• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263:617]

I haven't seen proof that even one single person has lost their insurance due to ACA.

I know some have lost a specific plan, but as far as I know, they all got coverage from a plan which provided even more coverage than their previous plan. But again, if you have any proof that shows i'm wrong about this, I'm all ears.

so they lost their Dr and are spending more?...another Obama lie.. do you work for this Socialist Alinsky Clone?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Oh, really? When was Healthcare passed? When did the Democrats that authored the bill start implementation? You telling me that ACA only began 6 months ago? Wrong, parts went into effect almost immediately. You really are very poorly informed

Bro,,,, either Sly has no ability to comprehend facts vs fiction.. but more likely is an Obama shill..

notice the lean?... as he writes as a far left zelot
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Bro,,,, either Sly has no ability to comprehend facts vs fiction.. but more likely is an Obama shill..

notice the lean?... as he writes as a far left zelot

Unfortunately there are so many like him, thinking only with their hearts and buying the leftwing rhetoric because that is what they want to believe. Social issues are all that matters to them and they ignore the economic impact and costs because spending in the name of compassion really does trump compassionate results.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Oh, really? When was Healthcare passed? When did the Democrats that authored the bill start implementation? You telling me that ACA only began 6 months ago? Wrong, parts went into effect almost immediately. You really are very poorly informed
You don't seem to understand the difference between passed and going into effect.

Legislation can be passed tomorrow which doesn't go into effect until 7 years from now. People could only begin signing up in October. For you to insinuate otherwise is incredibly dishonest, though exactly what I'd expect from you.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Moderator's Warning:
Multiple Infractions and thread bans have been issued. I suggest going forward people stick to the topic rather than trying to make other posters the focus of the thread
 
I haven't seen proof that even one single person has lost their insurance due to ACA.

I know some have lost a specific plan, but as far as I know, they all got coverage from a plan which provided even more coverage than their previous plan. But again, if you have any proof that shows i'm wrong about this, I'm all ears.

The guy on CNN at lunch time asked the same question I did, the answer was there is no way to tell. I will take his word for it as there are folks like you who claimed no one had their insurance canceled and others who say everyone did. So how many of those six million who had their policies canceled due to Obamacare got their new policies via the government web site. Per CNN, there is no way to tell.
 
This I find interesting:

(1) RAND corporation – “A new study from the RAND corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured. The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”

(2) Goldman Sachs – “Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because ‘HHS figures . . .count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.’ Goldman Sachs also anticipates that fully 75 percent of all the Obamacare sign-ups will be from people who already had insurance.”

(3) McKinsey – “Of the Obamacare sign-ups, only 27 percent had been previously uninsured in 2013. And of the 27 percent, nearly half had yet to pay a premium. (By contrast, among the 73 percent who had been previously insured, 86 percent had paid).”

What does all of this mean, I really do not know. I think I will a few months to find out. But from what I have heard on the news, the ACA really hasn't put much of a dent into the uninsured. It did expand medicaid, but with more people going on medicaid and the number of doctors shrinking who accept medicaid, one has to wonder if it is worth anything.
 
The guy on CNN at lunch time asked the same question I did, the answer was there is no way to tell. I will take his word for it as there are folks like you who claimed no one had their insurance canceled and others who say everyone did. So how many of those six million who had their policies canceled due to Obamacare got their new policies via the government web site. Per CNN, there is no way to tell.

You know, I consider you to a person of integrity who backs up their opinions with facts. Sure, I don't always agree with your conclusions, but that' to be expected when two people have different backgrounds, experiences and points of view. That's why I'm disappointed in this post of yours

For one thing, I never said that no one lost their insurance. What I did say is that I haven't seen any proof that anyone has lost coverage.

For another, contrary to your usual habit, you've been going on about how so many people have lost insurance even though you really don't if even one person has lost coverage.

For example, you continue to claim that six million people lost coverage due to ACA. That figure has been widely debunked.

