ObamaCare Strikes Out

[PoliticalChic]

Hawaii.....Obama's homestate......

How ironic is this:


1. "Hawaii’s $205 Million Obamacare Exchange Implodes


2. Despite over $205 million in federal taxpayer funding, Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange website will soon shut down. ... failed to become financially viable because of lower than expected Obamacare enrollment figures..... the website will now be unable to operate past this year.

3. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the Hawaii Health Connector will stop taking new enrollees on Friday and plans to begin migrating to the federally run Healthcare.gov. Outreach services will end by May 31, all technology will be transferred to the state by September 30, and its workforce will be eliminated by February 28.

4. ...the exchange has underperformed from day one. In its first year, Hawaii enrolled only 8,592 individuals – meaning it spent almost $23,899 on its website for each individual enrolled. Currently over 37,000 individuals are enrolled in Hawaii’s exchange - well below the estimated 70,000 enrollees that is required to make the website financially viable

5. This is not the first time that a state exchange has failed, and taken millions of dollars in federal funds down with it. Earlier this year, Oregon’s state exchange was officially abolished at an estimated cost of $41 million.

a. The debacle has promoted numerous federal agencies and organizations to investigate allegations of inappropriate political interference from then Governor Kitzhaber’s 2014 reelection campaign.

6. Hawaii now joins Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico, and Nevada as cautionary tales in government central planning...."
Hawaii s 205 Million Obamacare Exchange Implodes Americans for Tax Reform




"Debacle"

Is this not a perfect synonym for all of the Obama administration......

....and for his voters????

 

[candycorn]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

For clarity....which term did you find more painful, 'debacle,' as applied to ObamaCare, or 'slut,' as applied to your former icon?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yeah it strikes out like you always strike out in all your posts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The important point to learn here is that government health care is not going to go away. If Hawaii can't handle it, the federal program will handle it.

Montana just accepted the medicaid expansion, and Utah will this summer.

 

[MeBelle]

Hawaii Prepaid Health Care (PHC) Act (PHCA) is a state law (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 393)[1] enacted June 12, 1974[2] in the State of Hawaii to improve health care coverage by employer mandate. Under the law, businesses are required to offer health insurance to employees who work more than 20 hours per week for four or more consecutive weeks in the State of Hawaii. Before the law Hawaii had an insured rate of 70%. The highest insured rate after the law was enacted was 98%; by 2009 Hawaii's insured rate dropped to 92%, due largely to the 2009 recession.

Among other things, Hawaii's law requires employers to offer coverage to employees working at least 20 hours per week. In contrast, the federal law requires employers to offer coverage to employees working at least 30 hours per week effective Jan. 1, 2014. The two laws also set different penalties on employers that do not offer coverage.
Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


So the state of Hawaii, with a population of 1.5 million people (rounded up for simple common core math) of which 92% already had health insurance leaves...hang on let me get my pencil out...120k people uninsured people.

Someone definitely over projected the ambitious number of 70k enrollees.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The other side of the story + a dose of reality:

The toll of anti-Obamacare fanaticism Two horrifying vignettes - LA Times

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The other side of the story + a dose of reality:

The toll of anti-Obamacare fanaticism Two horrifying vignettes - LA Times

Are you not the one always whining when people put up anecdotal stories ?

Besides these stories are not anti-Obamacare......

The first is a story about someone who made some bad choices. Obamacare could not save him. It isn't Niki Haley's fault this guy is in trouble.

Rick Scott is following a better path. Once he opens the door there is no closing it.

The fact that you left wingers and right wingers can't see the government's game here is fascinating.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And once again, you are left to drop little red herrings because you have nothing better to say.

Do you disagree with the idea or the analogy ?

I certainly could not tell from your little turd of a post.

Have there been people helped by Obamacare ? You bet.

Have there been people hurt by Obamacare ? You bet.

Is it a given that one outweighs the other...I have not seen that data.

But just saying more people have health insurance isn't telling the entire story. There are plenty of people out there who now have expensive insurance that can't afford to utilize it (and probably won't be re-enrolling).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And while you are at it.....maybe you can tell me how much Obamacare has reduced our health care spending as a % of GDP.

That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate.

That last I checked....it hasn't changed it all. Maybe you have something more "substantive".

