Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Unabogie said:
Do tell.
Click to expand...

We can get back to that once you acknowledge that you were, in fact, completely wrong about Medicaid estate recovery, and I was right. Until you can acknowledge facts, discussion about opinions is unlikely to be productive.
 
WildCat said:
There's nothing in it for me, sorry. I'm not telling anyone else what to do or preventing them from doing anything. Nor did I create the ridiculous mess that is health care in the USA, with different rules for all 50 states and still more rules depending on if you're old, young, poor, Indian, a military veteran, a government employee, a railroad employee, etc etc etc. If it was up to me I'd dismantle the whole thing create a single system that covers everyone.
Click to expand...


Did you ever bother to call the Medicaid office, as Unabogie suggested?
 
I was at the gym today, and the usual weird old guy had his Fox News on. They were spending a good half an hour on all the Obamacare horror stories, especially their chyron that said "Millions Lost Health Coverage".

Apparently, they are fomenting a meme that when people were on one plan which was discontinued but then switched to another plan, we should really only focus on the fact that their plan was "cancelled" and conflate that with lost coverage. This way we can compare the number of people who sign up with a mythical 5 million who lost coverage, which sort of negates all the millions who gained coverage.

Ok, so how many people actually lost their plans and then didn't find new plans?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eport-undermines-central-gop-obamacare-claim/

Now, a new report from the minority staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has destroyed the foundation of that particular GOP claim. It projects that only 10,000 people will lose coverage because of the ACA and be unable to regain it — or in other words, 0.2 percent of the oft-cited 5 million cancellations statistic.
The report starts with an assumption that 4.7 million will receive cancellation notices about their 2013 plan. (Notably it doesn’t endorse that figure, just takes it on for the sake of argument.) But of those, who will get a new plan?
According to the report, half of the 4.7 million will have the option to renew their 2013 plans, thanks to an administrative fix this year.
Of the remaining 2.35 million individuals, 1.4 million should be eligible for tax credits through the marketplaces or Medicaid, according to the report.
Of the remaining 950,000 individuals, fewer than 10,000 people in 18 counties will lack access to an affordable catastrophic plan.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll see if this projection holds up, but for some strange reason, Fox News never mentioned this report, even though it came out today.

Funny. I thought they were "fair and balanced"?

Finally, I'll reiterate that the number to watch is the total number of uninsured. This number will either go up or down as people shuffle around to different plans over the next year or so. At that time we can see if the ACA worked or not. Judging by RomneyCare, I'm willing to bet we'll see 95% of the public covered within a year or two.
 
Unabogie said:
Finally, I'll reiterate that the number to watch is the total number of uninsured. This number will either go up or down as people shuffle around to different plans over the next year or so. At that time we can see if the ACA worked or not. Judging by RomneyCare, I'm willing to bet we'll see 95% of the public covered within a year or two.
Click to expand...

And the GOP will be complaining how "President Clinton plans on cutting your Social Security and ACA coverage."
 
Unabogie said:
I was at the gym today, and the usual weird old guy had his Fox News on. They were spending a good half an hour on all the Obamacare horror stories, especially their chyron that said "Millions Lost Health Coverage".



Apparently, they are fomenting a meme that when people were on one plan which was discontinued but then switched to another plan, we should really only focus on the fact that their plan was "cancelled" and conflate that with lost coverage. This way we can compare the number of people who sign up with a mythical 5 million who lost coverage, which sort of negates all the millions who gained coverage.



Ok, so how many people actually lost their plans and then didn't find new plans?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eport-undermines-central-gop-obamacare-claim/







I guess we'll see if this projection holds up, but for some strange reason, Fox News never mentioned this report, even though it came out today.



Funny. I thought they were "fair and balanced"?



Finally, I'll reiterate that the number to watch is the total number of uninsured. This number will either go up or down as people shuffle around to different plans over the next year or so. At that time we can see if the ACA worked or not. Judging by RomneyCare, I'm willing to bet we'll see 95% of the public covered within a year or two.
Click to expand...


That's interesting, because almost every time I post an ACA enrollment update, someone pipes up and says "Yeah, but how many people have lost their coverage?!"

And it's always interesting that those critics here never really throw out an actual number. Because they have no real data, yet they magically come up with millions of people.

Well, now we have data. Suck it, GOP :)

ETA: So I guess, according to all the available data, we're at about... oh... 2 million+ private enrollment in the ACA.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
That's interesting, because almost every time I post an ACA enrollment update, someone pipes up and says "Yeah, but how many people have lost their coverage?!"

And it's always interesting that those critics here never really throw out an actual number. Because they have no real data, yet they magically come up with millions of people.