"More people got cancellations than signed up": The numbers never supported this claim, and the latest estimates make it even more of a fantasy. It's based on the wave of reports late last year of insurance companies canceling old policies that didn't meet ACA standards, which led to hysterical claims that as many as 17 million Americans were being left uninsured.

Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.


Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making - latimes.com
 
This I find interesting:

(1) RAND corporation – “A new study from the RAND corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured. The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”

(2) Goldman Sachs – “Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because ‘HHS figures . . .count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.’ Goldman Sachs also anticipates that fully 75 percent of all the Obamacare sign-ups will be from people who already had insurance.”

(3) McKinsey – “Of the Obamacare sign-ups, only 27 percent had been previously uninsured in 2013. And of the 27 percent, nearly half had yet to pay a premium. (By contrast, among the 73 percent who had been previously insured, 86 percent had paid).”

What does all of this mean, I really do not know. I think I will a few months to find out. But from what I have heard on the news, the ACA really hasn't put much of a dent into the uninsured. It did expand medicaid, but with more people going on medicaid and the number of doctors shrinking who accept medicaid, one has to wonder if it is worth anything.

1) People who buy plans outside the exchange are not counted as part of the 6-7 million

2 & 3)

"Most of them were already insured": The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.
The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.
The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are people merely signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans, and the McKinsey surveys fail to do that.
The few states that do break out their own numbers, moreover, contradict McKinsey. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.


Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making - latimes.com

Please stop repeating nonsense that was debunked months ago
 
1) People who buy plans outside the exchange are not counted as part of the 6-7 million

2 & 3)



Please stop repeating nonsense that was debunked months ago

Okay, I will just stick to elections.
 
You know, I consider you to a person of integrity who backs up their opinions with facts. Sure, I don't always agree with your conclusions, but that' to be expected when two people have different backgrounds, experiences and points of view. That's why I'm disappointed in this post of yours

For one thing, I never said that no one lost their insurance. What I did say is that I haven't seen any proof that anyone has lost coverage.

For another, contrary to your usual habit, you've been going on about how so many people have lost insurance even though you really don't if even one person has lost coverage.

For example, you continue to claim that six million people lost coverage due to ACA. That figure has been widely debunked.

So you think CNN lies. Okay, I am fine with that.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

"Dude" You are wrong about funding for Medicare. 100% comes from the Medicare trust fund which can only be used for that purpose. If you can't even understand such a simple fact how could you possibly have a clue about something as complex as healthcare?

How Medicare is funded | Medicare.gov

Medicare is funded by the trust funds, yes, but the money from the trust fund comes from taxpayers AND funds authorized by congress. It's right there in your link (the SMI portion). Your argument is akin to me saying that public broadcasting doesn't cost taxpayers money because the CPB funds public broadcasting. Well, yeah, but the CPB gets money from congress. I'm not against the CPB, I'm for it, and I'm also for Medicare, but realistically, Medicare can't pay for itself. As the baby boomers reach retirement age, Medicare is going to face larger and larger shortfalls in budget.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Would you rather that none of those people got insurance and we celebrate *that*?

That's BS. If "many of us" were in favor of that, there wouldn't be so many states refusing to expand Medicaid

Health Care is the important thing. Not health care insurance.

Expanding Medicaid should have been done with increased payroll taxes to pay. And not leaving states with additional unfunded burdens.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

When it comes to a country of 350 million people, nothing will ever be like a light switch. That's what so many people don't understand, that things don't happen instantaneously. It'll be a gradual process, which will hopefully allow everyone who wants insurance to be allowed insurance and help lower the costs for everyone.

Don't forget the law was passed in 2010 and for 4 years there have been impacts from it. The insuring of children up to 26 was several years ago and accounts for some of the increase. And there are shoes to drop in the coming years that could drive up the uninsured, like the employer mandates.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Health Care is the important thing. Not health care insurance.

Expanding Medicaid should have been done with increased payroll taxes to pay. And not leaving states with additional unfunded burdens.

