9.5 million previously uninsured now have health insurance coveage

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There is an "empty" and meaningless statement ...

.. "EVERYONE" WHO HAD A POLICY BEFORE THE ACA ...

... Got a "new one" every year!

And how could "EVERYONE" have "a NEW POLICY" ....

according to the math wizards on here ...

.. roughly 40 million people are still "UNINSURED"?

Even if you buy the BULLSHIT STATS published by the White House BULLSHIT machine aka Obaminable ...

50 million UNINSURED minus 9 million NEW INSURED = 40 million UNINSURED

roughly, the program has been accepting new customers how long ?


50 - 9 = 40 ... college boy ain't ya?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CJ7

roughly, the program has been accepting new customers how long ?


50 - 9 = 40 ... college boy ain't ya?

Did you want me to put in the .5 to make it 40.5 still UNINSURED!!!!

I know what a stickler you are for "numbers"!!!!

Only 3.9 million actually enrolled in insurance plans through state or federal exchanges – not 7.1 million as claimed by Obama.

So we ACTUALLY HAVE ....

50 -3.9 = 46.1 million still UNINSURED!!!!

(Medicaid ... is "insurance"????)

[sfb]

LexusLover,

You do not get to subtract people from the total number of newly insured people because they did not get their insurance through the federal exchanges. The law forced people to sign up for insurance, whether that meant they did it through work, on their own, or through the exchanges doesn't matter, they still went from uninsured to insured.

The truth is it is way way to early to have an opinion on the success of this program. It isn't going anywhere in the next 2 years, so why don't we continue this discussion when there is more research out there, and not just opinion pieces being quoted as fact.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by sfb

LexusLover,

You do not get to subtract people from the total number of newly insured people because they did not get their insurance through the federal exchanges. The law forced people to sign up for insurance, whether that meant they did it through work, on their own, or through the exchanges doesn't matter, they still went from insured to uninsured to insured.

The truth is it is way way to early to have an opinion on the success of this program. It isn't going anywhere in the next 2 years, so why don't we continue this discussion when there is more research out there, and not just opinion pieces being quoted as fact.

FTFY! Odumbo cannot intentionally knock someone down and then pretend he did them a favor by helping them back onto their feet.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by sfb

The truth is it is way way to early to have an opinion on the success of this program.

"truth" ... as distinguished from your opinion?

That's how come the mess got passed in the first place ... FOUR YEARS AGO!

.. as in "pass it and then will see how it works"!!!

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Subsidies for reduced health insurance premiums will be taxed as income. Enjoy!

So, people who received the subsidy will be helping the government pay for their subsidy by paying a tax on it.

This would be better than the 1986 Regan law which lets uninsured people go to the emergency room of any hospital that receives money from the Federal Government and get treated for Free.

Right ringers don't have an issue with entitlements started by a republican. They only have issues when the entitlement is started by a democrat.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

As many as possible? All of them?

The point is what? That you think you can gaze into the future and say that no matter how many additional people, poor or not, obtain coverage, it's not worth the cost, or the loss of liberty, or the socialistic aspect, or blah fucking blah.

Give it a flipping chance. It's an attempt to do good. Why do you motherfuckers always have to be against that?

There's your problem. You see this as an attempt to good. It's not. If it really was an attempt to provide insurance for the uninsured, why did everyone's policy have to change, and meet new, and likely changing, government requirements? Why not just have a separate, subsidized pool for the previously uninsured? Much simpler, and less expensive. That is because this is NOT an attempt to do good, it is an overt attempt to CONTROL! They paint a "happy face" on a police state strategy, and you fall for it. It's not even going to come close to doing what it promised for years, maybe never. As we march down the road to statism, just keep telling yourself, "It's an attempt to do good!"

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There's your problem. You see this as an attempt to good. It's not. If it really was an attempt to provide insurance for the uninsured, why did everyone's policy have to change, and meet new, and likely changing, government requirements? Why not just have a separate, subsidized pool for the previously uninsured? Much simpler, and less expensive. That is because this is NOT an attempt to do good, it is an overt attempt to CONTROL! They paint a "happy face" on a police state strategy, and you fall for it. It's not even going to come close to doing what it promised for years, maybe never. As we march down the road to statism, just keep telling yourself, "It's an attempt to do good!"

you just can't quite seem to wrap your head around FACTS can you.?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

So, people who received the subsidy will be helping the government pay for their subsidy by paying a tax on it.

This would be better than the 1986 Regan law which lets uninsured people go to the emergency room of any hospital that receives money from the Federal Government and get treated for Free.

Right ringers don't have an issue with entitlements started by a republican. They only have issues when the entitlement is started by a democrat.

You believe a lot of bullshit. I still think you're a woman.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There's your problem. You see this as an attempt to good. It's not. If it really was an attempt to provide insurance for the uninsured, why did everyone's policy have to change, and meet new, and likely changing, government requirements? Why not just have a separate, subsidized pool for the previously uninsured? Much simpler, and less expensive. That is because this is NOT an attempt to do good, it is an overt attempt to CONTROL! They paint a "happy face" on a police state strategy, and you fall for it. It's not even going to come close to doing what it promised for years, maybe never. As we march down the road to statism, just keep telling yourself, "It's an attempt to do good!"

Point COG. So if emergency room bailout was the goal, why didn't the Oministration just pass some emergency room insurance policy? In fact, they characterized "hospitalization" policies as worthless.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There's your problem. You see this as an attempt to good. It's not. If it really was an attempt to provide insurance for the uninsured, why did everyone's policy have to change, and meet new, and likely changing, government requirements? Why not just have a separate, subsidized pool for the previously uninsured? Much simpler, and less expensive. That is because this is NOT an attempt to do good, it is an overt attempt to CONTROL! They paint a "happy face" on a police state strategy, and you fall for it. It's not even going to come close to doing what it promised for years, maybe never. As we march down the road to statism, just keep telling yourself, "It's an attempt to do good!"

How can you say it's not a good thing? The idea that all of the people that live in our country should have access to decent healthcare? Come on, I get that we disagree on the details but shit....what better purpose than this?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So we ACTUALLY HAVE ....

50 -3.9 = 46.1 million still UNINSURED!!!!

(Medicaid ... is "insurance"????)

LL, for a person who claims to be a CFO where you work, you have a lot trouble with Basic Accounting on ECCIE.

Medicaid is not the same as a private insurance plan. The CBO does take you off the uninsured count if you do qualify for the Expanded Medicaid or an Obamacare private insurance plan.

You did not subtract out the 9 million illegal immigrants who do not qualify for Expanded Medicaid or an Obamacare plan.

There are 9.5 million who have gained insurance from the Exchanges, Expanded Medicaid and people under 26 enrolled on their parents plan.

50 - 9 = 41 million uninsured to start.

41 - 9.5 = 31.5 still uninsured in 2014.

The CBO projects that by 2017 39 million will become insured through the exchanges and the expanded Medicaid. The CBO also projects that by 2017 93% of all citizens under age 65 will be insured. The CBO does not project 40 million people to be insured in the first year of the ACA rollout. See table 3 in the link.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There's your problem. You see this as an attempt to good. It's not. If it really was an attempt to provide insurance for the uninsured, why did everyone's policy have to change, and meet new, and likely changing, government requirements? Why not just have a separate, subsidized pool for the previously uninsured? Much simpler, and less expensive. That is because this is NOT an attempt to do good, it is an overt attempt to CONTROL! They paint a "happy face" on a police state strategy, and you fall for it. It's not even going to come close to doing what it promised for years, maybe never. As we march down the road to statism, just keep telling yourself, "It's an attempt to do good!"

Originally Posted by timpage

How can you say it's not a good thing? The idea that all of the people that live in our country should have access to decent healthcare? Come on, I get that we disagree on the details but shit....what better purpose than this?

Not decent health care.....decent health insurance.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by timpage

How can you say it's not a good thing? The idea that all of the people that live in our country should have access to decent healthcare? Come on, I get that we disagree on the details but shit....what better purpose than this?

You're a funny mother fucker...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

How can you say it's not a good thing? The idea that all of the people that live in our country should have access to decent healthcare? Come on, I get that we disagree on the details but shit....what better purpose than this?

Read my post. I think I explained it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

This would be better than the 1986 Regan law which lets uninsured people go to the emergency room of any hospital that receives money from the Federal Government and get treated for Free.

They only have issues when the entitlement is started by a democrat.

I suppose a cite to the law would be asking too much!

I am familiar with grant/funding requirements for health care facilities who accept Medicare and Medicaid recipients as patients. For instance, M.D. Anderson will accept Medicare patients, but not all patients with insurance. When the Medicare patient "checks out" the Medicare patient has a "balance due"! Is it "free"? No. Shop around, if you are diagnosed with cancer.

MDA has accepted Medicare because as a teaching/research facility it receives Federal (and State) funding from the taxpayers and as a condition of doing so it contracted to accept Medicare patients. But if you think you can "check in" for "free" with no coverage... try it!!!