCRIPT: That’s assuming these numbers are right, of course. And after looking at them a little more carefully, I don’t think they are. According to year-end tallies, 1.1 million people had signed up for coverage via the federal exchange. However, eyeballing the chart and averaging across all states using the federal exchange, the federal exchange is at 5-6 percent of its first-year goal, which means its first-year goal must have been about 20 million. Likewise, 850,000 people had signed up via state exchanges. If that represents 37 percent of the first-year goal, it means the first-year goal for the state exchanges must have been around 2.3 million.

That number for state exchanges might be about right, but the number for the federal exchange sure isn’t. So I’m not sure what’s going on here.

POSTSCRIPT 2: There’s nothing in Skocpol’s report that says this, but apparently the state data is through January 4 while the federal data is through November 30. This makes comparisons between the two impossible, and it makes the chart above worthless. Please ignore this entire post.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend