• 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

Regardless of why I oppose the law, I oppose the law. It is that simple. I think it is quite flawed and will end up hurting more than it helps, quite cut and dried. A lot of people try to work their politics into it, I don't. If I thought it was a good law, it would have my support, but I do not. There is quite a lot about the ACA I do not like, but the mandated insurance doesn't bother me. I think expanding medicaid is basically a waste of time and give people false hopes when they see they have insurance. But can they see a doctor? that is the question, will they be able to get healthcare? If only 60% of doctors nationwide accept medicaid patients today, before the expansion, how many of those with medicaid insurance will have just a piece of paper?

Yes the ACA is politicized. But a whole lot of people read more into the opposition or try to read more into the opposition so they can say some of those opposed are really for the ACA. Listen, if I was for the ACA, I would say so. I think it is a half way measure that is making things worse. We talked about the VA healthcare system before to take care of the poor, I would have loved to see that. I would rather have everyone or the poor who can't afford proper insurance go on medicare even if the medicare tax has to be doubled or raised higher. I dislike the ACA as it comes across more as a political statement than an attempt to help people. I knew the ACA was flawed before it was even voted on, if you look at the public support for social security, 65% plus of all Americans supported it prior to its introduction and it passed on its merits with bipartisan support. Medicare, over 60% of all Americans supported it prior to its introduction and it passed on its merits with bipartisan support.. With the ACA only around 35% of all Americans supported it prior to its introduction and it passed with strong arm tactics of the Democratic leadership exerting on its own members, not the merits.

Now I am not arguing the fact that according to the polls a lot or perhaps even a majority of Americans thought something needed to be done with healthcare. But what I am arguing is the ACA was not the answer and still isn't the answer. Do away with it, repeal it, then keep what works and what is good and put that into new legislation. If it is a 100% government plan so be it, if it is a VA style healthcare system, fine. If we could put everyone on medicare and up the medicare tax to pay for it, fine. If we are going to keep medicaid, then we need to up the reimbursement rate so all doctors can accept it without losing money. My bottom line is the ACA is a bastard child that makes no one happy, why defend it?

I have no problems with you stating your personal opinions. However, when you discuss the polls, it is misleading to describe people as if they belong to only one of two groups - opposed to ACA, or supportive of ACA. It leaves the impression that people either agree with you (and oppose ACA), or they disagree with you (and support it). The truth is, there really are several groups.

For example, I agree with you that creating a govt run plan to cover the uninsured would have been preferable to this whole mess of exchanges and mandates. However, I disagree with you about many other things, like the expansion of Medicaid. Dividing everyone up into one of two groups, when there are really several, does not represent the diversity of opinions that exist.
 
Personally, I don't think it is good politically for the white house to be celebrating. I remember clearly a few months ago when the white house was taking flack for the insurance cancellations, their defense was that it was a small percentage of the population. Celebrating signing up an even smaller percentage of the population may back fire on them. I think I would have recommended they keep their celebration internal.
 
I have no problems with you stating your personal opinions. However, when you discuss the polls, it is misleading to describe people as if they belong to only one of two groups - opposed to ACA, or supportive of ACA. It leaves the impression that people either agree with you (and oppose ACA), or they disagree with you (and support it). The truth is, there really are several groups.

For example, I agree with you that creating a govt run plan to cover the uninsured would have been preferable to this whole mess of exchanges and mandates. However, I disagree with you about many other things, like the expansion of Medicaid. Dividing everyone up into one of two groups, when there are really several, does not represent the diversity of opinions that exist.

Perhaps, I think one can have a ton of reasons for supporting the ACA and one could have a ton of reasons for opposing the ACA. But in the end one either supports it or opposes it. Either that or they fall into the unsure/don't know group. I take it you support it, but feel it didn't go far enough and another person may oppose it because they feel it didn't go far enough. But in the end regardless you support it and the other opposes it. The other is more likely to want it repealed and replaced with something that goes farther while you, a supporter may feel it doesn't need to go any farther or that it is just a start. But I feel the bottom line is one opposes it and the other supports it. I feel it is wrong to try to make someone who oppose the legislation to appear that they support it. That seems pure wrong. It is turning dissent into approval.

Let me ask you this, if legislation was proposed to get this half way plan, the ACA repealed but replaced with a government run plan, would you support that? Then if your goal is lets say UHC, then why support a half way plan, why not try to get rid of it and replace it with UHC. I think this is totally the wrong path. You think it is the right path or I assume you wouldn't support it.

But regardless of where on stands on the ACA, getting access to healthcare for every American is a goal I think almost all members of congress, Republican and Democrat want. It is how to achieve it that is the contention. At least that is how I see it.
 
