• 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 enrollment hits 7 million

iguanaman said:
The number of people who have actually lost HC coverage because of the ACA is closer to 500,000. Most all signed for new better plans or their cancellations were rescinded. Boehner received 4 Pinocchio's for that 6 million statement, yet you continue the lie.

John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect | PolitiFact



Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com
Click to expand...

I'd give you 9 million (which is bull****) however that number laughably is roughly 2.93% of the population.... :lamo
 
Erod said:
No, it hasn't. It's shifted people from one insurance carrier to another, and much of the rest still hasn't paid.

Interesting how nobody can tell us just who' paid and who hasn't. Quite convenient.
Click to expand...

Once again, in the battle of proof vs. impressions (no proof)... it seems some wish to stick with their impressions....

You can have your opinions; you also have the luxury of going through life being ill-informed... but ill-informed opinions do not win a debate.
 
upsideguy said:
Once again, in the battle of proof vs. impressions (no proof)... it seems some wish to stick with their impressions....

You can have your opinions; you also have the luxury of going through life being ill-informed... but ill-informed opinions do not win a debate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming what Erod said. Right now all we have are "impressions" that 7 million previously uninsured have entered the system. We don't have any of the data showing who is signed up and we certainly don't know if they will pay the first premium. Doctors aren't falling for the grace period crap. Let us know when you have something other than impressions.
 
Can we just get a picture of Obama in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign? That will make the irony of this much more epic.
 
clownboy said:
Thanks for confirming what Erod said. Right now all we have are "impressions" that 7 million previously uninsured have entered the system. We don't have any of the data showing who is signed up and we certainly don't know if they will pay the first premium. Doctors aren't falling for the grace period crap. Let us know when you have something other than impressions.
Click to expand...

Obviously you did not read the LA Times article and you chose to respond with your impressions. The LA Times article says at least 9.5 million that were previously uninsured are now insured. This was extrapolated based upon a McKinnsey study (and using the 6 million exchange sign-up, which we now know is 16% larger)... again, you make a claim and offer no support for your claim... its an impression. I make a claim and back it up..... Advantage guy with the proof.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

I know you are one that wants Obamacare to fail; wants your country to fail... but wishful thinking does not make for good argument.
 
upsideguy said:
Obviously you did not read the LA Times article and you chose to respond with your impressions. The LA Times article says at least 9.5 million that were previously uninsured are now insured. This was extrapolated based upon a McKinnsey study (and using the 6 million exchange sign-up, which we now know is 16% larger)... again, you make a claim and offer no support for your claim... its an impression. I make a claim and back it up..... Advantage guy with the proof.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

I know you are one that wants Obamacare to fail; wants your country to fail... but wishful thinking does not make for good argument.
Click to expand...

The article also says the following:


Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months

I've added and re-added those numbers they provided. Where did they come up with 9.5 million?

This isn't backing anything up, you do realize I hope. This is the LA Times' assumption, by their own admission, based on surveys and unpublished survey data.
 
upsideguy said:
Once again, in the battle of proof vs. impressions (no proof)... it seems some wish to stick with their impressions....

You can have your opinions; you also have the luxury of going through life being ill-informed... but ill-informed opinions do not win a debate.
Click to expand...

You have no proof. You have BS numbers being fed to you by your Dear Leader, and you will believe anything he tells you.

Some would call that a cult.
 
Erod said:
You have no proof. You have BS numbers being fed to you by your Dear Leader, and you will believe anything he tells you.

Some would call that a cult.
Click to expand...

The article explained the source of the numbers..... I have something; you got nutin'....

tres borrachos said:
The article also says the following:


Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months

I've added and re-added those numbers they provided. Where did they come up with 9.5 million?

This isn't backing anything up, you do realize I hope. This is the LA Times' assumption, by their own admission, based on surveys and unpublished survey data.
Click to expand...

That is true... PRECISE numbers are not available, but PRECISION is not required. ... Surveys conducted by McKinnsey at least have some science (sampling and statistics) behind them. Elections are called based upon statistical sampling... its not voodoo.

While their is a preset (and defined) margin of error in any statistical sampling, it remains evidence than "impressions" of others that post with nothing to back up their impressions. Any argument with evidence trumps an argument of impression....

Feel free to support your argument.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
You have no proof. You have BS numbers being fed to you by your Dear Leader, and you will believe anything he tells you.

