If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   So about those 7.5 million who signed up for Obamacare...that doesn't include the 7.8 million people who bought health insurance directly from a carrier without going through the exchange   (npr.org) divider line 168
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

2033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Apr 2014 at 12:26 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 10:41:12 AM  
Obamacare is still a failure to the people who wish it so.
 
2014-04-15 11:20:05 AM  

themindiswatching: Obamacare is still a failure to the people who wish it so.


Why won't Obama just make the Federal Government fail like Republicans want him to?
 
2014-04-15 12:28:08 PM  
Well that's the final straw.

REPEAL!!!!


BENGHAZI!!!!!
 
2014-04-15 12:28:44 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-15 12:29:46 PM  
I felt a cry like a million red staters hitting FWD
 
2014-04-15 12:30:36 PM  

themindiswatching: Obamacare is still a failure to the people who wish it so.


In the next 15-20 years, we'll view the Affordable Care Act the same way we view Don't Ask Don't Tell today: not the absolute best solution, though compared with what we had before, a huge leap forward.
 
2014-04-15 12:31:27 PM  
thanks 0bonker's
 
2014-04-15 12:31:56 PM  
Poor and middle class Americans getting health insurance makes republican Jesus cry.
 
2014-04-15 12:31:58 PM  
I almost forgot:

"BUT HOW MANY HAVE ACTUALLY PAID?  HUH? TAKE THAT LIBTARDOS!"
 
2014-04-15 12:32:19 PM  
i mean thank's
 
2014-04-15 12:32:36 PM  
And on top of that, those are just the number of policies.  So if you sign up for a single policy, that's only one point in Fartbamama's "win" column but all of your family gets sent to the death panels.
 
2014-04-15 12:34:33 PM  
It looks like it will be around 12 million to gain insurance that didn't have insurance before.

Really all the other numbers of where or how is not that relevant.
 
2014-04-15 12:34:34 PM  
Yet, Republicans are running on repealing it this midterm and are winning. I know gerrymandering and all that, still WTF?
 
2014-04-15 12:35:28 PM  

mayIFark: Yet, Republicans are running on repealing it this midterm and are winning. I know gerrymandering and all that, still WTF?


Because disinformation and stupid.
 
2014-04-15 12:36:11 PM  

Corvus: It looks like it will be around 12 million to gain insurance that didn't have insurance before.

Really all the other numbers of where or how is not that relevant.


While that's really great, I can't wait until there is 100% basic coverage.
 
2014-04-15 12:36:25 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: themindiswatching: Obamacare is still a failure to the people who wish it so.

In the next 15-20 years, we'll view the Affordable Care Act the same way we view Don't Ask Don't Tell today: not the absolute best solution, though compared with what we had before, a huge leap forward.


What's going to be funny is if we have a Republican in office and in the house and senate, because they are not going to repeal it. But they are going to have to make up some lame excuse why they will refuse to do it.
 
2014-04-15 12:38:32 PM  

menschenfresser: mayIFark: Yet, Republicans are running on repealing it this midterm and are winning. I know gerrymandering and all that, still WTF?

Because disinformation and stupid.


And voters staying home like they stupidly did in 2010. So yeah, the stupid.
 
2014-04-15 12:38:36 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Corvus: It looks like it will be around 12 million to gain insurance that didn't have insurance before.

Really all the other numbers of where or how is not that relevant.

While that's really great, I can't wait until there is 100% basic coverage.


In politics, if you ask for everything you usually get nothing.
 
2014-04-15 12:38:52 PM  

Corvus: But they are going to have to make up some lame excuse why they will refuse to do it.


They just won't even mention it and will go back to talking about tax cuts and stem cells.
 
2014-04-15 12:39:08 PM  
Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?
 
2014-04-15 12:41:18 PM  

devilEther: Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?


Did you not see an increase in your medical premiums for the previous 15 years? Because the rest of us have. Every year like clockwork.

Correlation != Causation.
 
2014-04-15 12:41:39 PM  

spcMike: Corvus: But they are going to have to make up some lame excuse why they will refuse to do it.

They just won't even mention it and will go back to talking about tax cuts and stem cells.


There's always abortion, and that will always be tied to repeal of Obamacare.
 
2014-04-15 12:41:59 PM  
Is the talking point still how many have paid? Or has that been retired as well?
 
