• 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

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:



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?

No, the 27% figure applies only to those who got coverage through the exchange, which is not the only way people get coverage under ACA.
 
I know this is anecdotal but...I eat at a locally owned resturant at least once a month had have when I lived here for probalby the last 35 years. The last 15 or more of those years a lady who barely speaks English (married an American, and is a citizen) has worked there as a waitress. Yesterday I was in there eating lunch, the place was dead due to monsoon rains, just me and a couple of other locals at the next table over. I was taking it easy reading my nook and having a coffee after eating. The waitress was telling the lady sitting at the next table she had singed up for obamacare and went to the doctor. I was trying not to listen, it was none of my buisness but it was impossible not to hear. The waitress said she had never had insurace ever and was always afraid to go to the doctor cause he knew she could not pay for anything, but since she would soon have insurance she went anyway a few weeks ago. Seems they found something, without going into too much detail she is having surgery in the near future and it may or may not be in time. I know it is just one person but how people can argue against ensure all of our citizens ahve adequate healthcare esp since we alreardy spend more than enough money to pay for it? I just dont get it.
 
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

Let's see if I have this right, the Administration that claimed if you liked your insurance and your doctor you could keep them tells you that they signed up 7 million people by the deadline but don't tell you who those people are. Were they uninsured? Were the eligible for Medicaid before ACA? Did they sign up for Medicaid? Were they people who were kicked off their insurance because of ACA?

Don't you think we ought to get those answers before taking a victory lap? Of course not, some people will simply believe everything Obama tells them because they want to believe it. That is liberalism, research nothing, verify nothing, and buy feel good rhetoric.
 
I know this is anecdotal but...I eat at a locally owned resturant at least once a month had have when I lived here for probalby the last 35 years. The last 15 or more of those years a lady who barely speaks English (married an American, and is a citizen) has worked there as a waitress. Yesterday I was in there eating lunch, the place was dead due to monsoon rains, just me and a couple of other locals at the next table over. I was taking it easy reading my nook and having a coffee after eating. The waitress was telling the lady sitting at the next table she had singed up for obamacare and went to the doctor. I was trying not to listen, it was none of my buisness but it was impossible not to hear. The waitress said she had never had insurace ever and was always afraid to go to the doctor cause he knew she could not pay for anything, but since she would soon have insurance she went anyway a few weeks ago. Seems they found something, without going into too much detail she is having surgery in the near future and it may or may not be in time. I know it is just one person but how people can argue against ensure all of our citizens ahve adequate healthcare esp since we alreardy spend more than enough money to pay for it? I just dont get it.

I am glad for her and I am sure the ACA has help a lot more than just this waitress. But I think you are missing the point when you say the argument is against having all our citizens having adequate healthcare. I am totally against the ACA, but am all for healthcare for one and all. I was for leaving the 80% of Americans alone who said they were happy or at least satisfied with their healthcare and insurance. I was and am all for taking care of the other 20%, my solution back then was a VA style healthcare system to take care of the poor or those who couldn't afford it. That would have been a lot cheaper and a lot less intrusive to those who already had insurance and proper access to healthcare.

For 80% of Americans, the healthcare system wasn't broken. They had what they had and they were use to it, budgeted for it and were generally happy, the 80% that is. I am not sure putting more and more people on medicaid is a good idea either. When only 60% of doctors nationwide accept medicaid insurance I am not sure adding more is not just giving them a piece of paper saying they have insurance, but no doctor to see. Doctors lose money on each medicaid patient they see. I think the ACA has so many flaws in it that in the long run it will probably hurt more than it helps, ask the 6 million or so who has had their insurance canceled already. Ask those who had to pay increased premiums for stuff they do not need.

So I think the battle is or over how we go about getting everyone healthcare. Not whether one should have it or not. But this is my perspective. I believe the Democrats were wrong on trying to force this legislation on us when 58% were against it back in 2009 and 53% are still against it today. But the idea of having healthcare for one and all, is what we want, but I do not think the answer is the ACA. My opinion and some reasons why I am adamant oppose to it.
 
