It is indeed fascinating that Krugman antagonists call him all kinds of names but rarely confront what he actually writes. I do understand how it must be frustrating to have a brilliant mind challenge the core of one's ideology and have no meaningful retort.He's not a moron, but he is a political sellout and an Obamabot, and I wouldn't trust a single word he writes.
They lost the coverage that they had. That they were offered different options at higher premiums and/or more coverage that they may not have even wanted doesn't negate the fact that they lost the coverage that they originally had. If they had not lost their coverage, they wouldn't have had to have different coverage options provided them by the insurance company - as indicated in your cite.
I won't repeat what Sangha said because it was spot on. What I will add is that it has not been established that those new plans were more expensive. Casandra said her's was cheaper. However, I expect that some were cheaper and others were about the same and others more expensive. Of course, that excludes subsidies on exchanges which make health insurance truly affordable.
I won't repeat what Sangha said because it was spot on. What I will add is that it has not been established that those new plans were more expensive. Casandra said her's was cheaper. However, I expect that some were cheaper and others were about the same and others more expensive. Of course, that excludes subsidies on exchanges which make health insurance truly affordable.
It is indeed fascinating that Krugman antagonists call him all kinds of names but rarely confront what he actually writes. I do understand how it must be frustrating to have a brilliant mind challenge the core of one's ideology and have no meaningful retort.
You are now switching the argument. Did he lie with that quote? Don't care, it's not relevant to the "prediction" we were talking of. Remember, that was Krugman's false claim and has morphed into your false claim. The prediction piece of his quote was clearly, without question comparing those that lost coverage to those that gained coverage through the exchange. Everything preceding the quote was related to what was occurring on the exchanges. He even indicated that the deadline to sign up on healthcare.gov was coming up in two weeks, which is how he comes up with the 01/01/14 date for his prediction. Note, there is no deadline for Medicaid enrollment. You are clearly wrong on this, and are only blinded by partisanship or some strange commitment to Krugman.
You still haven't answered, though. What happened to coverage A?
"Of all the Americans who have been affected by the law, the vast majority are now without health coverage this holiday season"
The admin clearly stated that the enrollment # it claimed was based on the # of people who signed up for a plan. There is no misleading when what is being counted is explicitly defined.
we are not counting subsidies because it skews the data.
Consequently, many Americans on the new marketplace simply didn't owe any premiums by April 15.
Consequently, many Americans on the new marketplace simply didn't owe any premiums by April 15.
From your link
Again, signing up does not equal enrollment no matter how much you and the president want it to.
Which means they weren't enrolled yet.
Again, the admin clearly stated that the enrollment # it claimed was based on the # of people who signed up for a plan. There is no misleading when what is being counted is explicitly defined.They are
I'll tell ya what. Go sign up for insurance through the ACA without paying, and then go to receive medical services and tell them you signed up for insurance, and see how far it gets you. Good luck.
I'll tell ya what. Go sign up for insurance through the ACA without paying, and then go to receive medical services and tell them you signed up for insurance, and see how far it gets you. Good luck.
That is exactly what occurred in my family- old plan terminated on Dec.31 2013, New plan (similar coverage, better price) began Jan.1,2014
Yeah, the people who pay their own way and aren't subsidised. We are the people getting hosed. Unfortunately, we are no longer of sufficient number to change the political reality, but there are ways to resist. Making sure all the numerous problems of the ACA aren't fixed is one, as is prevevting the state expansion of medicare in as many states as possible. Personally cutting back on spending even if still viable is another that just makes good finacial sense. Like reduced giving to charity and lower tips on services, little things that add up to offset the increased costs. I figure if I'm getting screwed by the ACA, I'm going to dish it back as best I can.I find it even more curious that in the ACA threads, the only people who are experiencing dramatic increases in healthcare premiums are Conservatives and Libertarians.
It is indeed fascinating that Krugman antagonists call him all kinds of names but rarely confront what he actually writes. I do understand how it must be frustrating to have a brilliant mind challenge the core of one's ideology and have no meaningful retort.
Again, the admin clearly stated that the enrollment # it claimed was based on the # of people who signed up for a plan. There is no misleading when what is being counted is explicitly defined.
People are paying for their exchange plans.
So how many have paid ACA premiums? - Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com
The percentages of those who have paid vary, but the simple fact is that the insurers - the ones paying claims - will not recognize "enrollment" until policy payments are made. You can spin, deny, and twist and make categorical statements without substance, but the truth is that a person is not enrolled until the pay the premiums.
No, his quote was
This makes it clear that he was talking about net of the entire law, and not just net of the exchanges.
He lied about that, and his lie shows that your claim is also a lie. He was talking about all americans affected by ACA, and not just those who bought through the exchanges.
As the saying goes, the numbers don’t lie. And the situation looks grim with just two weeks remaining before the deadline to enroll on HealthCare.gov for Americans to be covered on January 1. The AP previously reported that an internal administration memo dated September 5 estimated “494,620 people would sign up … by October 31” and “projected enrollment would reach 3.3 million nationally by Dec. 31.” Notably, these projections were based on favorable conditions. Sadly, we now know that the health law has already ripped away the health plans from more than 5 million Americans – meaning even if the administration had achieved its best-case-scenario, millions more Americans would have lost coverage than gained it in the first months of Obamacare. What’s worse is the administration’s internal projections reported by the AP are far from reality. “We are at a point where, come January 1, 2014, millions more people will have lost coverage than signed up because of the health care law,” commented Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “Of all the Americans who have been affected by the law, the vast majority are now without health coverage this holiday season and worried if they will be able to afford a new plan. The president’s broken promises have fallen too hard on families all across Michigan and the nation.”
So how many have paid ACA premiums? - Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com
The percentages of those who have paid vary, but the simple fact is that the insurers - the ones paying claims - will not recognize "enrollment" until policy payments are made. You can spin, deny, and twist and make categorical statements without substance, but the truth is that a person is not enrolled until the pay the premiums.
Funny but I think including checkups and wellness care without copays is about healthcare.
Yes, and I acknowledged that quote was incorrect. I do not know if he was lying, though, as I suspect he just got sloppy at the end. I can't say for certain either way, but that one single line doesn't change the context of his predcition (clearly about those that signed up through the exchange by 01/01/14) and the rest of the quote.
Every single line prior to that very last one was regarding exchange enrollees. Including the deadline to sign up through the exchanges, the white house predicitions of exchange enrollments and the predictiion of exchange enrollments by the deadline that he preiovulsy discussed. You are wrong on the piece about his predicition. It was clearly about htose that signed up through healthcare.gov (the exchanges).
You want to concentrate on one single line and ignore hte entire context. Here, allow me to bold every single line that has to do with tehe xchange so you can possibly see the context this time:
The entire thing, except one piece about those that have lost coverage and the very last line is regarding the exchanges. He even explains why he used the 01/01/14 deadline for his prediciton - as that is the last day to sign up through the exchange (as indicated in teh very first line). You really need to learn to read for meaning and not just to prove your point.
Through insurance. It does not address actual health care.
Tell ya what, other than insurance and insurance related issues, can you name one buisness or company or industry that was addressed via Obamacare? And I don't mean in how that buisnesses handles health insurance. I'm mean in how they handle actual healthcare costs. Those wellness care and checkups are still being charged and paid for at the same price (or higher) as they were before. Was pharmaceutical companies targetted at all? How about frivilous lawsuits? Companies that charge $1000 for a hospital bed when it only costs them at MOST $300 to make...including labor costs?
Through insurance. It does not address actual health care.
Tell ya what, other than insurance and insurance related issues, can you name one buisness or company or industry that was addressed via Obamacare? And I don't mean in how that buisnesses handles health insurance. I'm mean in how they handle actual healthcare costs. Those wellness care and checkups are still being charged and paid for at the same price (or higher) as they were before. Was pharmaceutical companies targetted at all? How about frivilous lawsuits? Companies that charge $1000 for a hospital bed when it only costs them at MOST $300 to make...including labor costs?
This is my problem with the ACA. It doesn't do anything to address the actual costs. I was informed by another poster that the purpose of the ACA wasn't to address costs. If that's true, then why don't people acknowledge that?
He made it clear that he was talking about all american affected by ACA, and not just those in the exchange
If what you claim isn't a lie, then his argument would be "millions of americans who didn't have an exchange plan now have a different plan". What he said was that millions now have absolutely no coverage.
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?