Perhaps, I think one can have a ton of reasons for supporting the ACA and one could have a ton of reasons for opposing the ACA. But in the end one either supports it or opposes it. Either that or they fall into the unsure/don't know group. I take it you support it, but feel it didn't go far enough and another person may oppose it because they feel it didn't go far enough. But in the end regardless you support it and the other opposes it. The other is more likely to want it repealed and replaced with something that goes farther while you, a supporter may feel it doesn't need to go any farther or that it is just a start. But I feel the bottom line is one opposes it and the other supports it. I feel it is wrong to try to make someone who oppose the legislation to appear that they support it. That seems pure wrong. It is turning dissent into approval.

I don't think putting in such black and white terms is realistic

Let me ask you this, if legislation was proposed to get this half way plan, the ACA repealed but replaced with a government run plan, would you support that?

No, because coverage for the uninsured is not the only problem our health care system has created. There is also the problem of health care costs, which have a variety of causes. No one action can solve all of the problems we have. We need a comprehensive set of policies to deal with the situation. Patching our problems won't work.
 
I don't think putting in such black and white terms is realistic



No, because coverage for the uninsured is not the only problem our health care system has created. There is also the problem of health care costs, which have a variety of causes. No one action can solve all of the problems we have. We need a comprehensive set of policies to deal with the situation. Patching our problems won't work.

Perhaps not, but I take one at his word. If he says he opposes the ACA, I think he opposes it. If he says he supports it, I believe he supports it. It is quite simple, I do not try to twist someone motives who says they oppose it into being for it. I think that is quite realistic, simple too because you don't have to try to read peoples minds.

Hmm, here I thought the main reason for the ACA was to get those uninsured insured. I could be wrong as I have been wrong many a times in my life. We do agree on one thing for sure, putting patches over all our problems will not work. The ACA is an attempt to put a patch over a couple of them, a very poor and leaky patch at that.
 
It is my understanding the main reason for the ACA was to help curve the rising costs of healthcare while making healthcare more accessible to the uninsured.
 
It is my understanding the main reason for the ACA was to help curve the rising costs of healthcare while making healthcare more accessible to the uninsured.

Why do you believe anything this Administration tells you? What ACA has done is force people off their health insurance, cause them to lose their doctors, raise their deductibles, and not attract the numbers of young people necessary to make this program feasible. It is a typical govt. social program that costs more than intended, doing less than intended, and not solving the problem.
 
Personally, I don't think it is good politically for the white house to be celebrating. I remember clearly a few months ago when the white house was taking flack for the insurance cancellations, their defense was that it was a small percentage of the population. Celebrating signing up an even smaller percentage of the population may back fire on them. I think I would have recommended they keep their celebration internal.

Jay Carney referred to the 6 million people who were notified that their insurance was being cancelled as a "small sliver of the population". Anyone who doesn't see the irony of 1 million more people (out of over 300 million) all of a sudden changing that "small sliver" to a large number are either wearing their partisan blinkers too tight, or they don't understand the meaning of the word "irony". Or, more likely, a combination of both of the above.
 
Jay Carney referred to the 6 million people who were notified that their insurance was being cancelled as a "small sliver of the population". Anyone who doesn't see the irony of 1 million more people (out of over 300 million) all of a sudden changing that "small sliver" to a large number are either wearing their partisan blinkers too tight, or they don't understand the meaning of the word "irony". Or, more likely, a combination of both of the above.

Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled
 
Yes, that is what is being announced. It seems that the GOP hope for demise of the ACA has failed miserably. I am not surprised. There is a precedent for them to be on the losing side and it seems to be pickling up steam...like the ACA



Carney: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million - CNN.com

Here's a breakdown of those seven million:

  • People who have pre-existing conditions and are paying exorbitant rates for their "old policy."
  • People who had NO insurance because they couldn't buy it due to pre-existing conditions exclusions.
  • People who are getting part or all of their premium paid for by the government...or finding out they qualify for Medicaid instead.
  • People who are incarcerated. Part of the intake procedure for many prisons today is to meet with a representative and sign up for Obamacare, subsidized, of course.

Woot!! Success!!
 
Here's a breakdown of those seven million:

  • People who have pre-existing conditions and are paying exorbitant rates for their "old policy."
  • People who had NO insurance because they couldn't buy it due to pre-existing conditions exclusions.
  • People who are getting part or all of their premium paid for by the government...or finding out they qualify for Medicaid instead.
  • People who are incarcerated. Part of the intake procedure for many prisons today is to meet with a representative and sign up for Obamacare, subsidized, of course.

Woot!! Success!!

Incarcerated?:shock:
 
:peace Okay debate just now on the Ed Schultz--
haven't seen/heard Con radio host Heidi Harris for quite a while--background view in Vegas gets the juices flowin.

Heidi din't interrupt the punkish John Fuglesang, who seemend like coffee on steroids.
As she pointed out, show me the exact numbers on all sorts of statistics as to how many have paid for instance.
I agree in a rushed anount of time to shut every body up.

Not only that, I want numbers of EVERY Stat imaginable in the Health Industry and then a coordinated plan from both Parties moving forth . :lamo
 
Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled

Where do you get your information? You seem to know what the Administration cannot tell us and provide actual links to the information. Seems to me this is what you want to believe so how about filling in the rest of the blanks as to how many of those 7 million were actually uninsured or not eligible for Medicaid?
 
Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled

That's nice. Thank you for sharing that. I'm sure someone here wants to talk about how many of the 6 million got to actually keep those cancelled plans for another year or whatever extension Obama granted them. Sadly, I'm not interested in that talk tonight. And it isn't relevant to my post about slivers of the population.

Have a great night sangha.
 
:peace Okay debate just now on the Ed Schultz--
haven't seen/heard Con radio host Heidi Harris for quite a while--background view in Vegas gets the juices flowin.

Heidi din't interrupt the punkish John Fuglesang, who seemend like coffee on steroids.
As she pointed out, show me the exact numbers on all sorts of statistics as to how many have paid for instance.
I agree in a rushed anount of time to shut every body up.

Not only that, I want numbers of EVERY Stat imaginable in the Health Industry and then a coordinated plan from both Parties moving forth . :peace

If you are going to take a victory lap for 7 million signed up don't you believe the people need to have a breakdown of how many of those were actually uninsured and how many were actually eligible for Medicaid without ACA?
 
That's nice. Thank you for sharing that. I'm sure someone here wants to talk about how many of the 6 million got to actually keep those cancelled plans for another year or whatever extension Obama wanted to grant them. Sadly, I'm not interested in that talk tonight. And it isn't relevant to my post about slivers of the population.

Have a great night sangha.

You keep saying you're not interested in talking, while you continue to talk :lol:

The #'s show that fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled
 
You keep saying you're not interested in talking, while you continue to talk :lol:

The #'s show that fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled

How about a source of that information? You seem to have information the Administration isn't releasing
 
If you are going to take a victory lap for 7 million signed up
As long as you're gonna say this--something nobody could relate to my post--I'll stop since I didn't quote you .
 
don't you believe the people need to have a breakdown of how many of those were
actually uninsured and how many were actually eligible for Medicaid without ACA?
Didn't you read what I said about Heidi Harris?
She's one of the best voices of Conservatism on Radio and is a nice spot interview on TV.
Ed does that both views thingy on MSDNC .
 
As long as you're gonna say this--something nobody could relate to my post--I'll stop since I didn't quote you .

"you" means supporters of ACA and those trumpeting the success of the signups. If that isn't you then great because I see no success here with still 40 million or so uninsured
 
You keep saying you're not interested in talking, while you continue to talk :lol:

The #'s show that fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled

I said what I wasn't interested in talking about, sangha, and what had nothing to do with my post about Carney. I'm sorry you have reading comprehension issues.

But since you're clamoring for my attention, and I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll give you some of the attention you want. So I will post again and say - that's very nice. I'm sure someone wants to discuss that. Maybe I can stop by this weekend and you & I can chat about how many of the 6 million got to keep their insurance. It depends on how busy I am.
 
Didn't you read what I said about Heidi Harris?
She's one of the best voices of Conservatism on Radio and is a nice spot interview on TV.
Ed does that both views thingy on MSDNC .

I have no idea who Heidi Harris is and don't watch MSNBC but if that is what she said she made a great point. With all the technology today and three years to implement the program why is it that we have no idea who makes up those 7 million? Those eligible for Medicaid, those who lost their insurance because of, prisoners who have registered, and those who have registered but not paid the premiums reduce the number of signups and doesn't help the true uninsured number
 
I said what I wasn't interested in talking about, sangha, and what had nothing to do with my post about Carney. I'm sorry you have reading comprehension issues.

But since you're clamoring for my attention, and I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll give you some of the attention you want. So I will post again and say - that's very nice. I'm sure someone wants to discuss that. Maybe I can stop by this weekend and you & I can chat about how many of the 6 million got to keep their insurance. It depends on how busy I am.

I won't hold my breath but my dog Princess may be disappointed. She loves strangers

She thinks they're delicious!
 
Back
Top Bottom