Some would call that a cult.
Click to expand...

The usual "Cult of Obama" garbage aside, right here shows the intellectually bankrupt rampart that the Obama Hater Brigade has constructed for itself.

If the numbers are bad, it's proof positive that Obama is teh suck and everything liberals say or do is bad.

If the numbers are good, well, they're just phony anyway, and that's just proof positive that Obama is teh suck and everything liberals say or do is bad.

We saw it with the economic numbers, unemployment statistics and now Obamacare sign-ups. They've built an ideological firewall that doesn't let through anything but self-affirmation.
 
Anthony60 said:
Don't forget to subtract the 6.2 million that had their insurance cancelled. So, what, about 900k sign ups for God knows how many $trillions and trillions? Everything is awesome!
Click to expand...

Of course, your math is wrong, unless you're claiming that all 6.2 million that supposedly had their insurance cancelled re-upped through the exchanges, rather than just buying a new policy outright.
 
Polls aren't pulling numbers out of their bum, there is a fair bit of math involved with and they are more accurate then not, surprisingly. I used to be one who though all polls were B.S. and it really wasn't until reading some of fivethirtyeight that my view changed, along with learning a bit more about statistics and polling. It isn't to say that polls can't be manipulated, but (again at least from when I was reading fivethirtyeight, not sure if they do it now) anyone with enough knowledge can spot when there is likely manipulation and when there isn't.

Selection biases are the one way it can be wrong that seem to stick out the most, though from the (small) knowledge I have it seems somewhat rare to happen, at least deliberately. Have heard arguments, that make sense, that some that do just landline sampling may be bias since younger people tend to not have landlines as much as the older generations. Though I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) most pollsters have formulas they use to correct bias from something like that so it is still fairly accurate. Internet polls I've heard are usually the least reliable though can't back that up.

Rambling a bit but I agree dismissing polls for being polls (or surveys) isn't much of an argument. I'd fathom most of the public (myself included) probably couldn't tell you what polls are full of BS (due to poor wording, or bad sampling) and which aren't. Personally I go with them likely being true unless otherwise stated unless it is certain sites I'm skeptical about (e.g. a Redstate or Daily Kos poll I'd probably have doubts on being accurate compared to WSJ or NBC, etc.)
 
Anthony60 said:
Don't forget to subtract the 6.2 million that had their insurance cancelled. So, what, about 900k sign ups for God knows how many $trillions and trillions? Everything is awesome!
Click to expand...

You are making broad assumptions (that 1) there were 6.2 million cancellations and 2) all of those cancellations were remedied by signing up on the exchange). I think we need to see proof of your impression, otherwise, its just that, an impression, which is likely misguided (in other words, you are living in a lie)...

Check your facts, then repost.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You are making broad assumptions (that 1) there were 6.2 million cancellations and 2) all of those cancellations were remedied by signing up on the exchange). I think we need to see proof of your impression, otherwise, its just that, an impression, which is likely misguided (in other words, you are living in a lie)...

Check your facts, then repost.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right proof. Ever try Google? Oh, but you will gobble up that dopey 7 million number without question, and that is what they are counting on. Stop kidding yourself, you know the net is nowhere near 7 million.
 
So, it seems to me that this debate cannot really go anywhere until exact figures are given out, backed up by plain data.

So 7 million or so may have signed up for insurance, but if most of those people aren't paying for that insurance and are instead just relying on subsidies, well that isn't a great knockout for the ACA either.

And the number, even with the addition of medicare enrollees, still comes sort of insuring most uninsured Americans, especially if we use the number that was touted so frequently by the Obama team.
 
Kobie said:
The usual "Cult of Obama" garbage aside, right here shows the intellectually bankrupt rampart that the Obama Hater Brigade has constructed for itself.

If the numbers are bad, it's proof positive that Obama is teh suck and everything liberals say or do is bad.

If the numbers are good, well, they're just phony anyway, and that's just proof positive that Obama is teh suck and everything liberals say or do is bad.

We saw it with the economic numbers, unemployment statistics and now Obamacare sign-ups. They've built an ideological firewall that doesn't let through anything but self-affirmation.
Click to expand...

LOL. So why won't Obama break down the numbers for us. He has a site that he controls completely, yet he won't give us any information.

Meanwhile, Democrats are running for the hills from this thing.

If it was good news, it would be EVERYWHERE. Instead, it's a blurb. The media doesn't want to dig. They don't want the truth.

I'd bet good money that less than 1 million of those signups are among the 48 million that it was targeted for.
 
upsideguy said:
The article explained the source of the numbers..... I have something; you got nutin'....
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have doctored, protected numbers spun to Obama's need. And I have two eyes and a brain that is watching the Democrat Party trying to distance itself as far as possible from this abortion.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, right proof. Ever try Google? Oh, but you will gobble up that dopey 7 million number without question, and that is what they are counting on. Stop kidding yourself, you know the net is nowhere near 7 million.
Click to expand...

I know Google, as evidenced by the fact I back up my assertions (feel free to flip through my posts, you will see links in 75% of what I post). You, OTH, apparently do not know how to use it as you are unable to back up your assertions.

You make an assertion and that assertion is challenged and you can not answer the challenge then the presumption is the assertion is false, as is your assertion. You want debate with adults, bring some game.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Obviously you did not read the LA Times article and you chose to respond with your impressions. The LA Times article says at least 9.5 million that were previously uninsured are now insured. This was extrapolated based upon a McKinnsey study (and using the 6 million exchange sign-up, which we now know is 16% larger)... again, you make a claim and offer no support for your claim... its an impression. I make a claim and back it up..... Advantage guy with the proof.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

I know you are one that wants Obamacare to fail; wants your country to fail... but wishful thinking does not make for good argument.
Click to expand...

Obviously YOU didn't read it. It's using the same data we've had but extrapolating falsely, just as the Obama admin has been doing. Take this for example:

At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com
Click to expand...

Actually it's not one third, it's 27% as they state later. That means only 27% of those "signed up" were previously uninsured. AND signing up doesn't mean ****. Read that last sentence again and try to assililate the information. What makes it meaningless is that not one of them is insured until they start paying. How many of that 27% are actually insured right now? The article and the Obama admin isn't telling.

The entire article is just a remunging of numbers to make them appear to be greater than they were. Btw, have you forgotten this entire fanderall was to insure the 40+ million uninsured in this country without losing ground on the vast majority who were?
 
upsideguy said:
I know Google, as evidenced by the fact I back up my assertions (feel free to flip through my posts, you will see links in 75% of what I post). You, OTH, apparently do not know how to use it as you are unable to back up your assertions.

You make an assertion and that assertion is challenged and you can not answer the challenge then the presumption is the assertion is false, as is your assertion. You want debate with adults, bring some game.
Click to expand...

That's just an old, tired, lazy leftist tactic. Focus the argument on "links" because you are afraid to actually address the point being made.

I don't like using links, I prefer to post my opinion because it is a debate board. I'd rather post my own thoughts than link to someone else’s work. Some people here, mostly on the left, use them as a crutch. "See here, look at all my links! I must be right!" I laugh at that garbage.

You can't disprove the point, so you declare it is untrue because there is no link present for something you could have looked up much more quickly that it took you to complain about a link! Pathetic!
 
Actually :
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in March 2012 that the ACA would newly insure 30-33 million people,[by 2016] leaving 26-27 million uninsured in 2016.

In June 2012, however, the Supreme Court ruled that states may opt-out of Medicaid expansion. Since then, the governors of 14 states have announced their intention to opt-out, 6 are undecided, 3 are leaning against, and 2 toward the expansion. Opt-outs will likely leave several million more uninsured, but little is known about who is likely to remain uninsured under the ACA.

<SNIP>

Millions will be helped by the insurance provisions in the law; however, nearly five million poor adults in states not expanding Medicaid coverage will be ineligible for assistance, while 17 million others who earn more than they do will be eligible for tax credits to help them pay for coverage in the new insurance Marketplaces.8 With attention focused on those gaining coverage under the law, it is important to bear in mind who is left out of coverage expansions and consider how their ongoing health needs may be met.
Click to expand...

Read more:
The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
 
minnie616 said:
Actually :


Read more:
The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Click to expand...

The CBO stuff sounds about right. But for the moment the ACA is hurting a bit more than twice as many as it is helping. At least according to these two polls.

According to Rasmussen 14% helped, 33% hurt, 50% no impact
33% Say They

Per Gallup 10% helped, 23% hurt, 63% no impact
Number of Americans Saying ACA Has Hurt Them Inches Up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom