• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

blog_obamacare_enrollment_2017.jpg



Source:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixB.pdf
 
Peephole said:
It's the best the US can do. Better reform is only possible if the US gets rid of its right-wing nutters.
Click to expand...

I understand the polarization that has occurred, and the need to blame everything on the other "side". But I think it's overly simplistic.

I got the impression that what we have is a purely democratic construction, passed entirely by democrats. And in a democracy, it is what it is - those democratic senators and congressmen were duly elected and are presumably voting in their constituents best interests as they saw them.

But would you outline exactly how "right-wing nutters" (also duly elected) are somehow responsible for the ACA as it now stands. I honestly don't see the connection - though if there is one it IS how democracy works.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I understand the polarization that has occurred, and the need to blame everything on the other "side". But I think it's overly simplistic.

I got the impression that what we have is a purely democratic construction, passed entirely by democrats. And in a democracy, it is what it is - those democratic senators and congressmen were duly elected and are presumably voting in their constituents best interests as they saw them.

But would you outline exactly how "right-wing nutters" (also duly elected) are somehow responsible for the ACA as it now stands. I honestly don't see the connection - though if there is one it IS how democracy works.
Click to expand...

There was definitely a concerted push to get some republicans on board while the legislation was being crafted. Chuck Grassley on the finance committee was seen early on to be a potential get; and they ground on for the better part of 11 months trying to get him to bite, watering down the legislation in the process only to be left at the alter. Could the legislation have been rewritten at that point? Theoretically, but Ted Kennedy's death and the special election victory of one Scott Brown pretty well sealed that off. You may recall the dust up over the "reconciliation" passage of the entire law? If the democrats could have modified it at will and still passed it I doubt very much it would have gone down that way. So yeah, a democrat-only bill, but not the one they likely would have crafted in exclusion if they hadn't tried to make it none such.
 
Obama's Fearmongering

You're gonna die oneday campaign. Obamacare is genocide. Government funding for aborting fertalized embryos is nothing short of murder. Brainwashing young adults into killing babies yet to gestate fully into children. Further brainwashing the American public into believing life is worthless and how the mother's life is somehow less than what her full acomplishments in life could amount to if bearing a child. I am not talking about rape or incest here but other avenues such as planned perenthood to help with troubled young women in what could be viewed as an unfavorable cicumstance. America has made abortion clinics as popular as car washes. It gives the appearance that for a few dollars and a few minutes your life,body,etc. look and are good as new. No institution, especially the U.S. government should be obligated to perform questionable surgeries. Obama is a puppet of satan.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
ACA private enrollment projected to hit 6.72 million by 3/31 deadline
Click to expand...

I stated this a while back but again so what.

It's a law, I just don't understand the celebration.
Is there celebrations when it's tax time?

Yay 300 million have paid taxes!!
So what. I just don't get it.

Especially considering how many stipulations are suspended until after midterms. Wow, that must be a coincidence huh?

Besides that, what's the net gain of newly insured excluding those who lost their insurance?

How many of those are paid and don't require subsidies?

Is this really going to stop ER visits for non emergencies?

I could go on but what's the point.
Kind of like this law what exactly was the point?
 
Drysdale said:
I stated this a while back but again so what.

It's a law, I just don't understand the celebration.
Is there celebrations when it's tax time?

Yay 300 million have paid taxes!!
So what. I just don't get it.

Especially considering how many stipulations are suspended until after midterms. Wow, that must be a coincidence huh?

Besides that, what's the net gain of newly insured excluding those who lost their insurance? How many of those are paid and don't require subsidies?

Is this really going to stop ER visits for non emergencies?

I could go on but what's the point.
Kind of like this law what exactly was the point?
Click to expand...

Why do you guys keep asking this same question over an over?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/how-many-uninsured-have-been-helped-obamacare
 
Drysdale said:
That link is nothing but speculation.



What exactly are the numbers?
Click to expand...


If the speculation is published in a mag like Mother Jones, it equates to the truth. If the speculation originates from Fox News, it's conservative nuttery.

It's important to Obamacare supporters that the numbers come through for them, otherwise they are going to hear it from those conservative nutters. They need the win in order to feel vindicated.

For me, if it meets projections, it still really isn't good enough. The law was supposed to solve the problem of uninsured people. If you were previously uninsured and now you can get access, why wouldn't you jump at the chance? Maybe because the law isn't all it's cracked up to be?

Even if 30 million signed up this year, is that really a win? That would still leave 20 million or so without insurance. Isn't that still pretty bad?
 
xjx388 said:
If the speculation is published in a mag like Mother Jones, it equates to the truth. If the speculation originates from Fox News, it's conservative nuttery.
Click to expand...

Rather than play argument by authority games, a suspect should look at the base data and the logis behind the speculation. Mother Jones used data from acasignups.net, which as we all know is just a blog. But when you examine acasignups.net, you find the data for each state is fully documented and from official sources.

As for the logic behind the speculation, did Mother Jones make any bad assumptions or errors in logic? If so, feel free to point them out.

I haven't been watching Fox News, but have seen some really bad assumptions from that side of the argument. For example, the assumption that those who had privately purchased insurance that was canceled all bought new policies from the exchange instead of policies offered by the broker or insurance company they were already using.
 
xjx388 said:
If the speculation is published in a mag like Mother Jones, it equates to the truth. If the speculation originates from Fox News, it's conservative nuttery.

It's important to Obamacare supporters that the numbers come through for them, otherwise they are going to hear it from those conservative nutters. They need the win in order to feel vindicated.
Click to expand...

Actually, you may find it hard to believe, but Obamacare supporters find the numbers important because they represent people getting health care for the first time in years. I get that conservative nutters think that's meaningless, which is why you followed that paragraph up with:

For me, if it meets projections, it still really isn't good enough. The law was supposed to solve the problem of uninsured people. If you were previously uninsured and now you can get access, why wouldn't you jump at the chance? Maybe because the law isn't all it's cracked up to be?

Even if 30 million signed up this year, is that really a win? That would still leave 20 million or so without insurance. Isn't that still pretty bad?
Click to expand...

Why yes, that would be a mighty big win. For everyone. It boggles the mind how anyone could think otherwise.

As for where the numbers will eventually end up, the CBO predicts that 37,000,000 people will sign up before Hillary Clinton takes over, and the remaining people will be mostly the poor souls who live in Red States whose governors have cruelly refused to extend Medicaid to them, and undocumented people who can't get on the exchanges because YOU LIE!!!. Since conservative nutters would throw a fit if Obama tried to add them to the rolls of the exchanges, those people are going to continue to go to emergency rooms instead of GPs. To solve that problem, the nutters would have to look in a mirror.
 
Saw on FB the other day one of my Tea Party friends extolling the virtues of Obamacare because he could finally afford health care for the first time in ten years. Thanks, Obama! :)
 
xjx388 said:
For me, if it meets projections, it still really isn't good enough. The law was supposed to solve the problem of uninsured people.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point because as we all remember Obamacare was guaranteed to solve that problem inside of a month.

More like ObamaFAIL, am I right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom