1 - 2
In response to:

Press Gets It Wrong Again on Mass Shooting

Don7312 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 10:07 AM
With no intention of minimizing the importance of better mental health efforts as a preventative to mass shootings, I think responsive efforts also deserve consideration. The most effective responses to mass shootings that I can recall both occurred in Colorado. At Arapahoe HS, on-site resource officers received timely warning, acted immediately, and confronted the gunman in less than 2 minutes. Faced with armed police, the gunman took his own life. Second, and less recently, a shooter at a large Colorado Springs church was taken down by armed security personnel already on-site, whose armed presence and timely response limited the carnage. Compare these to the greater havoc at the shootings which occurred in gun-free zones at the Aurora Theatre, Newtown, and VA Tech University, where the shooters knew they were unlikely to face any armed resistance.
How much does that 7.1 million figure need to be discounted for folks who signed up but did not pay, and therefore have no coverage? How long will it take before that "bad debt allowance" figure is known? Will the success/failure of the launch get properly re-evaluated once more accurate figures (analogous to revisions of GDP, inflation, unemployment, etc. stats the gov't routinely issues, and later revises) become known? Plus, how many of those enrollments represent folks whose old plans got cancelled because they didn't have all the ACA mandated bells & whistles (which drove up the premiums too) vs. folks who had no insurance before ACA went into effect?
1 - 2