• 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]

6 million sign ups, isn't just about the figure Obamacare caused to lose their insurance because it didn't meet Obamacare specs. Seems to me we are back to square one at the moment.
 
Original Goal? Keep moving the goalposts, what did Whitehouse.gov say about Obamacare when it was being promoted and debated? You think a program that leaves over 30 million uninsured that will cost the taxpayers almost 2 trillion dollars is a success? Wow, what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Give it time grasshopper.
 
Does anyone here really know what the ORIGINAL GOAL was? The law has been changed and the goal posts moved so many times that many people here have no concept as to what the real goal was. I always thought it was to get the uninsured insured, not taking insured people who lost their coverage to sign up for ACA or people eligible for Medicaid to sign up for Medicaid? What is wrong with you people that support Obama?

I do. We were trying to address the 48 million or so without healthcare insurance. If you subtract those that had healthcare but had it taken away, and those that signed up but haven't/won't pay, we've probably addressed about 2-3 million of those 48 million.
 
APRIL FOOLS!!!

Seriously, is anyone dumb enough to believe this?

Honestly it is fun to see how the righties get their panties in a wad over this.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Facts? What do you know about facts?
Plenty. Way more than you.

Do you call a program designed to get most of the 45 million reported uninsured and only gets 6-7 million a success? It is this kind of low standards along with poor logic and common sense that keeps people unemployed
Here's the difference between you and me. You look at a reduction of uninsured people by 6-7 million, call it a failure and say "let's get rid of it and go back to the system that had 45 million people uninsured in the first place". I look at what you're saying and try to figure out how someone can be so blinded by partisan politics they are incapable of understanding why their position is so stupid and illogical.

6-7 million is a good start. When you factor in the first year or two's low tax cost for not having insurance, it's not surprising to hear there are many people who will not sign up. But as the tax for not having insurance goes up, more people will choose to have insurance. And when more and more people get insurance, more and more people will have the opportunity to become/stay healthy. And once more people join insurance pools and more people are healthy (and no longer broke from medical catastrophes), costs will go down and people will have more money to spend.

That's the general plan behind the concept. Will it work? Only time will tell. Will it need tweaking and revising from time to time? Absolutely. But it remains a mystery to me how someone can say only 6-7 million now have insurance, so we should scrap the program after 6 months and go back to the way we did it before where those 6-7 million didn't have insurance. Somehow, in your partisan mind, if it's not an "everyone now is insured" solution in the first six months, we should go back to what was the problem in the first place. That's just asinine.
 
Honestly it is fun to see how the righties get their panties in a wad over this.

Really, that's what you see?

Actually, it's sad to see so little elation from Democrats, because they all know a bald-faced lie when they see one. Nobody believes that report. Nobody.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Facts? What do you know about facts? Do you call a program designed to get most of the 45 million reported uninsured and only gets 6-7 million a success? It is this kind of low standards along with poor logic and common sense that keeps people unemployed

How long did it take for Social Security to become a success? Some might say never, due to ideology or links they give. As for other "entitlements", how many of them faced the headwinds of the current Hurricane GOP?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Plenty. Way more than you.

Here's the difference between you and me. You look at a reduction of uninsured people by 6-7 million, call it a failure and say "let's get rid of it and go back to the system that had 45 million people uninsured in the first place". I look at what you're saying and try to figure out how someone can be so blinded by partisan politics they are incapable of understanding why their position is so stupid and illogical.

6-7 million is a good start. When you factor in the first year or two's low tax cost for not having insurance, it's not surprising to hear there are many people who will not sign up. But as the tax for not having insurance goes up, more people will choose to have insurance. And when more and more people get insurance, more and more people will have the opportunity to become/stay healthy. And once more people join insurance pools and more people are healthy (and no longer broke from medical catastrophes), costs will go down and people will have more money to spend.

That's the general plan behind the concept. Will it work? Only time will tell. Will it need tweaking and revising from time to time? Absolutely. But it remains a mystery to me how someone can say only 6-7 million now have insurance, so we should scrap the program after 6 months and go back to the way we did it before where those 6-7 million didn't have insurance. Somehow, in your partisan mind, if it's not an "everyone now is insured" solution in the first six months, we should go back to what was the problem in the first place. That's just asinine.

Subtract the people that already had insurance but had it taken away. Subtract the hardcore liberals who cancelled their own so they can get on board the Good Ship Lollipop. Subtract the people who signed up but didn't pay. Subtract the media and DNC operatives who signed up just to boost the numbers to help stem the embarrassment.

It would not surprise me if the actual enrollee number is less than a million of those targeted 48 million uninsured.
 
Give it time grasshopper.

Time for what? more lies? More self promotion? More distortions? We have had almost 6 years of that and still we have people like you supporting Obama
 
Honestly it is fun to see how the righties get their panties in a wad over this.

What I have a problem with is people like you who have no problems spending someone else's money and call the fact that we will have over 30 million uninsured a success?
 
6 million sign ups, isn't just about the figure Obamacare caused to lose their insurance because it didn't meet Obamacare specs.

Nope

In fact, while there is proof that many people lost the plan they had last year, I haven't seen any proof that any individual who was insured last year has gone without insurance this year

If you have any proof that this has happened to anyone, I'd like to see it.
 
