Employer Coverage Booming Under ACA

[JimH52]

Nevertheless, the group plan mandates have been pushed back till late 2016, so people that signed up will lose their plans once they kick in.

When people "lose their plans" they dont "lose their option to have a plan," that is the problem with wingnut media. They dont like details.

Or the truth....

 

[The Rabbi]

Democrats lying about the success of obamacare is not surprising. It was a direct order from the white house.

It didnt have to be. The bureaucracy is now enmeshed with the administration to the point that all Obama has to do is hint at what he wants and they do it. IRS badgering, fake unemployment numbers, fake Obamacare numbers. Theyre all onboard with it.

Fake...Fake...Fake. And you just happen to have no link. SHOCKED

And if I provide links you'll admit I was right, yeah?

 

[G.T.]

It didnt have to be. The bureaucracy is now enmeshed with the administration to the point that all Obama has to do is hint at what he wants and they do it. IRS badgering, fake unemployment numbers, fake Obamacare numbers. Theyre all onboard with it.

Has the way unemployment is tallied change at all in the last 30 years? Honest question.

Probably.
But it changed in the month ahead of the presidential election to show a much lower rate than it really was. This was done explicitly for political purposes, to make Obama look better. Benghazi was done for political purposes, to make Obama look better. The ACA signups are done for political purposes to make Democrats look better. See a pattern here?

Which part of the formula was changed?

 

[Antares]

LL do you even care that Obama went on National Television and said that 7.1 MILLION had signed up through the Exchanges but the truth is that only 3.9 did?

Do you even care?

You do not know the truth, gramps. The numbers that the administration used are verifiable.

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that only 1.4 million signed up on the exchanges?

Let's start with this....

Groups 2-99 MUST be compliant.
Groups 100 and above can still sell Non-Compliant plans til 2016.

The Study that is being touted here says that 3.9 million have used the Marketplace, the President said 7.1 million, and no HIS number is NOT verifiable.

Of that 3.9 million the study says did only 1.4 million was previously uninsured.

You aren't even a challenge kid.

 

[RandomVariable]

Just when I think you have nothing useful to say you provide this excellent piece of insight. Let's take the 18 million out of the picture. Presumably they will pay the penalty for not getting insured and it's no big deal all around. Going down the line: The 8.4 may think they are indestructible but they are not, injury and/or illness at this stage of their life could make for a very rotten future. They are the least likely to get ill or injured so the insurance companies love them. The 18-25 might well know they are not indestructible but for many in this stage of life there is little money to spare. The next 12.6 can be addressed when Immigration Reform is addressed, also a group statistical beneficial to insurance companies. The 9.4 have enough to worry about without worrying about a possible condition they can not afford to treat while answering questions in a job interview. I am not sure how the dynamics of the 8 works. The 3.5 might be ones Ryan and others would like to pretend don't exist but they do and helping them stay healthy with health insurance will help them get back on their feet and they are also less than half 8 and 1/5 of the 18. All in all you have made one very compelling case for the benefits of Obamacare. One last point. In all these 47 million there is no group which is inherently a burden on health insurance payments. Presumably the heaviest burden on health insurance were the first to sign up. This means Obamacare took most all the heavy lifting from the very beginning. Compared to what has been done so far the rest is a cake walk.

 

[mudwhistle]

How many ppl that lost their coverage were given replacement coverage, by the same employer and same insurance company?

Or don't you know.....

They were not given replacement insurance. They were given considerably more expensive plans over the insurance they wanted. It would be replacement insurance if it was replaced with something of equal cost.

but them losing their coverage is a lie....

No

It is well documented.

You simply accept the White House version of everything.

We can't ignore the lies Obama repeated......well you can.

Millions of people on individual plans received cancellation letters from their insurance providers. Millions more would have gotten them if Obama hadn't pushed back group plan mandates till after the 2016 election.
Reading the federal registry shows this was all predicted by unbiased government officials. They needed a pool of newly available customers in order for Obamacare to work, so they changed the grandfather clause in order to force these cancellations and over 6 million people with plans they liked fell through the cracks.

Less than a million of the chronic uninsured got coverage. Most of the newly insured signed up for Medicaid, because they couldn't afford buying insurance offered at the exchanges. Roughly 2/3 of them. So once again you trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation.

 

[Antares]

Isn't it cute how these Lefty's pick and choose differing parts of the same study to believe in?

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats lying about the success of obamacare is not surprising. It was a direct order from the white house.

It didnt have to be. The bureaucracy is now enmeshed with the administration to the point that all Obama has to do is hint at what he wants and they do it. IRS badgering, fake unemployment numbers, fake Obamacare numbers. Theyre all onboard with it.

Has the way unemployment is tallied change at all in the last 30 years? Honest question.

Doesn't have to be in order for it to be bullshit. Simply offer enough people a way to not work, such as offering disability, then you can distort or redefine the meaning of UE.

