• 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!

the south gets it wrong again

this is a chance to learn how to google buy in the end the distinction isnt relevant.

So you can't provide thevidence number typical of 100% of your posts.
 
This is consistent with what the CDC has found


This is the challenge the repeal crowd has to deal with and it's why in practice the ACA isn't going anywhere for quite some time.

Amazing what happens when a ton of people are kicked off their insurance then have to sign up again.
So what is the actual difference from before obama care when he took office compared to now?

When obama took office in 2008 he uninsured rate was 14.6
Now it is 10.6

So it only went down 4% with most of those people on Medicaid.
Not that big of a success given all the money being spent on it.
 
quoting BS crap information just doesnt cut it except for the right wing bubble types. 643,000 Bankruptcies in the U.S. Every Year Due to Medical Bills : snopes.com

Since when is the journal of health affairs crap? Also it was a study done by the department of justice.
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Only 17% of bankruptcies are medical caused.
90% of debt is not medical.

Which means someone filing bankruptcy only has about 10% of that owed to medical.

It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care.

The study also reviewed Warren's early research on medical bankruptcies and found that medical spending was a factor in no more than 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies.

A detailed analysis by The Atlantic's Megan McArdle further discredited the link between bankruptcy and medical expense. She found that Warren's team
classified a filing as a medical bankruptcy whenever unpaid medical bills were resolved through bankruptcy proceedings -- even if other debts were far
bigger contributors to insolvency.
 
Amazing what happens when a ton of people are kicked off their insurance then have to sign up again.
So what is the actual difference from before obama care when he took office compared to now?

When obama took office in 2008 he uninsured rate was 14.6
Now it is 10.6

So it only went down 4% with most of those people on Medicaid.
Not that big of a success given all the money being spent on it.


incorrect, do your homework. you know this stuff is easy to google dont you?
 
Since when is the journal of health affairs crap? Also it was a study done by the department of justice.
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Only 17% of bankruptcies are medical caused.
90% of debt is not medical.

Which means someone filing bankruptcy only has about 10% of that owed to medical.

It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care.

The study also reviewed Warren's early research on medical bankruptcies and found that medical spending was a factor in no more than 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies.

A detailed analysis by The Atlantic's Megan McArdle further discredited the link between bankruptcy and medical expense. She found that Warren's team
classified a filing as a medical bankruptcy whenever unpaid medical bills were resolved through bankruptcy proceedings -- even if other debts were far
bigger contributors to insolvency.



now you have moved to the conspiracy thread.
 
incorrect, do your homework. you know this stuff is easy to google dont you?

I did google it.

When obama took office in 2008 the uninsured rate was 14.6. That is the baseline used to determine everything else.
2016 it has gone down to 10.6%. The majority of those are on Medicaid.

It has only gone down 4% which given the amount of money spent to support this crap means it isn't a failure.

Kinda like the war on poverty. 16 trillion dollars spent since 1965 for a 2-3% drop in the poverty rate.
 
now you have moved to the conspiracy thread.

Since when is the doj a conspiracy organization? The fact is you cannot refute the facts.
You have nothing to combat a peer review journal and a study done by the doj.
 
they didnt make anything free, more right wing anti facts

What obama did was make health insurance more expensive for Americans who already had it and give the money as a subsidy to other people who didnt have health insurance

So he robbed Peter to pay Paul
 
Not to mention that many cannot afford the deductibles under the plans that they actually can afford.

Deductibles are going up again after January.

Typical liberal rubbish. They place people under a program and take credit for the numbers, and then ignore the fact that just as many people are still going broke by using the program.

Of course the irony here is that its been a hallmark of every Republican healthcare reform idea or plan to switch people into high deductible "consumer driven" plans.
 
I did google it.

When obama took office in 2008 the uninsured rate was 14.6. That is the baseline used to determine everything else.
2016 it has gone down to 10.6%. The majority of those are on Medicaid.

It has only gone down 4% which given the amount of money spent to support this crap means it isn't a failure.

Kinda like the war on poverty. 16 trillion dollars spent since 1965 for a 2-3% drop in the poverty rate.

Math does not work that way. Raising (or lowering) an amount by a percentage works like this: 10% going up to 11% is a 10% increase (11 is 10% more than 10) not a 1% increase.
 
I did google it.

When obama took office in 2008 the uninsured rate was 14.6. That is the baseline used to determine everything else.
2016 it has gone down to 10.6%. The majority of those are on Medicaid.

It has only gone down 4% which given the amount of money spent to support this crap means it isn't a failure.

Kinda like the war on poverty. 16 trillion dollars spent since 1965 for a 2-3% drop in the poverty rate.



so you are saying even though you googled it you still got it wrong. holy carp dude.
 
Amazing what happens when a ton of people are kicked off their insurance then have to sign up again.

Since the data clearer shows a net drop in people having difficulty paying their medical bills, if your scenario is correct that means folks moved into better or more affordable insurance.

Or perhaps many of them simply didn't have insurance before

Not that big of a success given all the money being spent on it.

Given that it's doing about what it's supposed to but at a significantly lower expense than promised, I'd say it's doing all right.

Uninsurance and Health Spending in 2015
Predicted
Actual​
Actual Relative to Predictions​
Uninsured26M (9%)28.6M (9.1%)
+0.1%​
Exchange subsidies$45B$38B
-16%​
Medicaid and CHIP$385B$359B
-7%​
Medicare$677B$634B
-6%​
 
I see your point

Anytime libs are ready to stop all that taking in the red states just say the word and we can end medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies in the red and blue states

When would you like to get started?



if you actually looked at the article you would see most of the taking is southern states, including texas.
 
if you actually looked at the article you would see most of the taking is southern states, including texas.

Fine

Texas is ready to end all the federal welfare programs in all the states

what say you?
 
Of course the irony here is that its been a hallmark of every Republican healthcare reform idea or plan to switch people into high deductible "consumer driven" plans.

Yep.. Republicans have been screaming that for a couple of decades. That Health Insurance should only be for catastrophic health costs due to disease or injury. For everyday minor doctor visits and checkups the patient would pay out of pocket. In other words HI plans would have high deductibles.

But now because of politics they are against their very own idea.
 
Yep.. Republicans have been screaming that for a couple of decades. That Health Insurance should only be for catastrophic health costs due to disease or injury. For everyday minor doctor visits and checkups the patient would pay out of pocket. In other words HI plans would have high deductibles.

But now because of politics they are against their very own idea.

Im a republican and I am not against that plan
 
Fine

Texas is ready to end all the federal welfare programs in all the states

what say you?


obviously we should never have kept the confederacy, it has been a financial disaster.
 
obviously we should never have kept the confederacy, it has been a financial disaster.

Meaning you cant say NUTHIN

Thats what I thought
 
Back
Top Bottom