Republicans are so desperate to discredit ObamaCare that they are making shit up

[MeBelle]

LA Times

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.

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

 

[TheIceMan]

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

Fact is, the Republicans don't have to make up anything.

 

[Billy000]

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

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.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

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?

 

[Synthaholic]

Shooting the messenger never gets old for the Rightwingers!

 

[Billy000]

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.

Yes Billy000 ~ I see what you linked to.

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.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

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.

Here's the reason NO ONE WITH A BRAIN trusts the LA Times...they're IN THE BAG for Obuma!

Barack Obama for president (FlasbacK)

*Los Angeles Times ^

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence. We need a leader who demonstrates...

 

[MeBelle]

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.

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.

FFS Billy000 ~ Get a grip!

I simply asked if you had another source for this quote:

"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.)

It would've been excellent had The LA Times linked to that ^^ very important statistic, don't you think?

Covered California website doesn't make the same claim the LA Times does.
Covered California Executive Director Peter V. Lee's blog doesn't make that statement.

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Most people oppose the insurance mandates who have to pay more in advance than what they need.

The REASON reform hasn't happened is
* the left want SINGLEPAYER NOT ACA MANDATES that go through insurance companies
* the right want FREE MARKET choices NOT ACA MANDATES that force citizens
to purchase from private insurance companies

Because they don't agree what to change it to, they are stuck with something
neither side wants.

The solution would be to SEPARATE PARTIES and let each have their own choices,
either under ACA as an option or exemption, or outside ACA.

It's ONLY because the parties don't AGREE to give people EQUAL CHOICE of options,
then we got stuck with the current ACA as the "default"

NOTE: I find it very telling that all the people who "argue for ACA" don't accept responsibility for the costs, but keep tranferring it to people who don't agree to ACA.

Even with Prolife activists and Christians, when they believe in their policies, they agree to fund those themselves.
Where Christians expect "other people to be responsible for their views" they get REJECTED. so why don't any of the Democrats who pushed ACA agree to pay for this themselves?
That's why it isn't getting resolved!

I find it VERY disturbing the only people I know who tolerate ACA are NOT paying like the people are who are complaining. The people complaining understand the responsibility, but the people tolerating ACA DO NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY but dump it on others.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Billy000:
Better yet,
can you show me ANY link, page, politician or ACA supporter
who believes in ACA SO MUCH They are willing to fund it themselves,
prove it works first, and then offer it to others to participate freely?

That is how Christianity works,
and spiritual healing that saves lives for FREE.

If the only way for ACA to operate is to force
people to pay for it against their beliefs which is unlawful,
how is this a good idea?

When people don't agree to give up their liberties, why is it
good or even Necessary to do that when there are still health care costs to pay for?

So if we still need to rely on charity, businesses, educational outreach,
and other means of covering health care demands ANYWAY

WHY PUNISH ALL OTHER CHOICES BESIDES INSURANCE WITH FINES
IF WE STILL NEED OTHER OPTIONS TO COVER EVERYONE?

How is this even necessary? Especially when it doesn't cover all the costs.
Why not reserve citizens rights to pay for our own health care,
since that is the point anyway?

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.

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.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[srlip]

we'll SEE what the public (that MATTERS) thinks about obamacare in November, dude. 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.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[regent]

Of our 44 presidents how many have a program named for them? Even Social Security is not called FDRsecurity. I would suspect Obamacare to morph into an even larger program and it may in the process lose its Obama name. The Republicans probably wish they could do that Obama name thing over again.

 

[srlip]

keep dreaming, dude BHO himself said that it WORKED, nobody would call it obamacare anymore. well, we STILL call it that, because GUESS WHY?