White House admits the new Obamacare numbers are fudged

come up with the proof? Or do you believe what the WH says? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The White House can't even justify their numbers. Yet, those who question them are labeled "tinfoil-hatted racists" by the Dims.

Yes, the NATIONAL JOURNAL "article states", CBJ7.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The National Journal states;

"The administration told the commissioners that 35 percent of enrollees are under age 35, and later said 28 percent are in the coveted 18-to-35 age bracket. However, Hamm emphasized, the health status of those individuals is still unknown."

7% are under 18 and new to the program. It doesn't matter whose policy they're on. They are new enrollees.

28% are in the "coveted" group because they pay premiums and are the statistically healthiest group.

And while the health status of those enrollees is still unknown, it is very likely to reflect the general health status of a similar group of existing health ensured people.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT....

Never give up! Never surrender! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You accidentally posted the minutes of your last Austin Reacharound Crew meeting Assup.

You accidentally posted the minutes of your last Austin Reacharound Crew meeting Assup. Originally Posted by gnadfly

troll much ??

The National Journal states;

"The administration told the commissioners that 35 percent of enrollees are under age 35, and later said 28 percent are in the coveted 18-to-35 age bracket. However, Hamm emphasized, the health status of those individuals is still unknown."

7% are under 18 and new to the program. It doesn't matter whose policy they're on. They are new enrollees.

28% are in the "coveted" group because they pay premiums and are the statistically healthiest group.

And while the health status of those enrollees is still unknown, it is very likely to reflect the general health status of a similar group of existing health ensured people. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

... and also being of the group noted for its high percentage of single parent households with one or more children; thus, not the sustaining "contributors" Odumbo swore would carry the load for the rest of America.

... and also being of the group noted for its high percentage of single parent households with one or more children; thus, not the sustaining "contributors" Odumbo swore would carry the load for the rest of America. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The OP was about the number of enrollees. The fact they enrolled, in my opinion, indicates they intend to pay. They know this isn't welfare.
Since no one has been required to pay anything yet, there are no hard numbers yet.

The OP was about the number of enrollees. The fact they enrolled, in my opinion, indicates they intend to pay. They know this isn't welfare.
Since no one has been required to pay anything yet, there are no hard numbers yet. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Oh, but for many, it IS entirely or heavily subsidized "welfare" with someone else paying the bill. Odumbo, Pelosi, etc., made that completely clear when they wrote, voted for and enacted the bill.

Oh, but for many, it IS entirely or heavily subsidized "welfare" with someone else paying the bill. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

How many ranchers and farmers have been at the trough for how many years getting subsidized crops, grazing rights, mineral leases, etc?
There are many types of "welfare".

Health insurance for all is by far the least offensive type to me.

How many ranchers and farmers have been at the trough for how many years getting subsidized crops, grazing rights, mineral leases, etc?
There are many types of "welfare".

Health insurance for all is by far the least offensive type to me. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Subsidizing farmers, etc., is one of FDR's greatest legacies. If it was so bad, why did the liberals put the legislation in place? BTW, which group would you say shows a better return on the investment and pays more in taxes?

The OP was about the number of enrollees. The fact they enrolled, in my opinion, indicates they intend to pay. They know this isn't welfare.
Since no one has been required to pay anything yet, there are no hard numbers yet. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I don't know about you, but enrollment implies payment. Registration doesn't (other than perhaps a token payment). The insurance companies have said (contrary to the Obama administration) that the insurance doesn't kick in until payment occurs.

troll much ?? Originally Posted by CJ7

Not as much as you. By far.

troll much ?? Originally Posted by CJ7

Calling what he does "trolling" is giving him far more credit than he deserves.

Calling what he does "trolling" is giving him far more credit than he deserves. Originally Posted by Doove

Speaking of "trolls", I saw your latest video... it is LONG...

That's pretty much all you do, Slobbrin. I guess that's easier on the old constitution than reading.

Of course, it's a lot easier to watch a video while you're taking it up mud alley from your hero, Buttman!