I do. We were trying to address the 48 million or so without healthcare insurance. If you subtract those that had healthcare but had it taken away, and those that signed up but haven't/won't pay, we've probably addressed about 2-3 million of those 48 million.

For those that had it taken away, how many have gotten it back having not been included in the ever-growing count? Will a time ever come when GOPS repeal AND replace at the same time? What does the GOP stand for on paper, such as Camp's tax reform that fellow GOP McConnell stamped out right away ?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Plenty. Way more than you.

Here's the difference between you and me. You look at a reduction of uninsured people by 6-7 million, call it a failure and say "let's get rid of it and go back to the system that had 45 million people uninsured in the first place". I look at what you're saying and try to figure out how someone can be so blinded by partisan politics they are incapable of understanding why their position is so stupid and illogical.

6-7 million is a good start. When you factor in the first year or two's low tax cost for not having insurance, it's not surprising to hear there are many people who will not sign up. But as the tax for not having insurance goes up, more people will choose to have insurance. And when more and more people get insurance, more and more people will have the opportunity to become/stay healthy. And once more people join insurance pools and more people are healthy (and no longer broke from medical catastrophes), costs will go down and people will have more money to spend.

That's the general plan behind the concept. Will it work? Only time will tell. Will it need tweaking and revising from time to time? Absolutely. But it remains a mystery to me how someone can say only 6-7 million now have insurance, so we should scrap the program after 6 months and go back to the way we did it before where those 6-7 million didn't have insurance. Somehow, in your partisan mind, if it's not an "everyone now is insured" solution in the first six months, we should go back to what was the problem in the first place. That's just asinine.

No, sorry you have yet to prove who those 6-7 million are and why would a program that has been in place for 3 years be called a success for generating these kind of numbers when the original number for uninsured was over 45 million?

Unlike you I understand the role of the Federal govt. which isn't to implement personal responsibility programs. My partisan mind understands that we have a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and are paying about 250 billion a year in debt service. Obamacare does nothing to lower the deficit or the debt especially with the numbers of people not signing up
 
Nope

In fact, while there is proof that many people lost the plan they had last year, I haven't seen any proof that any individual who was insured last year has gone without insurance this year

If you have any proof that this has happened to anyone, I'd like to see it.

You have no proof that 6-7 million UNINSURED have signed up for Obamacare but that doesn't stop you from touting it
 
Really, that's what you see?.

Precisely what I see. It's freaking hilarious. It's like a pack of yipping hyenas at the very mention of the word Obamacare.
 
Time for what? more lies? More self promotion? More distortions? We have had almost 6 years of that and still we have people like you supporting Obama

Ahh yes, how easily you forget the good old days of Bush.
 
What I have a problem with is people like you who have no problems spending someone else's money and call the fact that we will have over 30 million uninsured a success?

Like righties actually care about those 30 million people? Hilarious.
 
What I have a problem with is people like you who have no problems spending someone else's money and call the fact that we will have over 30 million uninsured a success?

Did you expect all 48 million uninsured to get insured right away? How many GOP state's like Georgia have thrown up roadblocks to Medicaid Extension, even to prevent a possible new DEM governor from doing it? Should these 600,000 people in GA alone go uninsured, not to mention the loss of over 70,000 new jobs. You're a businessman--you know how many jobs would be created in Texas if ME was accepted .
 
You have no proof that 6-7 million UNINSURED have signed up for Obamacare but that doesn't stop you from touting it

This is what GOP Sen. Barasso said on FOX yesterday, that the admin was cooking the books. Do you believe that? Where is your proof? Have you questioned previous GOP admins like this over numbers? Were the Dems a loyal opposition on Medicare Part D--yes or no ?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Why is it shocking? Everyone knows Fox News is a Republican media outlet. I get you are being facetious, but it's rather silly on something like this.

Fox News will eventually post it once they figure out how to spin the 6 million number (difference between signups and paid enrollees, most likely).

It is an impressive accomplishment considering how bad the enrollment went initially and how a lot of media reported on the problems. Oregon is still doing very poorly at signups and these numbers are highly suspect.

But to me the bigger issue is why are we celebrating 6 million? We had 46.3 million uninsured in 2008 and that went up to 48.6 million in 2011. So, making the questionable assumptions that all of those 6 million were previously uninsured (and not people that were kicked off or cancelled their previous plan) and that all of the 6 million will actually pay, all year, for the insurance why do we celebrate STILL having 42.6 million uninsured and hardly better than 2008? And how much is this costing.

Should be interesting. But I guess no one thinks that the ACA is some sort of universal health care anymore.

Talk about spin.

BTW, a lot of us would have been in favor of simply increasing the Medicaid limits and this turns out to be most of the increase.
 
Precisely what I see. It's freaking hilarious. It's like a pack of yipping hyenas at the very mention of the word Obamacare.

Guess you have to understand how business and money works.
 
Ahh yes, how easily you forget the good old days of Bush.

Bush isn't in office and has been out of office since January 21, 2009. Interesting how when you cannot respond to actual tough questions that you have to revert to Bush. Name for me one economic result that Obama has generated that is better than Bush's? You can't because BLS, BEA, and the Treasury data will not support you. Only leftwing rhetoric because that is what you want to believe. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who ignore results and buy rhetoric?
 
Back
Top Bottom