 

[PoliticalChic]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And while you are at it.....maybe you can tell me how much Obamacare has reduced our health care spending as a % of GDP.

That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate.

That last I checked....it hasn't changed it all. Maybe you have something more "substantive".

"That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate."

Liberals have been well trained to ignore truth.

The simply step over the corpse of veracity and move on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And while you are at it.....maybe you can tell me how much Obamacare has reduced our health care spending as a % of GDP.

That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate.

That last I checked....it hasn't changed it all. Maybe you have something more "substantive".

"That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate."

Liberals have been well trained to ignore truth.

The simply step over the corpse of veracity and move on.

Once again, I disagree with your tagging these people as liberals.

They are not...they are left wing morons (akin to right wing morons who somehow think that business does not operate in bed with government). Liberals like new ideas and like freedom.

Idiots like Bush 1 didn't know the difference and have soiled the term.

Just like calling Bush 2 a conservative (when his behavior was anything but....) is such a joke.

I will agree with your statement if you replace liberal with left wing........

You'll notice the topic never comes up.....after all, they got what they wanted.....

And we all kept our doctors too.....

Mind you....I do believe we have big issues with our health insurance delivery system. But Obamacare wasn't the answer.

Big Insurance loves it even though they are exiting the exchanges (some think that was the strategy all along....essentially back to the status quo with high priced plans and customers at your door step at the point of a gun).

 

[PoliticalChic]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And while you are at it.....maybe you can tell me how much Obamacare has reduced our health care spending as a % of GDP.

That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate.

That last I checked....it hasn't changed it all. Maybe you have something more "substantive".

"That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate."

Liberals have been well trained to ignore truth.

The simply step over the corpse of veracity and move on.

Once again, I disagree with your tagging these people as liberals.

They are not...they are left wing morons (akin to right wing morons who somehow think that business does not operate in bed with government). Liberals like new ideas and like freedom.

Idiots like Bush 1 didn't know the difference and have soiled the term.

Just like calling Bush 2 a conservative (when his behavior was anything but....) is such a joke.

I will agree with your statement if you replace liberal with left wing........

You'll notice the topic never comes up.....after all, they got what they wanted.....

And we all kept our doctors too.....

Mind you....I do believe we have big issues with our health insurance delivery system. But Obamacare wasn't the answer.

Big Insurance loves it even though they are exiting the exchanges (some think that was the strategy all along....essentially back to the status quo with high priced plans and customers at your door step at the point of a gun).

"Once again, I disagree with your tagging these people as liberals.....I will agree with your statement if you replace liberal with left wing........"

No can do.

Based on current usage, they are called 'Liberals.'

The best I can do is remind all that they are actually the folks originally called Socialists, and are not what you mean, classical liberals.


I have the very same response you have to the current usage of the term, fingernails on a blackboard, when folks refer to red states and blue states.

Anyone who has a knowledge of history knows that 'red' has always been reserved for communists, anarchists, socialists....liberals.

...and 'blue' for conservatives.

Their media apparatchiks switched the usage.



Face it, Sunny....they have co-opted the language by their control of the dissemination of information: the media and the schools.

I'm not optimistic about ever regaining veracity in our society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

Sun Devil has posted a classic example of Fallacy of False Derivative Analogy. Send it on to your teacher friends for use in their classroom.

He is also trying to conflate hard core conservatism with classical liberalism.

He is such a tool of the far right mouse lords.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More insured persons is better than fewer insured persons. Obamacare facilitates that. I fully expect there to be problems with the roll out and there have been but the overarching benefit is unimpeachable.

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And once again, you are left to drop little red herrings because you have nothing better to say.

Do you disagree with the idea or the analogy ?
No, it's stupid

I certainly could not tell from your little turd of a post.
I doubt that

Have there been people helped by Obamacare ? You bet.

Have there been people hurt by Obamacare ? You bet.

Is it a given that one outweighs the other...I have not seen that data.
Simple analysis is just that. The cost to treat the uninsured who wait too long for treatment is born by all of us.

But just saying more people have health insurance isn't telling the entire story. There are plenty of people out there who now have expensive insurance that can't afford to utilize it (and probably won't be re-enrolling).

