Right Wingers eating crow on price of gasoline. $1.39 in Indiana.

[Rustic]

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

I keep hearing this claim from you Progressives that the ACA has lowered the cost curve and quite frankly, Kiss...that's a bunch of hooey! Be honest for once...the Affordable Care Act was never about cutting healthcare costs...it's designed to provide subsidized healthcare to the poor and to pass the cost of that along to everyone else.

It's about control by a bunch of asshole control freaks

 

[Greenbeard]

You keep showing graphs about healthcare spending, Kiss...but you don't break down who's spending what. Show me a graph that charts savings by Middle Class families because of the ACA.

People of all incomes have seen a reduction in affordability issues over the past five years.

 

[Synthaholic]

Except that they covered even less than the policy owners thought.

Link?

Google the term 'pre-existing condition'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except that they covered even less than the policy owners thought.

Link?

Google the term 'pre-existing condition'.

People who were buying health insurance weren't aware of the pre-existing condition issue?
It's explained in the paperwork they give you before you pay. Paperwork you have to sign.

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

 

[Synthaholic]

It's explained in the paperwork they give you before you pay. Paperwork you have to sign.

In lawyereze.

 

[Mertex]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

The thing he did was increase the cost of health care to the middle class, the group that carries the nation. He is another President in a long line of Presidents who works for the rich.

No he didn't. Those that are paying more for their policies are getting a lot more than they had with their old policies....they were unable to keep their old policies because the old policies didn't meet the requirements set up by ACA which benefits the people instead of the insurance companies. And no, Obama is all for wage increase and other benefits for the people....it's the Republicans that want to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.

 

[Mertex]

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

More than likely yes. If they had gotten sick with their old policies they would have found out that it didn't really cover much....not really cheap when you end up paying more in the end.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

More than likely yes. If they had gotten sick with their old policies they would have found out that it didn't really cover much....not really cheap when you end up paying more in the end.

More than likely yes.

They bought cheap policies with limited coverage.
If they wanted to buy more expensive policies which covered more, they were free to do that.
I'm glad that you knew better than they did.

 

[Mertex]

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

Yeah....until they have to use it and then they'd be whining.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

Yeah....until they have to use it and then they'd be whining.

There's too much freedom around here.
You should make all the decisions.......for everybody.
What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Mertex]

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

More than likely yes. If they had gotten sick with their old policies they would have found out that it didn't really cover much....not really cheap when you end up paying more in the end.

More than likely yes.

They bought cheap policies with limited coverage.
If they wanted to buy more expensive policies which covered more, they were free to do that.
I'm glad that you knew better than they did.

Most of them didn't realize their insurance policies didn't cover certain basic needs. They found out when their policy no longer met the basic requirements of ACA.

Why buy insurance if it isn't going to do much for you? That's why I don't buy dental insurance, because it doesn't really cover much.....if I ever need major work to my teeth, I guess I will wish I had bought an insurance that did. However, my teeth are in great shape, so I'm able to continue to take care of that with bi-annual cleaning and check ups....and if I need major work, I'm able to afford it. Many of these people couldn't afford an appendix surgery....which probably wasn't covered, or other common illnesses that could end up bankrupting a person. The ACA covers the most basic needs that anyone should ever need.

 

[Mertex]

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

Yeah....until they have to use it and then they'd be whining.

There's too much freedom around here.
You should make all the decisions.......for everybody.
What's the worst that could happen?

I don't make decisions for anyone else other than myself.........but as a taxpayer I resented having to support those that don't want to buy insurance and then go to the ER to take care of medical needs that could have been avoided if they had healthcare. ACA should continue to reduce the need for ER. Republicans try to restrict abortions with all kinds of new laws....you want to make the decisions for them, too?

Emergency room visits may be up, but today more people are using insurance to pay for visits rather than simply sticking hospitals with unpaid bills.
Study Shows ER Visits Up Under ACA - Obamacare Facts

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

The thing he did was increase the cost of health care to the middle class, the group that carries the nation. He is another President in a long line of Presidents who works for the rich.

No he didn't. Those that are paying more for their policies are getting a lot more than they had with their old policies....they were unable to keep their old policies because the old policies didn't meet the requirements set up by ACA which benefits the people instead of the insurance companies. And no, Obama is all for wage increase and other benefits for the people....it's the Republicans that want to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.

Yeah, that is why he mandated the insurance for Americans and relieved businesses another year.
I pay $600 a month and won't use my medical unless it is a major medical issue. The cost on tests I won't pay for unless my doctors negotiate and we cut out insurance. $1600 deductible was not touched last year, nor the year before. So far $14,400 spent, plus 700 on deductible the first year and 400 this last year.

It covers jack squat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

More than likely yes. If they had gotten sick with their old policies they would have found out that it didn't really cover much....not really cheap when you end up paying more in the end.

More than likely yes.

They bought cheap policies with limited coverage.
If they wanted to buy more expensive policies which covered more, they were free to do that.
I'm glad that you knew better than they did.

Most of them didn't realize their insurance policies didn't cover certain basic needs. They found out when their policy no longer met the basic requirements of ACA.

Why buy insurance if it isn't going to do much for you? That's why I don't buy dental insurance, because it doesn't really cover much.....if I ever need major work to my teeth, I guess I will wish I had bought an insurance that did. However, my teeth are in great shape, so I'm able to continue to take care of that with bi-annual cleaning and check ups....and if I need major work, I'm able to afford it. Many of these people couldn't afford an appendix surgery....which probably wasn't covered, or other common illnesses that could end up bankrupting a person. The ACA covers the most basic needs that anyone should ever need.

Why buy insurance if it isn't going to do much for you?

That's the question we've had since Commie Care was passed. Have you seen the cost and deductibles for some of these plans? Outrageous.

Sure, you can buy better plans, but you always could even before DumBama raided the White House.

Dental insurance is around $400.00 per year. It costs almost twice as much for just one month of healthcare under Commie Care.

 

[Mertex]

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

I'm just repeating what reputable sources are saying. You can continue to deny that it is working like the majority of conservatives are doing, or you can accept facts....I can't force you to accept the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That's not true that middle class is struggling to figure out how they can pay their bills due to ACA. Anyone that is struggling to afford ACA probably didn't have a policy worth anything.....and they would be struggling regardless of ACA.

This is perhaps the hardest of the ACA’s aims to sort out. In part, there is no easy answer because the effect varies so much, depending on individual circumstances. The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that insurance is now more affordable on average than it was before the ACA’s implementation:
JAMA Forum: How Well Is the Affordable Care Act Working?


The ACA is Working for Wisconsinites

The ACA is working. So why is the opposition to it so strong and persistent? | The Incidental Economist

The Affordable Care Act Is Working

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

I'm just repeating what reputable sources are saying. You can continue to deny that it is working like the majority of conservatives are doing, or you can accept facts....I can't force you to accept the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That's not true that middle class is struggling to figure out how they can pay their bills due to ACA. Anyone that is struggling to afford ACA probably didn't have a policy worth anything.....and they would be struggling regardless of ACA.

This is perhaps the hardest of the ACA’s aims to sort out. In part, there is no easy answer because the effect varies so much, depending on individual circumstances. The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that insurance is now more affordable on average than it was before the ACA’s implementation:
JAMA Forum: How Well Is the Affordable Care Act Working?


The ACA is Working for Wisconsinites

The ACA is working. So why is the opposition to it so strong and persistent? | The Incidental Economist

The Affordable Care Act Is Working

No. If people were struggling with healthcare before Commie Care, it was an option to drop it. That's no longer the case since it's now a mandate.

One of the real problems with Commie Care is that they determine what you can afford based on your gross pay. What they don't know is what kind of bills you have to pay.

How does government determine I can afford health insurance when they don't know what I pay for gasoline every month to get to work? They don't know what I'm paying in child support or alimony. They don't know what I'm paying for my mortgage or rent. They don't know what I'm paying for property taxes. They don't know what I'm paying for prescriptions every month or utilities. They don't know anything.

This is why we don't need the government trying to micromanage our lives. The federal government is now making decisions about our lives instead of ourselves. They didn't even do this in the former Soviet Union for crying out loud.

 

[Mertex]

Does that in any way make the people who were happy with their cheaper policy suddenly feel better?

More than likely yes. If they had gotten sick with their old policies they would have found out that it didn't really cover much....not really cheap when you end up paying more in the end.

More than likely yes.

They bought cheap policies with limited coverage.
If they wanted to buy more expensive policies which covered more, they were free to do that.
I'm glad that you knew better than they did.

Most of them didn't realize their insurance policies didn't cover certain basic needs. They found out when their policy no longer met the basic requirements of ACA.

Why buy insurance if it isn't going to do much for you? That's why I don't buy dental insurance, because it doesn't really cover much.....if I ever need major work to my teeth, I guess I will wish I had bought an insurance that did. However, my teeth are in great shape, so I'm able to continue to take care of that with bi-annual cleaning and check ups....and if I need major work, I'm able to afford it. Many of these people couldn't afford an appendix surgery....which probably wasn't covered, or other common illnesses that could end up bankrupting a person. The ACA covers the most basic needs that anyone should ever need.

Why buy insurance if it isn't going to do much for you?

That's the question we've had since Commie Care was passed. Have you seen the cost and deductibles for some of these plans? Outrageous.

Sure, you can buy better plans, but you always could even before DumBama raided the White House.

Dental insurance is around $400.00 per year. It costs almost twice as much for just one month of healthcare under Commie Care.

