- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Except for the reality
You prove yourself wrong with every post and to take a victory lap over a reported 6 million signing up for ACA without knowing the breakdown supports my contention about you
Prove that ACA decreases the deficit?
Isn't it amazing how far we have come ....
When did it become the government's responsibility for you or your family to get health insurance paid for by someone else?
The reality is you said the federal govt doesn't pay for the uninsured, and like every other claim you've made in this thread, you are wrong
We have always paid for our health insurance and my husband's privately owned company has always paid for his employees insurance.
My relatives are paying to keep their adult children on their family policies and my friend is paying for her insurance.
We have come far.
It used to be that people who had pre existing conditions could not pay to get health insurance.
Let's see, when exactly did Obamacare go into full effect? All I see are projections and when was the last Obama projection to be accurate? Amazing how willingly you continue to buy Obama Administration data and CBO data generated by the Democrat Senate projections. Guess this is another issue you don't understand, where does CBO get the information to create projections?
Do you know what the "C" in CBO stands for?
Do you know what the "C" in CBO stands for?
I can't say I'm surprised you missed my point, which is using anecdotal evidence is a waste of time. I thought the rolling eyes would be a giveaway, but I guess not.Not if you ask me....Personally, my insurance coverage levels stayed the same, but my deductible rose from $1000 per individual to $2500. My wife was dropped from my plan forcing her to pick up insurance through her employer doubling out weekly premium cost. So, my costs more than doubled.
Nothing you said has any relevance to comparing the ability to report number of sign-ups from the first month of a very bad website and the ability to report sign-ups after six months of a website continually being fixed.They had over three years to get it right and it was a huge failure from day one. That they have seemingly patched it enough to work through, we still don't know if the payment part is up, nor do we have any independent overview of how things are going. All we are getting is what the administration wants to put out there....That you trust that blindly is not what I do.
Yes, they have. See below.NO, the government has never given number like this before.
They most certainly have given numbers, every month in fact.They have always said, even earlier this month, that theyre were no number as to how many signed up. So why all of a sudden a couple of days before the end of the month, do they know.
The answer is that they don't know just as before and the number is made up. Who is going to be able to verify the number given?
I can't say I'm surprised you missed my point, which is using anecdotal evidence is a waste of time. I thought the rolling eyes would be a giveaway, but I guess not.
Nothing you said has any relevance to comparing the ability to report number of sign-ups from the first month of a very bad website and the ability to report sign-ups after six months of a website continually being fixed.
Is it really so hard to understand what you are responding to before you do it?
Yes, they have. See below.
They most certainly have given numbers, every month in fact.
November: Obamacare rollout numbers much worse than expected
December: Nearly 365,000 Americans selected plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace in October and November
January: Milestone: 3 Million in Marketplaces | HHS.gov/healthcare
February: Another Significant Milestone: Marketplace Enrollment Hits 4 Million | HHS.gov/healthcare
They've been released every month. The only one I see making anything up is you. I don't know if it's because you were too lazy to research before you posted or if because you simply weren't concerned with the truth, but the fact is you are 100% wrong.
That wasn't the point at all. Simply reading the thread would have allowed you to know that. It never ceases to amaze me how many people will ignore reality to launch partisan attacks.The point is, the government has the exact numbers on the breakdown of signees, and they won't release them because they are painfully embarrassing.
That wasn't the point at all. Simply reading the thread would have allowed you to know that. It never ceases to amaze me how many people will ignore reality to launch partisan attacks.
I have no idea how many people have paid their first premium. It seems I remember it was roughly 80% have paid or would pay. I know that has been a prediction from several different entities. And I would be very surprised if the administration really does have the numbers of who have paid, because that is a completely separate deal than those who simply enroll in the federal website.
But at the end of the day, the administration HAS released the number of people who enrolled and have done so every month since October, which proves Mason's argument false.
The link I provided says that 4 out of 5 sign-ups require subsidies, so in fact, that means only 20 percent will pay
Not if they didn't have the ability to know. Running a query against a database to see how many people have registered on the federal exchange is a much different process than knowing how many people have written a check to an insurance company.If 80 percent had paid or would pay, you would KNOW for sure. It'd be all over every piece of media in every nook and cranny, even with the shortfall in sign-ups.
A subsidy doesn't mean the people are not paying as well. And if someone is so poor 100% of their insurance is being paid, then they probably were already getting covered by Medicaid.The link I provided says that 4 out of 5 sign-ups require subsidies, so in fact, that means only 20 percent will pay, many of whom require expensive medical care immediately.
You've already made it clear you're not interested in whether it's a success or not, only in finding ways to call it a disaster. You have very little credibility on the subject, quite honestly.It's an absolute disaster.
Untrue. Receiving a subsidy does not mean that the insured pays nothing.
Not if they didn't have the ability to know. Running a query against a database to see how many people have registered on the federal exchange is a much different process than knowing how many people have written a check to an insurance company.
A subsidy doesn't mean the people are not paying as well. And if someone is so poor 100% of their insurance is being paid, then they probably were already getting covered by Medicaid.
You've already made it clear you're not interested in whether it's a success or not, only in finding ways to call it a disaster. You have very little credibility on the subject, quite honestly.
If they were eligible for Medicaid and weren't aware of it, but needed healthcare, then Obamacare is a good thing. I'm not a heartless person, I'm willing to pay a little more to make sure people can get the care they need.It is a disaster, many who are signing up are doing so on Medicaid which they were eligible for prior to Obamacare but didn't sign up.
If they were eligible for Medicaid and weren't aware of it, but needed healthcare, then Obamacare is a good thing. I'm not a heartless person, I'm willing to pay a little more to make sure people can get the care they need.
If they were eligible for Medicaid and weren't aware of it, but needed healthcare, then Obamacare is a good thing. I'm not a heartless person, I'm willing to pay a little more to make sure people can get the care they need.
Still hoping for a 'symbolic victory'?
The actual desperation lies with those Democrats up for re-election who don't want Barrack Obama's name mentioned during their campaign.
Senate Democrats Distance Themselves From Obama as Midterms Approach
As Senate campaigns begin, some Democrats flee Obama | Reuters
It's funny watching how the right started complaining about how there weren't enough people signing up, and now that the programs are reporting greater participation, they are complaining that too many people are signing up
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?