Can't afford or won't prioritize? The PPACA provides a subsidy and the pool's size reduces costs.


Do you disagree with the idea or the analogy ?
No, it's stupid

I certainly could not tell from your little turd of a post.
I doubt that

Have there been people helped by Obamacare ? You bet.

Have there been people hurt by Obamacare ? You bet.

Is it a given that one outweighs the other...I have not seen that data.
Simple analysis is just that. The cost to treat the uninsured who wait too long for treatment is born by all of us.

But just saying more people have health insurance isn't telling the entire story. There are plenty of people out there who now have expensive insurance that can't afford to utilize it (and probably won't be re-enrolling).[/QUOTE]
Can't afford or won't prioritize? The PPACA provides a subsidy and the pool's size reduces costs.

Does the PPACA need some fixing?

Of course.

The fact is not one of the crazy and callous right wingers on this message board - or those running for the R Nomination - have any ideas on what is wrong with Obamacare or what needs to be fixed. The only thing between the ears of the conservative echo chamber on this issue is "SOCIALISM!!!"; a canard only fools and an ignoramus believe and fear.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The fact is not one of the crazy and callous right wingers on this message board - or those running for the R Nomination - have any ideas on what is wrong with Obamacare or what needs to be fixed. The only thing between the ears of the conservative echo chamber on this issue is "SOCIALISM!!!"; a canard only fools and an ignoramus believe and fear.

Fix Obamacare ?

Obamacare was supposed to fix something else....or is there another reason the left is so want to pin the idea on Heritage ?

It's that something else you and others won't define. And for many of us, it was never broken.....

But Obamacare broke it.

Your stupid analysis is just that.

You can have health insurance and not use it because it is to expensive to use. You never heard that ?

Strange.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure.

200 people with cars is better than 100 people with cars.

But are 200 people with cars that have no engines better than 100 people with cars that have engines.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

LOL, if you believe this ^^^ post is substantive, there is no possibility that you will get hurt by thinking (a person cannot drown in an arid sandbox)

And while you are at it.....maybe you can tell me how much Obamacare has reduced our health care spending as a % of GDP.

That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate.

That last I checked....it hasn't changed it all. Maybe you have something more "substantive".

"That was one of the arguments most bleated during the whole debate."

Liberals have been well trained to ignore truth.

The simply step over the corpse of veracity and move on.

Once again, I disagree with your tagging these people as liberals.

They are not...they are left wing morons (akin to right wing morons who somehow think that business does not operate in bed with government). Liberals like new ideas and like freedom.

Idiots like Bush 1 didn't know the difference and have soiled the term.

Just like calling Bush 2 a conservative (when his behavior was anything but....) is such a joke.

I will agree with your statement if you replace liberal with left wing........

You'll notice the topic never comes up.....after all, they got what they wanted.....

And we all kept our doctors too.....

Mind you....I do believe we have big issues with our health insurance delivery system. But Obamacare wasn't the answer.

Big Insurance loves it even though they are exiting the exchanges (some think that was the strategy all along....essentially back to the status quo with high priced plans and customers at your door step at the point of a gun).

"Once again, I disagree with your tagging these people as liberals.....I will agree with your statement if you replace liberal with left wing........"

No can do.

Based on current usage, they are called 'Liberals.'

The best I can do is remind all that they are actually the folks originally called Socialists, and are not what you mean, classical liberals.


I have the very same response you have to the current usage of the term, fingernails on a blackboard, when folks refer to red states and blue states.

Anyone who has a knowledge of history knows that 'red' has always been reserved for communists, anarchists, socialists....liberals.

...and 'blue' for conservatives.

Their media apparatchiks switched the usage.



Face it, Sunny....they have co-opted the language by their control of the dissemination of information: the media and the schools.

I'm not optimistic about ever regaining veracity in our society.

I'll go with that....

But if someone does not point it out, it has no chance of happening.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

But just saying more people have health insurance isn't telling the entire story. There are plenty of people out there who now have expensive insurance that can't afford to utilize it (and probably won't be re-enrolling).

Can't afford or won't prioritize? The PPACA provides a subsidy and the pool's size reduces costs.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's rich.

As CATO put it so well...Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal.

Prioritize ?

What do they prioritize now that they could not prioritize before ?

Please ..... do tell.