9.5 million have health ins because of ObamaCare

[driveby]

Just say 50 million have signed up, at least you'll only be telling one lie instead of lying daily........

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. regarding free choice, wouldn't the prolife advocates argue that "more lives" would be SAVED by banning abortion
than lives of women lost to illegal abortions? if the issue of "saving more" TRUMPS the principle of "free choice":
would you follow that line of reasoning if it were applied to PROLIFE policies, Luddly?

Its the law of the land, its not going anywhere and Americans are benefiting from it. Also heard this morning that even more money is being saved than previously thought.

Deal with it.

The Constitution is the law of the land.

And this ACA still does not answer to the doctors and medical programs that people cannot access which do not accept Obamacare.

Luddly: EVEN MORE MONEY would be saved if all people

* invested those same dollars in real estate to become financially independent,
or set up their own health companies, schools and coops, rather than paying insurance companies that do not provide sustainable medical
education or services. I have heard of some hospital systems merging or buying out insurance companies so that they are combined.

So why not have federal govt require all people to invest in business development?
Why stop with just insurance if that doesn't cover all health care costs for all people?

buying insurance alone does not cover the costs to the consumers.
So there are better ways to invest that covers ALL the costs and provisions of health care.
This system does not.

* incorporated spiritual healing to eliminate the causes of disease and crime.
Again, govt cannot mandate or regulate that!
So we still rely on resources and measures OUTSIDE the scope of govt and ACA.
Why is it wrong to want free choice to invest in that, when it is clearly needed anyway in addition to anything under govt?

The penalty and mandates under ACA should be removed to REWARD not punish people for investing equally in these other means of providing health care that isn't covered by govt.

To cover all people, the ACA should remain voluntary and optional, in addition to other systems necessary to cover the entire population, including developing the actual medical facilities and programs.

It makes no sense to penalize people who would rather invest in medical programs directly.

Why is it, every time someone you're after posts about apples, you go off on a rant about oranges?

Or, are you saying you rub dirt on your boo boos?

We can start a new thread if you think that's better.

Just asking would you equally celebrate a victory if a
PROLIFE program were forced on the American public,
and "more lives were getting saved" at the cost of free choice.

Do we need a new thread for that, or can you answer that here?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

P.S. regarding free choice, wouldn't the prolife advocates argue that "more lives" would be SAVED by banning abortion
than lives of women lost to illegal abortions? if the issue of "saving more" TRUMPS the principle of "free choice":
would you follow that line of reasoning if it were applied to PROLIFE policies, Luddly?



The Constitution is the law of the land.

And this ACA still does not answer to the doctors and medical programs that people cannot access which do not accept Obamacare.

Luddly: EVEN MORE MONEY would be saved if all people

* invested those same dollars in real estate to become financially independent,
or set up their own health companies, schools and coops, rather than paying insurance companies that do not provide sustainable medical
education or services. I have heard of some hospital systems merging or buying out insurance companies so that they are combined.

So why not have federal govt require all people to invest in business development?
Why stop with just insurance if that doesn't cover all health care costs for all people?

buying insurance alone does not cover the costs to the consumers.
So there are better ways to invest that covers ALL the costs and provisions of health care.
This system does not.

* incorporated spiritual healing to eliminate the causes of disease and crime.
Again, govt cannot mandate or regulate that!
So we still rely on resources and measures OUTSIDE the scope of govt and ACA.
Why is it wrong to want free choice to invest in that, when it is clearly needed anyway in addition to anything under govt?

The penalty and mandates under ACA should be removed to REWARD not punish people for investing equally in these other means of providing health care that isn't covered by govt.

To cover all people, the ACA should remain voluntary and optional, in addition to other systems necessary to cover the entire population, including developing the actual medical facilities and programs.

It makes no sense to penalize people who would rather invest in medical programs directly.

Why is it, every time someone you're after posts about apples, you go off on a rant about oranges?

Or, are you saying you rub dirt on your boo boos?

We can start a new thread if you think that's better.

Just asking would you equally celebrate a victory if a
PROLIFE program were forced on the American public,
and "more lives were getting saved" at the cost of free choice.

Do we need a new thread for that, or can you answer that here?

By your rw standards, Roe vs Wade was forced on the American public when, in fact, it did just the opposite because it gave us all choice we did not have before.

Do you celebrate being forced to pay for the health care of others through EMTALA or is that okay since it was signed into law by your hero, the great American enemy of freedom, Ronnie Ray-Gun?

You seem to think there is something about ACA to be debated. There is not.

Putting you back on ignore now because I just can't stand to wade through your mental wanderings.

 

[Stephanie]

it's a miracle...

it jumped 3million OVERNIGHT...

my gawd you people buying this?

laslimes folks

 

[Stephanie]

Its the law of the land, its not going anywhere and Americans are benefiting from it. Also heard this morning that even more money is being saved than previously thought.

Deal with it.

slavery was the law of land once...now you are cheering for it again with ObamaCare

lovely

you see what party was and still IS for slavery folks

 

[Rozman]

Just a day ago it was 6 million
Now a day later it's 9 million....

Yeah right!

 

[guno]

Just you wait....

Obamacare will collapse any day now...any day now

Liar. It's can't collapse, it has the unlimited funding of the tax payer to back it up no matter how fucking stupid and wasteful it is.

How about this to save money !!

Under revise plan people would receive health care at government expense just like what everyone receives in the counties with the highest quality health care systems. fundamentalists and rightwing Christians and believers of other absurdities would automatically be placed on the Prayer Care Plan. This plan would not cost the government (or anyone else) anything at all. When believers got sick, they would pray for recovery. It's really that simple.
This should be quite appealing to the large number of conservative Christians who oppose any step toward universal health care because it would save large sums of money. If they really believe in prayer, as they so often claim, then they would have nothing to worry about on the Prayer Care Plan. In fact, their health care should be better than that received by the rest of us!

You know as well as I do that rightwing Christians are not going to be lining up for such a plan. They are not interested in opting out of their current health insurance or failing to seek medical treatment. The question is why. The seemingly inescapable answer is that most do not believe what they so often claim to believe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama's healthcare law, despite a rocky rollout and determined opposition from critics, already has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century, national surveys and enrollment data show.

As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.

The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

Anyone who believes this also believes that Obama is an alien genius sent to save the planet from itself.

 

[Rozman]

By this weekend the Libs will be claiming that over 15 million have signed.

 

[Stephanie]

By this weekend the Libs will be claiming that over 15 million have signed.

hell I bet it will 60million by then

 

[Antares]

Thanks for that info.

If they ask on the website then I find it odd that in the article they're not stating that's where they're getting their info from.
[MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION] -- in a different thread you posted that they didn't ask if you were previously insured. Aye is saying that they do.

???

It doesn't ask if you DON'T have insurance, and it leaves it opened ended on the page that attempts to find out. The way it is worded does not allow for a DEFINITIVE answer.
If I can ever get into the damned thing I'll post a screenshot

LOL

Its working fine.

You're full of shit, the website was a fucking joke all day today.

 

[Antares]

Nebraska's Medicaid Program

Nebraska's CHIP Program

Medicare

TRICARE (Don't choose this if you have Direct Care or Line of Duty)

VA health care program

Peace Corps

Individual insurance (non-group

That's it, that is the extent of the questions.
Very open ended.

The main goal of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is to give uninsured Americans access to health insurance. Yet, the Obama administration has refused to reveal how many people who've signed up were, in fact, previously uninsuredwere, in fact, previously uninsured.

It turns out, it's not necessarily that the officials don't want to. It's that they can't—because they're not asking applicants the question.

Is Obamacare signing up the uninsured? It's a tough call

 

[Politico]

And another one. Did everyone get their marching orders at the same time?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Luddly
I'm a progressive Democrat who mostly votes Green.
I believe in sustainable solutions built on consensus,
so neither party meets that standard, but I will vote
for the stronger Constitutionalist since limited govt
means rewarding citizens for taking back responsibility for programs
instead of backlogging govt with burdens it isn't designed to handle.

1.

By your rw standards, Roe vs Wade was forced on the American public when, in fact, it did just the opposite because it gave us all choice we did not have before.

1. abortion laws were overturned because they violated DUE PROCESS.
they criminalized women where it would invade the woman's privacy to prove
mitigating circumstances.

If anything, the arguments AGAINST ACA
are more like arguing for free choice and against penalizing it,
also on Constitutional ground of DUE PROCESS.

Sorry if you missed this if you put me on ignore.
Why ask questions if you don't care to hear the answer?

I think this is a good point you bring up.
Roe v wade and decriminalization of abortion
is more like arguments Against ACA that penalizes free choice of health care.

2.

Do you celebrate being forced to pay for the health care of others through EMTALA or is that okay since it was signed into law by your hero, the great American enemy of freedom, Ronnie Ray-Gun?

