• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Decline of ObamaCare

Predicted-v-Actual-ACA-Enrollment-Growth.png


Forbes flatlined exchange enrollment
 
Renae said:
Oh look, propaganda! Well at least that money spent to fool the easily swayed was apparently well spent.
Click to expand...

Yep. Sangha is trying to distract with quibbling about hundreds of thousands, when the program is failing in its original prediction of 8 million newly enrolled for 2016. The above chart dramatically shows the massive failure.

Sangha is busy disputing whether or not the Titanic has a 50 foot or 45 foot gash in its hull. News to Sangha, the ship is going down!
 
maxparrish said:
Yep. Sangha is trying to distract with quibbling about hundreds of thousands, when the program is failing in its original prediction of 8 million newly enrolled for 2016.
Click to expand...

"I noticed Renae cited the Wall Street Journal for his facts. I noticed you cited nothing for yours."
 
sangha said:
"I noticed Renae cited the Wall Street Journal for his facts. I noticed you cited nothing for yours."
Click to expand...

I established that fact, with citation, in the preceding post #26 with the chart. Wiper the eyeballs and follow along.
 
maxparrish said:
I established that fact, with citation, in the preceding post #26 with the chart. Wiper the eyeballs and follow along.
Click to expand...

You mean the chart that has the "actuals" for 2016, a year which hasn't even started yet? :lamo

And a link to Avik Roy, whose work has been proven to be wrong many times over, is laughable. Try to find a better argument than "Another rightwinger on the internet agrees with me" and "increasing #'s of people buying through the exchanges proves the exchanges are declining"


:lamo
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
You mean the chart that has the "actuals" for 2016, a year which hasn't even started yet? :lamo
Click to expand...

According to the chart it is actuals plus trend prediction. If prior predictions are no longer realistic (or disputed by the CBO) there is little hope that things will turn out substantively different. The Titanic engineers are estimating when we will be hull down; you are the ships deck band, playing a jolly tune of denial. Our next melody will be: "What, no water around my ankles...these actuals and predictions must be daffy".

;)
 
maxparrish said:
According to the chart
Click to expand...

Well, if a picture says so, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

:lamo

But you stick with the "increasing #'s of people buying through the exchanges proves the exchanges are declining" argument. It's hilarious
 
sangha said:
Well, if a picture says so, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

:lamo
Click to expand...

Or if Sangha devolves into pedestrian puerile and factless sneering at a chart, IT MUST BE TRUE! ;)
 
maxparrish said:
According to the chart it is actuals plus trend prediction. If prior predictions are no longer realistic (or disputed by the CBO) there is little hope that things will turn out substantively different. The Titanic engineers are estimating when we will be hull down; you are the ships deck band, playing a jolly tune of denial. Our next melody will be: "What, no water around my ankles...these actuals and predictions must be daffy".

;)
Click to expand...

You can't be seriously defending the presentation of speculation as hard fact.

That would be completely ridiculous.
 
No its working fine.

But your propaganda DOES work on morons, and then they don't get free or $50 month REAL HC.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many, if not most, saw Obamacare as a way to take federal control of and bankrupt the private medical insurance industry - paving the way for UHC to replace the "broken system". The initial deal (guaranteed profits for "private" insurers) expires right after Obama leaves office - that will be when the party is over. PPACA mandated all manner of "no out of pocket cost" services which virtually guarantee that premiums, co-pays and deductibles will increase (but only as soon as they have to).

The insurance companies (foolishly?) expected lots more young and healthy enrollees to be forced into their herd (to be shorn at will) boosted by lots of federal subsidy money but that is not panning out. What was more likely to happen is that more older and sicker folks will be buying insurance only when they feel that they will need expensive care - they can not be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on most actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions).

What good is insurance if you have no assets to protect and can't afford the co-pay or deductible anyway? I can be certified as disabled (for Medicaid billing purposes) fairly easily if I become too injured/ill to work and no ER can turn me away. The other care that I need I simply pay for out of pocket (20% discount for cash) for less than the insurance co-pay amount in most cases.

Less care for fewer and fewer | Physicians for a National Health Program
Click to expand...

I read an article recently that part of the problem with poor people who qualify for subsidies and get a policy is that they don't use it, because they can't afford the copays or deductibles.

And of those who are insured, many are called insured, but they are really underinsured, with very high deductibles and out of pocket limits. The spin is now "well, people have to have skin in the game, or they'll run to the dr for no good reason." That's spin. "Skin in the game" for poor people is $10 or $20, not $6,000.
 
JumpinJack said:
I read an article recently that part of the problem with poor people who qualify for subsidies and get a policy is that they don't use it, because they can't afford the copays or deductibles.

And of those who are insured, many are called insured, but they are really underinsured, with very high deductibles and out of pocket limits. The spin is now "well, people have to have skin in the game, or they'll run to the dr for no good reason." That's spin. "Skin in the game" for poor people is $10 or $20, not $6,000.
Click to expand...

Yeah, poor people really got screwed by ACA. Before ACA, poor had no-deductible plans with comprehensive coverage and no co-pays. That's why all the right wingers are demanding the govt give better health coverage to the poor. :lamo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom