ACA - Reduces The Percentage Of Uninsured

Your photo is spot on..

Well since there are no preexisting conditions he can always wait until he gets really sick before he gets health insurance.. The IRS fine is far less.

4. Because of the ACA law 20 million more people are INSURED, either with a private plan or the expanded Medicaid (for the states that have it). Originally Posted by flghtr65

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8c9_story.html

Since this year, Obama only achieved an enrollment of 9.1 million, you must be saying that we expanded Medicaid by almost 11 million hmmm? I thought the whole purpose of Obamacare was to be an ADDITIONAL program on top of Medicaid/Medicare. Whoops. And HHS Estimates are projecting HALF the number of enrollees.. roughly 10 million, than the CBO originally estimated would be achieved by 2016.

Tell us again what a rousing success this whole POS program is again? Keep repeating it.. somewhere, somehow, a couple of the Obama supporters will nod their heads and repeat your mantra. But that's the only ones you'll convince.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8c9_story.html

Since this year, Obama only achieved an enrollment of 9.1 million, you must be saying that we expanded Medicaid by almost 11 million hmmm? I thought the whole purpose of Obamacare was to be an ADDITIONAL program on top of Medicaid/Medicare. Whoops. And HHS Estimates are projecting HALF the number of enrollees.. roughly 10 million, than the CBO originally estimated would be achieved by 2016.

Tell us again what a rousing success this whole POS program is again? Keep repeating it.. somewhere, somehow, a couple of the Obama supporters will nod their heads and repeat your mantra. But that's the only ones you'll convince. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So you don't think that 10 million more who didn't have coverage before is a good thing?

So you don't think that 10 million more who didn't have coverage before is a good thing? Originally Posted by WombRaider

no it's not, if you accept the fact that the cost of this "insurance" is so high even with the bs subsidies that it's a financial burden on the lower classes it was intended to help. so what did your Lord Barry accomplish here woombytard? he saddled the lowest economic strata of this country into "mandatory" insurance they can't afford under the threat of IRS sanctions if they don't participate. wonderful solution you libtard idiot

So you don't think that 10 million more who didn't have coverage before is a good thing? Originally Posted by WombRaider

If it cost THIS much to insure only 10 million (and dropping).. do you and Obama have enough money to insure the other supposedly 30 million left uninsured almost 6 years after Obamacare was passed?

Any idea when the Dems and Obama will get around to insuring the other 30 million Woomby-Tunes? Sometime this decade? Next Decade? the 12th of NEVER?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8c9_story.html

Since this year, Obama only achieved an enrollment of 9.1 million, you must be saying that we expanded Medicaid by almost 11 million hmmm? I thought the whole purpose of Obamacare was to be an ADDITIONAL program on top of Medicaid/Medicare. Whoops. And HHS Estimates are projecting HALF the number of enrollees.. roughly 10 million, than the CBO originally estimated would be achieved by 2016.

Tell us again what a rousing success this whole POS program is again? Keep repeating it.. somewhere, somehow, a couple of the Obama supporters will nod their heads and repeat your mantra. But that's the only ones you'll convince. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

From your link:


HHS contended on Thursday that exchange enrollment, originally pegged to reach 24 million within several years, is not plateauing but is instead on “a much longer path towards equilibrium,” as a senior official said.

Meaning since you're not plateauing yet, it will take longer to hit the original estimates. At least there is a chance that they can be hit. They think there are approximately 10 million people out there who fall in the category of family of 4 and income is > $24,000 which qualifies you for a private plan. If you make less than that you have to try for the expanded Medicaid in the states that have it.

If you get really sick, it is better to have some type of health insurance coverage than none. Your financial burden will be a lot worse. If you have an illness that cost $500,000 to treat, it is much better to be insured than to be uninsured. How many people have $500,000 in their savings account or 401K or Roth IRA or Mutual fund that are uninsured right now? Which means you would not be able to pay what you owe and will just end up in bankruptcy court.

At least there is a chance that they can be hit. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Yep.. just like there's a "chance" the earth will be hit by an asteroid. But it doesn't require us to TRASH EVERTHING THAT PEOPLE LIKED to prepare for that chance. Just like Obamacare didn't need to trash the system that 85+% of those with insurance liked... did it?

Oh wait.. Yes.. the dems DID need to trash the existing system that people liked, how else could they exert the kind of control over people's lives that they seek continuously?

>>"Which means you would not be able to pay what you owe and will just end up in bankruptcy court"

Sorry.. what it means is that if they had a catastrophic medical issue, they would USE THE EXISTING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS to pay for it. Why did we need new ones? You do know that the "poor cancer patient in Ohio" Obama used as an example when campaigning for his Obamacare passage, got treated and her treatment was paid for by EXISTING programs. She wasn't "kicked to the curb to die" or "lost her house due to bankruptcy" or any of the other doom and gloom prognostications the Obama supporters all claimed would happen.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...ouse-ohio.html

Whoops.

Yep.. just like there's a "chance" the earth will be hit by an asteroid. But it doesn't require us to TRASH EVERTHING THAT PEOPLE LIKED to prepare for that chance. Just like Obamacare didn't need to trash the system that 85+% of those with insurance liked... did it?

Oh wait.. Yes.. the dems DID need to trash the existing system that people liked, how else could they exert the kind of control over people's lives that they seek continuously?

>>"Which means you would not be able to pay what you owe and will just end up in bankruptcy court"

Sorry.. what it means is that if they had a catastrophic medical issue, they would USE THE EXISTING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS to pay for it. Why did we need new ones? You do know that the "poor cancer patient in Ohio" Obama used as an example when campaigning for his Obamacare passage, got treated and her treatment was paid for by EXISTING programs. She wasn't "kicked to the curb to die" or "lost her house due to bankruptcy" or any of the other doom and gloom prognostications the Obama supporters all claimed would happen.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...ouse-ohio.html

Whoops. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

RL50, did you read your own link? Do you know what Original Medicaid is? Do you know how small your income has to be to qualify for original Medicaid? The person in your link qualified for original Medicaid, because her income is below POVERTY LEVEL. I know the rules are complex, I will summarize it for you one more time.

To qualify for an Obamacare private plan off the government exchange

Income for a family of 4 must be greater than $24,000

To receive a subsidy from the Federal Government:

Income for a family of 4 must greater than $24,000 and less than $94,000

To received Expanded Medicaid (in the states that have it):

Income for a family of 4 must be less than $24,000 and greater than $16,000

To receive Original Medicaid in any state:

Income for a family of 4 must be less than $16,000 (which is considered POVERTY LEVEL). If your income is above the $16,000 you will not get the original Medicaid regardless the catastrophic medical issue one may be faced with.

The woman in your link had an income of $6,000. This is why she qualified for the Original state Medicaid ( and received help from an existing Government program).

Of the 30 million who remain uninsured many of them have incomes above $16,000 minimum but less than the $24,000 needed to get a private plan and live in a state that did not accept the expanded Medicaid from the Federal government. There are about 10 million who have incomes greater than the $24,000 but chose not to get health insurance in 2014.

The Individual market for health insurance changed. The employer base market did not really change, other than all policies are to have the 10 minimum benefits. The health insurance companies are still the focal point of the system. You have been listening to COF too much.

From your link:

But with a self-reported annual income of about $6,000, Canfield is a prime candidate for financial aid in the form of Medicaid -- the federal health care program for low-income and disabled people -- or charitable assistance. And the Cleveland Clinic has no intention of putting out a lien on Canfield's house -- or letting the billing process interfere with her treatment.