I know this is anecdotal but...I eat at a locally owned resturant at least once a month had have when I lived here for probalby the last 35 years. The last 15 or more of those years a lady who barely speaks English (married an American, and is a citizen) has worked there as a waitress. Yesterday I was in there eating lunch, the place was dead due to monsoon rains, just me and a couple of other locals at the next table over. I was taking it easy reading my nook and having a coffee after eating. The waitress was telling the lady sitting at the next table she had singed up for obamacare and went to the doctor. I was trying not to listen, it was none of my buisness but it was impossible not to hear. The waitress said she had never had insurace ever and was always afraid to go to the doctor cause he knew she could not pay for anything, but since she would soon have insurance she went anyway a few weeks ago. Seems they found something, without going into too much detail she is having surgery in the near future and it may or may not be in time. I know it is just one person but how people can argue against ensure all of our citizens ahve adequate healthcare esp since we alreardy spend more than enough money to pay for it? I just dont get it.

I agree with this post, even if it did send me into a Nazi Grammar rage.
 
I think we agree on this, at least in prinicpal. We shoudl have just cut directly to UHC.
I am glad for here and I am sure the ACA has help a lot more than just this waitress. But I think you are missing the point when you say the argument is against having all our citizens have adequate healthcare. I am totally against the ACA, but all for healthcare for one and all. I was for leaving the 80% of Americans alone who said they were happy or at least satisfied with their healthcare and insurance. I was and am all for taking care of the other 20%, my solution back then was a VA style healthcare system to take care of the poor or those who couldn't afford it.

For 80% of Americans, the healthcare system wasn't broken. They had what they had and they were use to it, budgeted for it and were generally happy, the 80% that is. I am not sure putting more and more people on medicaid is a good idea either. When only 60% of doctors nationwide accept medicaid insurance I am not sure adding more is not just giving them a piece of paper saying they have insurance, but no doctor to see. I think the ACA has so many flaws in it that in the long run it will probably hurt more than it helps, ask the 6 million or so who has had their insurance canceled already. Ask those who had to pay increased premiums.

So I think the battle is or over how we go about getting everyone healthcare. Not whether one should have it or not. But this is my perspective. I believe the Democrats were wrong on trying to force this legislation on us when 58% were against it back in 2009 and 53% are still against it today. But the idea of having healthcare for one and all, is what we want, but I do not think the answer is the ACA. My opinion and some reasons why I am adamant oppose to it.
 
I was talking on the phone while I was typing, although that probably did not make a lot of difference...
I agree with this post, even if it did send me into a Nazi Grammar rage.
 
For 80% of Americans, the healthcare system wasn't broken.

This is untrue. While 80% were satisfied with their coverage, a majority believed that "There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed." and approx 30% believed "Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it."

There is a difference between someone being satisfied with their insurance and someone being satisfied with the health care system

See CBS News Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2009.
Health Policy (8)
 
I know this is anecdotal but...I eat at a locally owned resturant at least once a month had have when I lived here for probalby the last 35 years. The last 15 or more of those years a lady who barely speaks English (married an American, and is a citizen) has worked there as a waitress. Yesterday I was in there eating lunch, the place was dead due to monsoon rains, just me and a couple of other locals at the next table over. I was taking it easy reading my nook and having a coffee after eating. The waitress was telling the lady sitting at the next table she had singed up for obamacare and went to the doctor. I was trying not to listen, it was none of my buisness but it was impossible not to hear. The waitress said she had never had insurace ever and was always afraid to go to the doctor cause he knew she could not pay for anything, but since she would soon have insurance she went anyway a few weeks ago. Seems they found something, without going into too much detail she is having surgery in the near future and it may or may not be in time. I know it is just one person but how people can argue against ensure all of our citizens ahve adequate healthcare esp since we alreardy spend more than enough money to pay for it? I just dont get it.

No one is against people having insurance this is just a lie from the left wing spin machine.

what we disagree with is how they implement it.
democrats want government to control every aspect of your life as they don't think you are smart enough to make a decision on your own.
Me i want you to have the freedom to get whatever insurance policy you want to have regardless if it is here or there.

we don't have a true market for insurance. If we did then if you live in NY you would be able to buy a policy in ND.

I support a national HSA system similar to singapore, but it requires massive changes to our tax code which most democrats oppose.
 
I think we agree on this, at least in prinicpal. We shoudl have just cut directly to UHC.

you know if one can talk to each other instead of talking around them or over their heads, if one listens to each other one finds out they agree on quite a lot of things. I do not know anyone who says or at least will admit they do not want healthcare for one and all. Now how to get there is the debate. At least from my perspective. I think the ACA is a half way measure, it doesn't help or hurt all that much and really outside of making some people feel good, probably due to the medicaid expansion in which doctors are seeing less and less medicaid patients due to the very low reimbursement rates, this is really a costly waste of time.

Why not double the medicare tax and put everyone on medicare, double or triple or however much it would take. Let those who want to opt out of medicare and pay for their own insurance plans do so. Is something like this the UHC plan you are talking about? If this isn't good enough, how about offering every American a chance to get into the Federal Employees Health Care plan. I am sure there are tons of options out there, why this one which has us all so polarized? It seems to me Democrats defend the ACA only because it is a Democrat plan and Republicans oppose it only because it is a Democrat plan. But if you look closely at independents, those who have no party affiliation they oppose it by a 2-1 margin. Some because they think it goes too far and some because they think it doesn't go far enough.

Just look at these polls, it give you an idea where the American Public stood before passage of the ACA and where they stand today, by political party with independents included.

September 2009
Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?
Democrats 60% favor 22% Oppose 18% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 7% favor 85% Oppose 8% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 27% favor 57% Oppose 16% Don’t know/Unsure
All voters 33% favor 53% Oppose 14% Don’t Know/Unsure

March 2014
Do you favor or oppose the new national health care law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2010?
Democrats 71% favor 24% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 12% favor 86% Oppose 2% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 34% favor 60% Oppose 6% Don’t Know/Unsure
All Voters 40% favor 56% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure


I suppose my bottom line is we can do better, we ought to be able to come up with something that can have bipartisan support to include independents much like was done with Social Security and Medicare.
 
Were they uninsured? Were the eligible for Medicaid before ACA? Did they sign up for Medicaid? Were they people who were kicked off their insurance because of ACA?

According to this link "5.4 million adults gained health insurance since September 2013 ",that would indicate that they were "uninsured",and were in a state like Texas where one million low-income Texans were denied coverage because perry chose politics over what was right for people.SAD.:(

Survey: 5.4 Million Americans Gained Health Insurance Since September 2013 - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
 
No one is against people having insurance this is just a lie from the left wing spin machine.

what we disagree with is how they implement it.
democrats want government to control every aspect of your life as they don't think you are smart enough to make a decision on your own.
Me i want you to have the freedom to get whatever insurance policy you want to have regardless if it is here or there.

we don't have a true market for insurance. If we did then if you live in NY you would be able to buy a policy in ND.

I support a national HSA system similar to singapore, but it requires massive changes to our tax code which most democrats oppose.

In Singapore, 80% of the population gets it health care from govt run providers.
 
We just need/and will someday have a sanely run evidence based UHC system, ran by science instead of money. Until then we will continue to balance politics and profit.
In Singapore, 80% of the population gets it health care from govt run providers.
 
In Singapore, 80% of the population gets it health care from govt run providers.

Been there several times...and these "small government" conservatives who point to Singapore as a shining example of low-tax 'freedom' probably have no idea how strong, how 'big' the Singaporean government really is.
 
