Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thanks!
Can't find anything on this:
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)"
Do you have another source?
Source for what exactly? I provided two more links on this thread confirming the story of GOP's distortion.
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)"
This article by the LA Times summarizes the success of ObamaCare and how republicans are distorting the numbers. The most recent republican claim is that of the millions of enrollees only a small number are paying their premiums. That's bullshit.
Then there's the question of how many enrollees have paid their initial premiums, which makes their enrollments official. Here's where the GOP has moved into the realm of fiction. Republicans on the House Energy & Commerce Committee released a survey Wednesday claiming that only 67% of enrollees in the federal marketplace have paid.
Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)
Obamacare enrollment tracker Charles Gaba calls the House report "embarrassingly flawed" and, with uncharacteristic bluntness, a "pile of crap." He points out that the report assumed erroneously that premiums on all enrollments were due no later than April 15, whereas only 63% of all enrollment payments were due by then, with the rest due Wednesday (April 30) or even sometime in May. That's a big enough mistake to invalidate the entire study. Gaba adds further that figures from state exchanges in Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota and Connecticut are all coming in at 95% paid or above; there's no reason why enrollments on the federal exchange should vary significantly from those figures.
Here's the takeaway: The GOP's campaign against the Affordable Care Act is still at full cry, but it's becoming more desperate with every passing day.
LA Times
Thanks!
Can't find anything on this:
Do you have another source?
Source for what exactly? I provided two more links on this thread confirming the story of GOP's distortion.
Your links went to other pages that linked to the same links you've already linked to.
The LA Times had no link to it's quote above, which I already quoted, but will quote again.
Again, I can't find a source for the LA Times claim:
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)"
TIA
Source for what exactly? I provided two more links on this thread confirming the story of GOP's distortion.
Your links went to other pages that linked to the same links you've already linked to.
The LA Times had no link to it's quote above, which I already quoted, but will quote again.
Again, I can't find a source for the LA Times claim:
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)"
TIA
No the links I provided were linked to the same bullshit GOP report which was the point. I don't have a link to the claim you are asking about specifically. I suggest you take that up with the LA Times.
Yes Billy000 ~ I see what you linked to. 
Your links went to other pages that linked to the same links you've already linked to.
The LA Times had no link to it's quote above, which I already quoted, but will quote again.
Again, I can't find a source for the LA Times claim:
TIA
No the links I provided were linked to the same bullshit GOP report which was the point. I don't have a link to the claim you are asking about specifically. I suggest you take that up with the LA Times.
If you believe everything the LA Times article claimed, you would want to do some fact finding rather than assume everything written there is true.
And if one portion of the claims an article is making can't be backed up with a source, how can the rest of the article possibly be true?
No the links I provided were linked to the same bullshit GOP report which was the point. I don't have a link to the claim you are asking about specifically. I suggest you take that up with the LA Times.
If you believe everything the LA Times article claimed, you would want to do some fact finding rather than assume everything written there is true.
And if one portion of the claims an article is making can't be backed up with a source, how can the rest of the article possibly be true?
I think you are entirely too desperate to win this argument but you won't. I posted a total of three articles about the GOP's distortion of premium stats. That is what gives the LA Times article credibility. You are harping over one single payment stat in California. If you want to find an article that disputes that stat, go right ahead.
Lets be honest: if this LA Times article had supported the GOP report, you would jump all over it because it would fit your bias. Because it doesn't, you say the LA Times is bullshit.
No the links I provided were linked to the same bullshit GOP report which was the point. I don't have a link to the claim you are asking about specifically. I suggest you take that up with the LA Times.
If you believe everything the LA Times article claimed, you would want to do some fact finding rather than assume everything written there is true.
And if one portion of the claims an article is making can't be backed up with a source, how can the rest of the article possibly be true?
I think you are entirely too desperate to win this argument but you won't. I posted a total of three articles about the GOP's distortion of premium stats. That is what gives the LA Times article credibility. You are harping over one single payment stat in California. If you want to find an article that disputes that stat, go right ahead.
Lets be honest: if this LA Times article had supported the GOP report, you would jump all over it because it would fit your bias. Because it doesn't, you say the LA Times is bullshit.
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)
Source for what exactly? I provided two more links on this thread confirming the story of GOP's distortion.
Your links went to other pages that linked to the same links you've already linked to.
The LA Times had no link to it's quote above, which I already quoted, but will quote again.
Again, I can't find a source for the LA Times claim:
"Compared with other surveys on the topic, this looks like an exceptionally low number. Most other surveys have placed the figure at an average 85%, with some as high as 95%. (California's state exchange, Covered California, says insurance firms are reporting 85% payment.)"
TIA
Let's see now, Republicans have used their biggest guns on Obamacare calling it communism, socialism, and even threw in the death panel scare, all to no avail. In addition the Republican House has voted for it's repeal almost fifty times, and Obamacare is still here, and each day Obamacare becomes more American like Medicare, Social Security and other Democratic programs. Still, it wouldn't surprise me that in another fifty years Republicans will be claiming Obamacare as a Republican program because Republicans gave it the name Obamacare. Bless Republicans.
No the links I provided were linked to the same bullshit GOP report which was the point. I don't have a link to the claim you are asking about specifically. I suggest you take that up with the LA Times.
If you believe everything the LA Times article claimed, you would want to do some fact finding rather than assume everything written there is true.
And if one portion of the claims an article is making can't be backed up with a source, how can the rest of the article possibly be true?
I think you are entirely too desperate to win this argument but you won't. I posted a total of three articles about the GOP's distortion of premium stats. That is what gives the LA Times article credibility. You are harping over one single payment stat in California. If you want to find an article that disputes that stat, go right ahead.
Lets be honest: if this LA Times article had supported the GOP report, you would jump all over it because it would fit your bias. Because it doesn't, you say the LA Times is bullshit.
it will give the repubs a veto proof Congress, so we'd better elect Rand Paul to the White House. He's about the only one who could resist that temptation to tyranny (and then only for 4 years and only if he THOUGHT he had a shot at 8 years. Other than that, we'd have to have a dem for prez, to keep the Repub Congress from being just as bad as the Dems are.