 

[The Rabbi]

Has the way unemployment is tallied change at all in the last 30 years? Honest question.

Probably.
But it changed in the month ahead of the presidential election to show a much lower rate than it really was. This was done explicitly for political purposes, to make Obama look better. Benghazi was done for political purposes, to make Obama look better. The ACA signups are done for political purposes to make Democrats look better. See a pattern here?

Which part of the formula was changed?

I dont know. Go research it and come back and tell us about it. But dont pretend the UE numbers were not manipulated ahead of the last presidential election. That just wont fly.

 

[G.T.]

Probably.
But it changed in the month ahead of the presidential election to show a much lower rate than it really was. This was done explicitly for political purposes, to make Obama look better. Benghazi was done for political purposes, to make Obama look better. The ACA signups are done for political purposes to make Democrats look better. See a pattern here?

Which part of the formula was changed?

I dont know. Go research it and come back and tell us about it. But dont pretend the UE numbers were not manipulated ahead of the last presidential election. That just wont fly.

Ill tell you they weren't until I see concrete evidence that they were.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which part of the formula was changed?

I dont know. Go research it and come back and tell us about it. But dont pretend the UE numbers were not manipulated ahead of the last presidential election. That just wont fly.

Ill tell you they weren't until I see concrete evidence that they were.

i.e. never. Yeah, we get it.

 

[G.T.]

I dont know. Go research it and come back and tell us about it. But dont pretend the UE numbers were not manipulated ahead of the last presidential election. That just wont fly.

Ill tell you they weren't until I see concrete evidence that they were.

i.e. never. Yeah, we get it.

Well, no.

When there's concrete evidence, I'd be glad to recant.

To me, every time UE numbers are reported, the opposite side of the side in power cries foul.

That's because they're usually ignorant of the formula and how it works.

Also -

If you take away the formula, you have nothing to compare the #'s to to say if they're good or bad in our recent history because if you're calling those numbers corrupt, you're calling the formula in general corrupt thus the UE rate for the last 30+ years is ambiguous.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ill tell you they weren't until I see concrete evidence that they were.

i.e. never. Yeah, we get it.

Well, no.

When there's concrete evidence, I'd be glad to recant.

To me, every time UE numbers are reported, the opposite side of the side in power cries foul.

That's because they're usually ignorant of the formula and how it works.

Also -

If you take away the formula, you have nothing to compare the #'s to to say if they're good or bad in our recent history because if you're calling those numbers corrupt, you're calling the formula in general corrupt thus the UE rate for the last 30+ years is ambiguous.

Yes, once somebody's UE runs out they aren't counted anymore. They become chronically UE which aren't counted. Used to be this was okay because they weren't considered part of the workforce. Stay at home mothers and such. Now you have Obama using the rules to fudge the numbers. He offers them enough UE to get them feeling lazy, them tells them faking an illness will give them a steady check. He doesn't actually say this, but the implication is out there. Not to mention easing qualifications, instilling an entitlement mentality.


"Everybody deserves a home, free health care, free condoms and birth control, free abortions, and anyone who doesn't agree is a white racist Tea Party terrorist."

 

[G.T.]

ahh kay bro

 

[The Rabbi]

Ill tell you they weren't until I see concrete evidence that they were.

i.e. never. Yeah, we get it.

Well, no.

When there's concrete evidence, I'd be glad to recant.

To me, every time UE numbers are reported, the opposite side of the side in power cries foul.

That's because they're usually ignorant of the formula and how it works.

Also -

If you take away the formula, you have nothing to compare the #'s to to say if they're good or bad in our recent history because if you're calling those numbers corrupt, you're calling the formula in general corrupt thus the UE rate for the last 30+ years is ambiguous.

Now I realize to you "concrete evidence" would be a video of Obama ordering someone in Labor to fake numbers. But real life doesnt work like that. Instead you look at the evidence and decide the most appropriate theory to explain it. Since libs are notoriously stupid and unable to think beyond concrete terms like "Blue-Good! Red-Bad!" this wont make much sense to you. But here it is.
Did The BLS Give Obama A Major Election 2012 Gift? - Forbes

 

[G.T.]

of course a conversation isn't complete until the first dickwad flings the first insult

 

[mudwhistle]

of course a conversation isn't complete until the first dickwad flings the first insult

Thus you throw one.......dickwad.

 

[G.T.]

of course a conversation isn't complete until the first dickwad flings the first insult

Thus you throw one.......dickwad.

 

[Antares]

of course a conversation isn't complete until the first dickwad flings the first insult

Your mama wears combat boots.

That work?

 

[JakeStarkey]

airborne combat boots at that

actually two brothers, a female and a male cousin of ours, myself, and two nieces all have worn airborne boots bloused. Quite a family.

Who cares about insults?