Been there several times...and these "small government" conservatives who point to Singapore as a shining example of low-tax 'freedom' probably have no idea how strong, how 'big' the Singaporean government really is.

They're clueless. Singapores low income tax rate has them convinced that Singapore, a nation so authoritarian that it not only bans protests, it bans chewing gum!!!, is a bastion of liberty
 
We just need/and will someday have a sanely run evidence based UHC system, ran by science instead of money. Until then we will continue to balance politics and profit.

Science? SCIENCE???? You must be a flaming liberal!!!! How DARE you insert something as heretical as 'science' into this debate when REAL Americans are proving how faith-based capitalism is the first, best hope of freedom in this world!!!!
 
According to this link "5.4 million adults gained health insurance since September 2013 ",that would indicate that they were "uninsured",and were in a state like Texas where one million low-income Texans were denied coverage because perry chose politics over what was right for people.SAD.:(

Survey: 5.4 Million Americans Gained Health Insurance Since September 2013 - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

That isn't true at all, there are a number of programs in TX that are available to people of all income levels. Hundreds of thousands of people that are uninsured are eligible for Medicaid in TX but haven't signed up for it. That reality is ignored by the left so tell me how many of those 7 million are in that class and actually signed up for Medicaid that they were eligible for without ACA? How many were actually kicked off their plan and why would anyone call 5.4 million a good number when Whitehouse.gov. claimed that ACA was to insure 45 million?

The point remains, we don't need ACA to get those who are uninsured insured but rather just better communication and freedom of choice for all. You do understand choice, don't you? How about the millions of Americans who CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance even though they have the money to purchase their own?
 
This is untrue. While 80% were satisfied with their coverage, a majority believed that "There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed." and approx 30% believed "Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it."

There is a difference between someone being satisfied with their insurance and someone being satisfied with the health care system

See CBS News Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2009.
Health Policy (8)

When I saw the first question on Obesity I chuckled and then went further. Yep, CBS/ORC has the same figures on for and against 12/2-3 and 12/16-20, the fluxuation is normal as is the margin of error of plus or minus 4 points. NBC’s on whether the ACA would strengthen or weaken Medicare is interesting, I do not think I seen that question asked before, but most think it would weaken Medicare. I can also agree that Medicare should be expanded to include those 55-64 who do not have medical coverage. But I must add, who cannot afford it.

Now this caught my eye:

"There are a few ideas on health insurance for people who are not insured through work, or Medicare or Medicaid. One is to create a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans for these people. Another is to have the government negotiate with private insurers to offer these people insurance that meets government specifications. A third is to leave the current system as it is. Which of these would you prefer for people who do not have health insurance: a government plan to compete with private plans, private plans coordinated by the government, or the current system as it is now?" Options rotated

Gov't
Plan Private Plans
Coordinated
By Gov't Current
System Unsure
% % % %
12/10-13/09 36 30 30 4

I think I would go with either the Gov’t plan or the current system.

Which comes closer to the way you feel? Government reform of the nation's health care system is necessary to control costs and expand coverage. OR, Government action on health care will do more harm than good." Options rotated

Is
Necessary Will Do More
Harm Than
Good Unsure
% % %
12/10-13/09 51 46 3
Again interesting, about a 50-50 split considering the margin of error. Surprising to me though.

And this:
From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care reforms under consideration in Congress will mostly help you personally, will mostly hurt you personally, or don't you think they will have much of an effect on you personally?"

Help Hurt Not Much
Effect Unsure
% % % %
12/4-8/09 16 34 42 8
This is pretty much the same percentage two recent polls show the ACA hurting twice as many as it helps.
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
 
When I saw the first question on Obesity I chuckled and then went further. Yep, CBS/ORC has the same figures on for and against 12/2-3 and 12/16-20, the fluxuation is normal as is the margin of error of plus or minus 4 points. NBC’s on whether the ACA would strengthen or weaken Medicare is interesting, I do not think I seen that question asked before, but most think it would weaken Medicare. I can also agree that Medicare should be expanded to include those 55-64 who do not have medical coverage. But I must add, who cannot afford it.