2. i believe these costs can be collected back from the people who incur them, by setting up microlending and credit systems that citizenship is contingent on. I don't believe in charging costs of prisons or crime either to law abiding citizens, but requiring convicts to work off debts incurred by their crimes. do you believe that making convicts work to pay their expenses is involuntary servitude? do you oppose that but expect law abiding citizens to pay for charges they didn't consent to pay and that's NOT involuntary servitude?

3.

You seem to think there is something about ACA to be debated. There is not.
Putting you back on ignore now because I just can't stand to wade through your mental wanderings.

3. If there is nothing to be debated, why does Obama keep changing the rules?
How is this absolute again?

Are only laws you disagree with (like concerning gay marriage) debatable?
And any laws someone else disagrees with are a done deal?

If this is your concept of equal rights and inclusion, what is fundamental absolutism?

No wonder you have to cut me out, if my ideal of inclusion and diversity
doesn't fit in your limited mind. Sorry I give you a headache. I can see why!

Sorry Luddly.

 

[Zoom-boing]

From the article:

""We are a looking at a range of data sources to determine how many marketplace enrollees previously had coverage," federal CMS spokesman Aaron Albright told CNBC. "The marketplace application asks applicants only if they are looking to apply for coverage, not whether the consumer currently has coverage. Previous insurance coverage is an important metric, and we hope to have additional information in the future."

Yet according to Aye, in the post quoted below yours, he said they did ask about previously being insured, even for the policy number.

???

Nebraska's Medicaid Program

Nebraska's CHIP Program

Medicare

TRICARE (Don't choose this if you have Direct Care or Line of Duty)

VA health care program

Peace Corps

Individual insurance (non-group

That's it, that is the extent of the questions.
Very open ended.

The main goal of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is to give uninsured Americans access to health insurance. Yet, the Obama administration has refused to reveal how many people who've signed up were, in fact, previously uninsuredwere, in fact, previously uninsured.

It turns out, it's not necessarily that the officials don't want to. It's that they can't—because they're not asking applicants the question.

Is Obamacare signing up the uninsured? It's a tough call

For what it's worth, the site DOES ask if you currently have health insurance. If you do, you have to fill in who it's with, how much it costs each month, and other info on it (like the policy number and if it's employer provided or not). I know, because the company I work for has switched from a group policy to individual policies from the healthcare.gov site. The policies we now have include better benefits, cover more of the charges at the dr's office, have a lower deductible/co-pay, and to top it off, the policies cost far less than what we were paying under a group plan.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

From the article:

""We are a looking at a range of data sources to determine how many marketplace enrollees previously had coverage," federal CMS spokesman Aaron Albright told CNBC. "The marketplace application asks applicants only if they are looking to apply for coverage, not whether the consumer currently has coverage. Previous insurance coverage is an important metric, and we hope to have additional information in the future."

Yet according to Aye, in the post quoted below yours, he said they did ask about previously being insured, even for the policy number.

???

Nebraska's Medicaid Program

Nebraska's CHIP Program

Medicare

TRICARE (Don't choose this if you have Direct Care or Line of Duty)

VA health care program

Peace Corps

Individual insurance (non-group

That's it, that is the extent of the questions.
Very open ended.

The main goal of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is to give uninsured Americans access to health insurance. Yet, the Obama administration has refused to reveal how many people who've signed up were, in fact, previously uninsuredwere, in fact, previously uninsured.

It turns out, it's not necessarily that the officials don't want to. It's that they can't—because they're not asking applicants the question.

Is Obamacare signing up the uninsured? It's a tough call

For what it's worth, the site DOES ask if you currently have health insurance. If you do, you have to fill in who it's with, how much it costs each month, and other info on it (like the policy number and if it's employer provided or not). I know, because the company I work for has switched from a group policy to individual policies from the healthcare.gov site. The policies we now have include better benefits, cover more of the charges at the dr's office, have a lower deductible/co-pay, and to top it off, the policies cost far less than what we were paying under a group plan.

First off, I'm a SHE, not a HE.

Second, each state may have different requirements and different questions that must be answered. I'm in FL, so it will be different than what is asked in your state. Not all states are participating in the nationwide polices, and FL is one that isn't.

Third, I do know that I (and the people I work with) was asked if I was currently insured. It went on to ask if it was through my employer or an individual policy. Policy info was also asked for, ending policy date, and the monthly cost of it. If a company is dropping coverage for its employees, each employee has to give the same coverage end date.

 

[Antares]

From the article:

""We are a looking at a range of data sources to determine how many marketplace enrollees previously had coverage," federal CMS spokesman Aaron Albright told CNBC. "The marketplace application asks applicants only if they are looking to apply for coverage, not whether the consumer currently has coverage. Previous insurance coverage is an important metric, and we hope to have additional information in the future."

Yet according to Aye, in the post quoted below yours, he said they did ask about previously being insured, even for the policy number.

???

Nebraska's Medicaid Program

Nebraska's CHIP Program

Medicare

TRICARE (Don't choose this if you have Direct Care or Line of Duty)

VA health care program

Peace Corps

Individual insurance (non-group

That's it, that is the extent of the questions.
Very open ended.

The main goal of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is to give uninsured Americans access to health insurance. Yet, the Obama administration has refused to reveal how many people who've signed up were, in fact, previously uninsuredwere, in fact, previously uninsured.

It turns out, it's not necessarily that the officials don't want to. It's that they can't—because they're not asking applicants the question.

Is Obamacare signing up the uninsured? It's a tough call

For what it's worth, the site DOES ask if you currently have health insurance. If you do, you have to fill in who it's with, how much it costs each month, and other info on it (like the policy number and if it's employer provided or not). I know, because the company I work for has switched from a group policy to individual policies from the healthcare.gov site. The policies we now have include better benefits, cover more of the charges at the dr's office, have a lower deductible/co-pay, and to top it off, the policies cost far less than what we were paying under a group plan.

First off, I'm a SHE, not a HE.

Second, each state may have different requirements and different questions that must be answered. I'm in FL, so it will be different than what is asked in your state. Not all states are participating in the nationwide polices, and FL is one that isn't.

Third, I do know that I (and the people I work with) was asked if I was currently insured. It went on to ask if it was through my employer or an individual policy. Policy info was also asked for, ending policy date, and the monthly cost of it. If a company is dropping coverage for its employees, each employee has to give the same coverage end date.

Are you on a Group Plan?

If so may well be a different story, I deal only in Individual.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

From the article:

""We are a looking at a range of data sources to determine how many marketplace enrollees previously had coverage," federal CMS spokesman Aaron Albright told CNBC. "The marketplace application asks applicants only if they are looking to apply for coverage, not whether the consumer currently has coverage. Previous insurance coverage is an important metric, and we hope to have additional information in the future."

Yet according to Aye, in the post quoted below yours, he said they did ask about previously being insured, even for the policy number.

???

First off, I'm a SHE, not a HE.

Second, each state may have different requirements and different questions that must be answered. I'm in FL, so it will be different than what is asked in your state. Not all states are participating in the nationwide polices, and FL is one that isn't.

Third, I do know that I (and the people I work with) was asked if I was currently insured. It went on to ask if it was through my employer or an individual policy. Policy info was also asked for, ending policy date, and the monthly cost of it. If a company is dropping coverage for its employees, each employee has to give the same coverage end date.

Are you on a Group Plan?

If so may well be a different story, I deal only in Individual.

We were on a group plan BEFORE we switched to individual plans. The group plan we had was very expensive, had a high deductible, high co-pays, and had poor coverage of anything medical. We switched to individual polices last month that are cheaper, have little to no deductibles, low co-pays (avg is $15 per visit), and have excellent coverage for anything medical. It was a win-win for the company and the employees.

 

[Antares]

First off, I'm a SHE, not a HE.

Second, each state may have different requirements and different questions that must be answered. I'm in FL, so it will be different than what is asked in your state. Not all states are participating in the nationwide polices, and FL is one that isn't.

Third, I do know that I (and the people I work with) was asked if I was currently insured. It went on to ask if it was through my employer or an individual policy. Policy info was also asked for, ending policy date, and the monthly cost of it. If a company is dropping coverage for its employees, each employee has to give the same coverage end date.

Are you on a Group Plan?

If so may well be a different story, I deal only in Individual.

We were on a group plan BEFORE we switched to individual plans. The group plan we had was very expensive, had a high deductible, high co-pays, and had poor coverage of anything medical. We switched to individual polices last month that are cheaper, have little to no deductibles, low co-pays (avg is $15 per visit), and have excellent coverage for anything medical. It was a win-win for the company and the employees.

From the Shop Marketplace?

 

[Antares]

The list of questions I posted is from the Federal site, right off .gov.
It never asks about price, but when going from Group to Individual cost is indeed a factor, and if it is X amount of your income the Gov allows you to switch.

On the individual side you can switch from Group to Individual but you cannot get subsidy help or cost sharing.