2014-04-15 12:41:59 PM  

devilEther: Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?


So, every year before that it was going down? Also, this time around, your HR sent out a memo saying it was due to ACA?
 
2014-04-15 12:42:09 PM  
Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!
 
2014-04-15 12:42:37 PM  
I thought the "this is a failure" argument was that 6 million people were dropped from their private plans.

Therefore 7.5 million Obamarketplace signups is just false flag!

You mean this isn't true?
 
2014-04-15 12:43:08 PM  

Chakro: Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!


Which is almost half of the total uninsured before Obamacare.
 
2014-04-15 12:43:11 PM  
Are they the same 7.8 million who may not have been able to be enrolled in an insurance program prior to the ACA, whether they went through an exchange or not?
 
2014-04-15 12:45:07 PM  
That's good news, but how many of those didn't have qualifying insurance beforehand? That's kind of an important detail.
 
2014-04-15 12:46:02 PM  

devilEther: Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?



you're gonna get a lot of responses telling you that premiums have been escalating for years and they have been.

as far as your provider telling you the rate increase was because of the ACA, maybe the previous plan was falling short of the new ACA minimum requirements.

the only thing i've noticed our provider (BlueShield of CA) laying blame on the ACA is longer wait periods for phone calls.
 
2014-04-15 12:46:04 PM  

devilEther: Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?


You had substandard insurance then.  And the increase was not due to the ACA, it was due to your insurance company and your employer working together to rape you with no lube and blame someone else.


And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Tell me, when was the last time your insurance rates went up?  I bet it was before the ACA ever became law.

Take your lying lies out of here, liar.
 
2014-04-15 12:46:08 PM  

Mager: Correlation != Causation.


mayIFark: So, every year before that it was going down? Also, this time around, your HR sent out a memo saying it was due to ACA?


The memo from HR said, "As communicated in our meeting, there was an expected increase in premiums due to both our past claim history and ACA mandates." <shrugs> Hey, that's what she wrote.
 
2014-04-15 12:47:23 PM  

Chakro: Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!


So?  The ACA was never meant to insure everyone.  That's single payor, which of course can't happen because babby jeebuz will cry or something.

so please expound on your point.
 
2014-04-15 12:48:21 PM  

spcMike: Corvus: But they are going to have to make up some lame excuse why they will refuse to do it.

They just won't even mention it and will go back to talking about tax cuts and stem cells.


Right it's like how the deficit issue magically is no longer important when they are in charge but when a Democrats is in charge it's the most important issue ever.

Sorry I slipped and thought of them as rational human beings for a second.
 
2014-04-15 12:48:41 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Are they the same 7.8 million who may not have been able to be enrolled in an insurance program prior to the ACA, whether they went through an exchange or not?


Most likely. Apparently, they didn't get subsidy. So, these are well off people (to some extend, at least). Only two things could happen in that case, they decided having insurance is better than paying penalty (unlikely since the first year penalty is so low), or they couldn't get it before and can get it now. In other words, these people didn't have insurance before because they didn't want it, or couldn't get it due to per-existing conditions. (but not those who wanted it but couldn't afford it)
 
2014-04-15 12:50:05 PM  
I'll attempt the spin:

7.5 through Obamacare exchanges.
7.8 through the free market.

Therefore Obamacare is a failure and doesn't need to exist because people are doing it better without it.
 
2014-04-15 12:50:11 PM  

Chakro: Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!


Psst you know the whole country wasn't previously uninsured and the majority already had insurance right?
 
2014-04-15 12:53:16 PM  
Shenanigans.

There, I called it.

NPR:  total new enrollments are 7.5 million from the exchanges plus 7.8 million in the market.  The total, which they don't provide, would be 15.3 million.  This is based on a study by Rand.

About that Rand study:  it finds 3.9 million covered under the exchanges, and 8.2 in the market, plus 5.9 million in increased medicaid enrollment, which it helpfully sums up as being 9.3 million.

Nowhere does it mention how many people would normally sign up during a six-month period for health care in the open market.  So, a fairer reading would be:

Rand study calls into question administration claims of 7.5 million new enrollees from Obamacare exchanges.  More enrollments appear to be happening outside of the exchanges, although there is no reason to conclude that the number of enrollments has been increased as a result of Obamacare.  But the relative size of enrollments on- and off-exchange gives rise to questions about their efficacy.
 
2014-04-15 12:53:23 PM  
The price of hotdogs for my company's picnic went up last year thanks to 0bunglercare, the insurance lady told me so
 
2014-04-15 12:53:24 PM  
So that's -0.3 million net?  Repeal!
 
2014-04-15 12:53:41 PM  

Isitoveryet: devilEther: Where I work we saw was an increase in our medical benefit premiums this year due to ACA mandates. What the fark, Obama? How is increasing premiums making care more "affordable"?


you're gonna get a lot of responses telling you that premiums have been escalating for years and they have been.

as far as your provider telling you the rate increase was because of the ACA, maybe the previous plan was falling short of the new ACA minimum requirements.

the only thing i've noticed our provider (BlueShield of CA) laying blame on the ACA is longer wait periods for phone calls.


In Florida, providers MUST blame Obamacare for rate increases. By law.
 
2014-04-15 12:55:40 PM  

devilEther: Mager: Correlation != Causation.

mayIFark: So, every year before that it was going down? Also, this time around, your HR sent out a memo saying it was due to ACA?

The memo from HR said, "As communicated in our meeting, there was an expected increase in premiums due to both our past claim history and ACA mandates." <shrugs> Hey, that's what she wrote.


Not doubting that, but begs the question, which part of ACA had that effect? Besides the contraception mandate and Cadillac plans, nothing in ACA affects employer based health plans (could it be about meeting minimum standard?).
 
2014-04-15 12:56:53 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Chakro: Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!

So?  The ACA was never meant to insure everyone.  That's single payor, which of course can't happen because babby jeebuz will cry or something health insurance industry lobbyists throw lots of money at both parties..

so please expound on your point.

 
2014-04-15 12:56:54 PM  

Soon Right Away: I'll attempt the spin:

7.5 through Obamacare exchanges.
7.8 through the free market.

Therefore Obamacare is a failure and doesn't need to exist because people are doing it better without it.


Garet Garrett: But the relative size of enrollments on- and off-exchange gives rise to questions about their efficacy.


cdn.avsforum.com
 
2014-04-15 12:57:46 PM  

Soon Right Away: I'll attempt the spin:

7.5 through Obamacare exchanges.
7.8 through the free market.

Therefore Obamacare is a failure and doesn't need to exist because people are doing it better without it.


Don't forget the 3 million new "takers" on Medicaid. Creating a culture of dependence!
 
2014-04-15 12:58:30 PM  

Garet Garrett: Shenanigans.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-15 01:02:28 PM  

mayIFark: Yet, Republicans are running on repealing it this midterm and are winning. I know gerrymandering and all that, still WTF?



Winning what?
 
2014-04-15 01:02:44 PM  

jst3p: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Chakro: Wow, that's like 4% of the country!!!

So?  The ACA was never meant to insure everyone.  That's single payor, which of course can't happen because babby jeebuz will cry or something health insurance industry lobbyists throw lots of money at both parties..



oh that first and foremost.  I have absolutely no illusions there.  The babby jeebuz bit was to make as much sense as original poster.

:)
 
2014-04-15 01:03:49 PM  
So 15.3 Million more people having a middle man skim money out of the ir pockets?
 
2014-04-15 01:05:27 PM  

Garet Garrett: Shenanigans.

There, I called it.

NPR:  total new enrollments are 7.5 million from the exchanges plus 7.8 million in the market.  The total, which they don't provide, would be 15.3 million.  This is based on a study by Rand.

About that Rand study:  it finds 3.9 million covered under the exchanges, and 8.2 in the market, plus 5.9 million in increased medicaid enrollment, which it helpfully sums up as being 9.3 million.

Nowhere does it mention how many people would normally sign up during a six-month period for health care in the open market.  So, a fairer reading would be:

Rand study calls into question administration claims of 7.5 million new enrollees from Obamacare exchanges.  More enrollments appear to be happening outside of the exchanges, although there is no reason to conclude that the number of enrollments has been increased as a result of Obamacare.  But the relative size of enrollments on- and off-exchange gives rise to questions about their efficacy.


So it's just 9.3 million newly enrolled, correct?  If so, it's definitely a failure.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report