Yes, I remember all the right wingers who were saying what you just said :roll:
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Don't forget the law was passed in 2010 and for 4 years there have been impacts from it. The insuring of children up to 26 was several years ago and accounts for some of the increase. And there are shoes to drop in the coming years that could drive up the uninsured, like the employer mandates.

Yeah, requiring more people to provide insurance is sure to drive up the # of uninsured :screwy
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Yes, I remember all the right wingers who were saying what you just said :roll:

Perhaps you should break out of your simplistic Hegelian view of the world and see the world and people with proper complexities.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Yeah, requiring more people to provide insurance is sure to drive up the # of uninsured :screwy

Problem is, they can just do the math, and drop people and pay the fine for a whole lot less....

"According to the American Action Forum, 43 million American workers will lose access to employer-based health insurance coverage because of Obamacare. Critics of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have warned that the creation of health insurance exchanges, and federal subsidies for people earning less than 400% of the federal poverty limit, practically invites employers to stop offering coverage to their employees, so the federal government picks up the tab. Some supporters of the ACA even celebrate this possible exodus from the employer-based insurance market, figuring it is prelude to a government takeover of the healthcare industry."

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance - Forbes

The dirty little secret here is that when insurance companies dropped 6 million off the roles, those people in many cases are the people buying off the exchange, not the original uninsured that was supposed to be the reason for blowing up the Health Insurance industry in the first place.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Problem is, they can just do the math, and drop people and pay the fine for a whole lot less....

"According to the American Action Forum, 43 million American workers will lose access to employer-based health insurance coverage because of Obamacare. Critics of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have warned that the creation of health insurance exchanges, and federal subsidies for people earning less than 400% of the federal poverty limit, practically invites employers to stop offering coverage to their employees, so the federal government picks up the tab. Some supporters of the ACA even celebrate this possible exodus from the employer-based insurance market, figuring it is prelude to a government takeover of the healthcare industry."

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance - Forbes

The dirty little secret here is that when insurance companies dropped 6 million off the roles, those people in many cases are the people buying off the exchange, not the original uninsured that was supposed to be the reason for blowing up the Health Insurance industry in the first place.

There's no secret. Only a small % of the people buying insurance through the exchanges had employer provided coverage in the previous year.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

There's no secret. Only a small % of the people buying insurance through the exchanges had employer provided coverage in the previous year.

I don't buy that at all..I think all these numbers are made up.
 
Context, guy, context. Claiming those stats proved WA was better under Bush than under Obama is like the proverbial guy who jumps off a building and tells watchers on the way down that he's doing really well. He's absolutely right...until that sudden stop at the bottom. Frank Miller called it "one-step street pizza"...and that's what we were in 2005 - the guy enjoying himself on the way down.

I'm a girl (hence that little pink thing in the "gender" part of my name over there <-----------,) but no biggie.

The stats show very clearly that WA is not in better shape than it was when GWB was President, Frank Miller and pizza notwithstanding. Nor is CA. Nor are most of the blue states.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

I don't buy that at all..I think all these numbers are made up.

lalala+can%5C't+hear+you.jpg
 
I'm a girl (hence that little pink thing in the "gender" part of my name over there <-----------,) but no biggie.

The stats show very clearly that WA is not in better shape than it was when GWB was President, Frank Miller and pizza notwithstanding. Nor is CA. Nor are most of the blue states.

Sorry, my mistake on the gender. Nevertheless, saying that Washington was better off then than it is now is very much like saying that the guy who jumped off the skyscraper was just fine when he was at the 100th floor, at the 90th floor, at the 80th floor....

I was a Realtor in Bremerton at that time, and it was pretty crazy - the bidding wars for houses were like nothing anyone had seen in living memory. I should have recognized it for what it was then, because I refinanced my house...and after the GR hit, my house was suddenly $200K underwater. It was foreclosed about 3 years ago, but its value still has not approached what it was in 2005.

TB, while times seemed good in WA in 2005, they looked good all across America in the 1920's. But that doesn't mean that they were good - it means that nobody realized that the house was on fire and most people were going to get burned in the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom