How many uninsured before Obamacare...how many now ?

[Arianrhod]

DAMN trolls on the board. here for nothing but agitation.

I keep asking you to provide something factual and on-topic, but you don't seem able.

Post the Photoshop again.

 

[the_human_being]

Bernie Sanders stated last night that there were 26 million still uninsured under Obamacare. This is after some five or so years in. I assume this means Obamacare has only resulted in having caused 20 Million to become insured that previously were without insurance and that 26 Million have opted to not purchase insurance and are paying a penalty?

 

[Arianrhod]

Bernie Sanders stated last night that there were 26 million still uninsured under Obamacare. This is after some five or so years in. I assume this means Obamacare has only resulted in having caused 20 Million to become insured that previously were without insurance and that 26 Million have opted to not purchase insurance and are paying a penalty?

You assume incorrectly.

 

[the_human_being]

Bernie Sanders stated last night that there were 26 million still uninsured under Obamacare. This is after some five or so years in. I assume this means Obamacare has only resulted in having caused 20 Million to become insured that previously were without insurance and that 26 Million have opted to not purchase insurance and are paying a penalty?

You assume incorrectly.

Well, explain it then. Are they exempt from the penalty? Surely you're not claiming Bernie lied?

 

[Arianrhod]

Bernie Sanders stated last night that there were 26 million still uninsured under Obamacare. This is after some five or so years in. I assume this means Obamacare has only resulted in having caused 20 Million to become insured that previously were without insurance and that 26 Million have opted to not purchase insurance and are paying a penalty?

You assume incorrectly.

Well, explain it then. Are they exempt from the penalty? Surely you're not claiming Bernie lied?

I'm not responsible for explaining your cockamamie theory; you are. Show where you got this from "I assume this means Obamacare has only resulted in having caused 20 Million to become insured that previously were without insurance and that 26 Million have opted to not purchase insurance and are paying a penalty" with actual data.

 

[the_human_being]

Post #1, the OP stated that prior to Obamacare there were 47 million uninsured. Last night during the Democrat debate as I stated, Bernie Sanders said there were currently 26 million Americans still uninsured. 26 from 47 leaves 21. That should mean Obamacare caused 21 million Americans to become insured. Now, since I was under the impression that should one opt to not purchase insurance, then one would be required to pay a penalty. That should come out to the 26 million Sanders spoke of as having to pay a penalty. Is that simple enough?

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Arianrhod]

Post #1, the OP stated that prior to Obamacare there were 47 million uninsured. Last night during the Democrat debate as I stated, Bernie Sanders said there were currently 26 million Americans still uninsured. 26 from 47 leaves 21. That should mean Obamacare caused 21 million Americans to become insured. Now, since I was under the impression that should one opt to not purchase insurance, then one would be required to pay a penalty. That should come out to the 26 million Sanders spoke of as having to pay a penalty. Is that simple enough?

And you know for a fact that those are exactly the same people, or you just wanted to post the cute little gecko gif?

 

[Conservative65]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

 

[Arianrhod]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

 

[Conservative65]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

Do you deny subsidies exist? Do you know who funds subsidies?

 

[Arianrhod]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

Do you deny subsidies exist? Do you know who funds subsidies?

No, and yes.

Do you know how many "have it and can't use it"? Can you post links?

 

[Conservative65]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

Do you deny subsidies exist? Do you know who funds subsidies?

No, and yes.

Do you know how many "have it and can't use it"? Can you post links?

Then the number is irrelevant. If one person gets something another is forced to fund, it's one too many. Same applies to food, etc.

If you have it and can't use it, it's the same as not having it. All those who have it and can't use it because using it is more than they can afford, counting them as having it is foolish.

 

[Arianrhod]

The better question would be how many who now have it, can't use it because the deductible is to high?
Either way they still don't have real health care insurance that they can afford and really use.

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

Do you deny subsidies exist? Do you know who funds subsidies?

No, and yes.

Do you know how many "have it and can't use it"? Can you post links?

Then the number is irrelevant. If one person gets something another is forced to fund, it's one too many. Same applies to food, etc.

If you have it and can't use it, it's the same as not having it. All those who have it and can't use it because using it is more than they can afford, counting them as having it is foolish.

So numbers don't matter to you. As with everything else, it's all about "Me, ME, MEEEEEE!"

Boring and repetitive.

 

[Conservative65]

Add to that how many who have it and can't use it got a subsidy funded by someone else being forced to pay it.

How many? Got links?

Do you deny subsidies exist? Do you know who funds subsidies?

No, and yes.

Do you know how many "have it and can't use it"? Can you post links?

Then the number is irrelevant. If one person gets something another is forced to fund, it's one too many. Same applies to food, etc.

If you have it and can't use it, it's the same as not having it. All those who have it and can't use it because using it is more than they can afford, counting them as having it is foolish.

So numbers don't matter to you. As with everything else, it's all about "Me, ME, MEEEEEE!"

Boring and repetitive.

You should be really bored with those who benefit from someone else being forced to provide them with what they should be providing themselves.

Are you willing to claim the handout recipients care about anyone but themselves?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

O.K. gang.....

So who is answering the OP.

Don't see much on the last page and a half that comes close.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

While I said nothing about Greenbeard's data when you posted your stupid comment, it isn't lost on me that you are unhappy with PoliticalChic 's data.

Opinions are not data. Your conflation of the two may be why you're so hung up on "But Obama said this...and then he said that" as opposed to an actual interest in the numbers.

Personally, I'd go with the KFF data. Their methodology is rigorous, and they're more integrally involved with patient care than any politician.

Post 10 has no data in it ?

That's strange, I see numbers in the quotes.