Now this caught my eye:

"There are a few ideas on health insurance for people who are not insured through work, or Medicare or Medicaid. One is to create a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans for these people. Another is to have the government negotiate with private insurers to offer these people insurance that meets government specifications. A third is to leave the current system as it is. Which of these would you prefer for people who do not have health insurance: a government plan to compete with private plans, private plans coordinated by the government, or the current system as it is now?" Options rotated

Gov't
Plan Private Plans
Coordinated
By Gov't Current
System Unsure
% % % %
12/10-13/09 36 30 30 4

I think I would go with either the Gov’t plan or the current system.

Which comes closer to the way you feel? Government reform of the nation's health care system is necessary to control costs and expand coverage. OR, Government action on health care will do more harm than good." Options rotated

Is
Necessary Will Do More
Harm Than
Good Unsure
% % %
12/10-13/09 51 46 3
Again interesting, about a 50-50 split considering the margin of error. Surprising to me though.

And this:
From what you've heard or read, do you think the health care reforms under consideration in Congress will mostly help you personally, will mostly hurt you personally, or don't you think they will have much of an effect on you personally?"

Help Hurt Not Much
Effect Unsure
% % % %
12/4-8/09 16 34 42 8
This is pretty much the same percentage two recent polls show the ACA hurting twice as many as it helps.
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

Yes, the option that both you and I support (despite our differences on other issues) had quite a bit of support. Many of these supporters did not and do not support ACA because they feel that ACA did not go far enough.

That's why I believe that your frequent comments about how so many people do not support ACA are misleading.
 
Yes, the option that both you and I support (despite our differences on other issues) had quite a bit of support. Many of these supporters did not and do not support ACA because they feel that ACA did not go far enough.

That's why I believe that your frequent comments about how so many people do not support ACA are misleading.

Would you please tell me why you believe anything this Administration tells you and why you support a massive central govt. that has created a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and rising? I understand how you want UH and a single payer but all that did with Medicare is give the bureaucrats a slush fund to waste on programs other than Medicare. It really is too bad more people don't understand the economy and the budget. The taxpayers fund debt service to the tune of 250 billion a year. Any idea how many that will insure if we didn't waste it servicing our debt?
 
That isn't true at all, there are a number of programs in TX that are available to people of all income levels. Hundreds of thousands of people that are uninsured are eligible for Medicaid in TX but haven't signed up for it. That reality is ignored by the left so tell me how many of those 7 million are in that class and actually signed up for Medicaid that they were eligible for without ACA? How many were actually kicked off their plan and why would anyone call 5.4 million a good number when Whitehouse.gov. claimed that ACA was to insure 45 million?

The point remains, we don't need ACA to get those who are uninsured insured but rather just better communication and freedom of choice for all. You do understand choice, don't you? How about the millions of Americans who CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance even though they have the money to purchase their own?

How about the working poor in the lone star, that makes just enough money to NOT qualify for medicaid;what are the"a number of programs in TX that are available to people"that you are referring to?:2wave:
 
How about the working poor in the lone star, that makes just enough money to NOT qualify for medicaid;what are the"a number of programs in TX that are available to people"that you are referring to?:2wave:

Medicaid is available to the working poor, the problem seems to be that low income workers aren't signing up and you have to sign up to get Medicaid. It does seem that you don't understand Medicaid at all.
 
Yes, the option that both you and I support (despite our differences on other issues) had quite a bit of support. Many of these supporters did not and do not support ACA because they feel that ACA did not go far enough.

That's why I believe that your frequent comments about how so many people do not support ACA are misleading.

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?
 
Picking a plan and paying for a plan are not the same thing. Let me know when they claim that they have 7.5 million PAYING subscribers.
 
Back
Top Bottom