Yeah, right....that's what Faux News says and you're sticking to it. Quit with the lies.... don't know where you are getting your information, but the cheapest policy, the Bronze plan monthly cost:

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD] Age 30 [/TD][TD] Age 40 [/TD][TD] Age 50 [/TD][TD] Age 60 [/TD][TD] [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] $263[/TD][TD] $296 [/TD][TD] $413 [/TD][TD] $627 [/TD][TD][/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

 

[Mertex]

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

I'm just repeating what reputable sources are saying. You can continue to deny that it is working like the majority of conservatives are doing, or you can accept facts....I can't force you to accept the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That's not true that middle class is struggling to figure out how they can pay their bills due to ACA. Anyone that is struggling to afford ACA probably didn't have a policy worth anything.....and they would be struggling regardless of ACA.

This is perhaps the hardest of the ACA’s aims to sort out. In part, there is no easy answer because the effect varies so much, depending on individual circumstances. The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that insurance is now more affordable on average than it was before the ACA’s implementation:
JAMA Forum: How Well Is the Affordable Care Act Working?


The ACA is Working for Wisconsinites

The ACA is working. So why is the opposition to it so strong and persistent? | The Incidental Economist

The Affordable Care Act Is Working

No. If people were struggling with healthcare before Commie Care, it was an option to drop it. That's no longer the case since it's now a mandate.

Yeah, right, and we, the taxpayer get to foot the ER bill when they get sick and have to go to the ER. Since when do conservatives care about the middle class struggling, anyway?

One of the real problems with Commie Care is that they determine what you can afford based on your gross pay. What they don't know is what kind of bills you have to pay.

Well, if you don't know how to budget your earnings to take care of your most important needs, then it's not the rest of us taxpayer's fault. I guess you like the idea of going to the ER and not paying and the rest of us picking up the tab? Oh, maybe you're one of those that never gets sick and will never get sick.....bwahahaha!

How does government determine I can afford health insurance when they don't know what I pay for gasoline every month to get to work? They don't know what I'm paying in child support or alimony. They don't know what I'm paying for my mortgage or rent. They don't know what I'm paying for property taxes. They don't know what I'm paying for prescriptions every month or utilities. They don't know anything.

In other words, you've gotten yourself way over your head and you want the rest of us to take care of you when you get sick and pick up your ER bill. Doesn't sound like the attitude of a conservative......who claim they don't want free stuff!

This is why we don't need the government trying to micromanage our lives. The federal government is now making decisions about our lives instead of ourselves. They didn't even do this in the former Soviet Union for crying out loud.

Sounds to me that you are butt hurt because you are no longer able to go without healthcare and when you have to go to the ER the rest of us would to pay for your bill.....people that don't know how to budget within their means do need micromanaging.....especially when their recklessness is costing me money. I really don't care whether you have healthcare or not......as long as I'm not having to pay for your ER bills.

 

[Mertex]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

The thing he did was increase the cost of health care to the middle class, the group that carries the nation. He is another President in a long line of Presidents who works for the rich.

No he didn't. Those that are paying more for their policies are getting a lot more than they had with their old policies....they were unable to keep their old policies because the old policies didn't meet the requirements set up by ACA which benefits the people instead of the insurance companies. And no, Obama is all for wage increase and other benefits for the people....it's the Republicans that want to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.

Yeah, that is why he mandated the insurance for Americans and relieved businesses another year.
I pay $600 a month and won't use my medical unless it is a major medical issue. The cost on tests I won't pay for unless my doctors negotiate and we cut out insurance. $1600 deductible was not touched last year, nor the year before. So far $14,400 spent, plus 700 on deductible the first year and 400 this last year.

It covers jack squat.

Yeah sure....I'm sure you were specifically picked out and given a rotten deal! That's why it is called insurance......you may never need it (unlikely) but it's there when you need it.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

I'm just repeating what reputable sources are saying. You can continue to deny that it is working like the majority of conservatives are doing, or you can accept facts....I can't force you to accept the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That's not true that middle class is struggling to figure out how they can pay their bills due to ACA. Anyone that is struggling to afford ACA probably didn't have a policy worth anything.....and they would be struggling regardless of ACA.

This is perhaps the hardest of the ACA’s aims to sort out. In part, there is no easy answer because the effect varies so much, depending on individual circumstances. The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that insurance is now more affordable on average than it was before the ACA’s implementation:
JAMA Forum: How Well Is the Affordable Care Act Working?


The ACA is Working for Wisconsinites

The ACA is working. So why is the opposition to it so strong and persistent? | The Incidental Economist

The Affordable Care Act Is Working

How do you arrive at the conclusion that healthcare for the average Middle Class family will be more affordable because of the ACA? Who do you think is going to end up paying for the millions of Americans who will be getting huge subsidies under the ACA? Who do you think is going to end up paying for the mandated coverage of millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions?

Do you not grasp the FACT that progressives "cooked the books" with ObamaCare to make it look like it wouldn't add trillions to the deficit?

The true costs of the ACA are only now STARTING to kick in!