Well, now we have data. Suck it, GOP :)

ETA: So I guess, according to all the available data, we're at about... oh... 2 million+ private enrollment in the ACA.
Click to expand...

Yea, I guess if there's an amazing 2+ million private enrollments, and only 2 million people lost coverage then we should celebrate? :confused::confused::confused:
 
Newtons Bit said:
Yea, I guess if there's an amazing 2+ million private enrollments, and only 2 million people lost coverage then we should celebrate? :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

The report says only about 10,000 people will actually be affected in this negative way. Here are some more numbers.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/meet-the-5-million-uninsured

2.1 million signed up for new plans.
4 million signed up under expanded Medicaid.
3 million got on their parents' plans.

That's almost ten million Americans who got coverage thanks to Obama.

5 million were left out to dry by Republican governors.

So all in all, I'd say the ACA is kicking some ass.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Apparently, you need to read this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eport-undermines-central-gop-obamacare-claim/

Last I checked, 10,000 was far less than 2 million.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. That was a waste of time. The report is based on made up numbers by House Democrats. They're admit they're starting off a made up number, then predict that everything would be great. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in either their impartiality or their accuracy.

But even then, you're not getting the point. It's simple: if 2 million people sign up for insurance on the Obamacare website, but most of the people are just replacing insurance they lost, then the number of people that are signing up on the Obamacare website is meaningless. That's why I keep asking you for more specific information. It matters who is signing up.

In your link, the democrats assumed that 4.7 million people who lose coverage and have to get new coverage. How many of them used the website? Half? Hmm...
 
Newtons Bit said:
No, I don't. That was a waste of time. The report is based on made up numbers by House Democrats. They're admit they're starting off a made up number, then predict that everything would be great. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in either their impartiality or their accuracy.



But even then, you're not getting the point. It's simple: if 2 million people sign up for insurance on the Obamacare website, but most of the people are just replacing insurance they lost, then the number of people that are signing up on the Obamacare website is meaningless. That's why I keep asking you for more specific information. It matters who is signing up.



In your link, the democrats assumed that 4.7 million people who lose coverage and have to get new coverage. How many of them used the website? Half? Hmm...
Click to expand...


Okay, what's your source for the number of people who lost coverage and didn't get it replaced? I keep seeing implications that it's a huge number, but no actual sources to back up the claim.

Or are you going to assume, based upon no evidence, that it's in the many millions... you know, because Obamacare is bad.

ETA: Also, you seem to be ignoring this important part of the article...

*According to the report, half of the 4.7 million will have the option to renew their 2013 plans, thanks to an administrative fix this year.
*Of the remaining 2.35 million individuals, 1.4 million should be eligible for tax credits through the marketplaces or Medicaid, according to the report.
*Of the remaining 950,000 individuals, fewer than 10,000 people in 18 counties will lack access to an affordable catastrophic plan.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Well it's about time somebody gets fired by this administration...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/obamacare-site-designer-cgi-of-montreal-loses-contract-1.2491841
Click to expand...

The delay is quite understandable: you always make the guy you paid originally fix as much of it as he can on _his_ dime, then you fire him and bring someone competent in to clean up the last bits and polish it. If you're clever, you bring someone in _before_ you fire him and tell him that his guys will be doing the work, but under the competent group's direction.
 
Unabogie said:
4 million signed up under expanded Medicaid.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. 4 million signed up for Medicaid total, but Medicaid is always getting new enrollees. About half of that were people in states without expanded Medicaid, and even of the half from states with expanded medicaid, the majority were eligible pre-Obamacare.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, they didn't. 4 million signed up for Medicaid total, but Medicaid is always getting new enrollees. About half of that were people in states without expanded Medicaid, and even of the half from states with expanded medicaid, the majority were eligible pre-Obamacare.
Click to expand...

As usual you provide no link. What, are the WND servers down?
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, I've already pointed this out to you, with a link. You simply ignored it, as usual.
Click to expand...

I just haven't come to expect much from you. If you make an assertion, provide a link. In the past, and I'm not saying you did this, but other people have made idiotic claims such as that the climate scientists were relying on "error prone software". I'm sure you'll agree that only the most rank, dishonest partisans would say such a thing without even understanding the first thing about software and code.

Likewise, you'll agree, that some people are so partisan and against universal healthcare as an IDEA that they'll glom on to any nugget, no matter how pedantic and small, in order to discredit a law that's helping millions and millions of people see a doctor. Again, not you, just those rank partisans. Those people would think that the distinction between people who got onto "expanded Medicaid" vs. ordinary Medicaid is an important one. While people like you and me, who aren't partisan, would pay more attention to the wonderful fact that these people can finally get treated and be healthy.

Thanks for the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom