Really new Obamacare numbers

Snort, just because you are unable to retire does not mean others will not. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

he's been out to lunch for years, mentally he is retired

Snort, just because you are unable to retire does not mean others will not. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I have no desire to retire and I am many years away from when people will start suggesting it. This is not about you Eva though you think it is. Narcissist and Stalinist, typical progressive democrat.

I have no desire to retire and I am many years away from when people will start suggesting it. This is not about you Eva though you think it is. Narcissist and Stalinist, typical progressive republican. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Snick fixed it for you

Lazy and stupid is no way to go through life EVA but I guess it almost works for you.

Lazy and stupid is no way to go through life EVA but I guess it almost works for you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well I was trying to pattern my life after you. Maybe I need to take the course again.

There is a pschological term for someone who tries to copy another down to speech and words. I don't know what it is but it makes crappy plotlines for TV. Anyway, seek help Eva.

There is a pschological term for someone who tries to copy another down to speech and words. I don't know what it is but it makes crappy plotlines for TV. Anyway, seek help Eva. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If your life is that fucked up I will have to find someone else. Are you covered by Obamacare?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mbers-Look-Bad

....Yet many of Covered California's "successes" are only relative to the failure of the program as a whole, and most of them are overblown. For example, on the day Obamacare enrollment started, Covered California reported that it had received 5 million web hits. In fact, however, it had received only 645,000--roughly 10% of what was initially reported.
...
By the end of October, the executive director of California's Obamacare exchange confirmed that up to 900,000 people in the state would lose their current health insurance by the end of 2013--not including those who may lose it through their workplaces in 2014. Many of those are among the 500,000 or so who signed up for Obamacare through Covered California by the end of 2013--about 330,000, according to McCormack. That also means that only about 200,000 previously uninsured people signed up for Obamacare.
As for the other 600,000 or so, no one know what happened to them--they are just uninsured. The state refused to participate in President Barack Obama's proposed "fix" for those who had their policies canceled.
So roughly three times as many people have lost insurance as have gained it. That is what the left now defines as "success." The rest of the country is presumably meant to take heart from the fact that California's performance highlights the best-case scenario for Obamacare. And there are other problems--a boycott by Calfornia doctors, for one.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mbers-Look-Bad

....Yet many of Covered California's "successes" are only relative to the failure of the program as a whole, and most of them are overblown. For example, on the day Obamacare enrollment started, Covered California reported that it had received 5 million web hits. In fact, however, it had received only 645,000--roughly 10% of what was initially reported.
...
By the end of October, the executive director of California's Obamacare exchange confirmed that up to 900,000 people in the state would lose their current health insurance by the end of 2013--not including those who may lose it through their workplaces in 2014. Many of those are among the 500,000 or so who signed up for Obamacare through Covered California by the end of 2013--about 330,000, according to McCormack. That also means that only about 200,000 previously uninsured people signed up for Obamacare.
As for the other 600,000 or so, no one know what happened to them--they are just uninsured. The state refused to participate in President Barack Obama's proposed "fix" for those who had their policies canceled.
So roughly three times as many people have lost insurance as have gained it. That is what the left now defines as "success." The rest of the country is presumably meant to take heart from the fact that California's performance highlights the best-case scenario for Obamacare. And there are other problems--a boycott by Calfornia doctors, for one. Originally Posted by gnadfly

are those people unable to get insurance ?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mbers-Look-Bad

....Yet many of Covered California's "successes" are only relative to the failure of the program as a whole, and most of them are overblown. For example, on the day Obamacare enrollment started, Covered California reported that it had received 5 million web hits. In fact, however, it had received only 645,000--roughly 10% of what was initially reported.
...
By the end of October, the executive director of California's Obamacare exchange confirmed that up to 900,000 people in the state would lose their current health insurance by the end of 2013--not including those who may lose it through their workplaces in 2014. Many of those are among the 500,000 or so who signed up for Obamacare through Covered California by the end of 2013--about 330,000, according to McCormack. That also means that only about 200,000 previously uninsured people signed up for Obamacare.
As for the other 600,000 or so, no one know what happened to them--they are just uninsured. The state refused to participate in President Barack Obama's proposed "fix" for those who had their policies canceled.
So roughly three times as many people have lost insurance as have gained it. That is what the left now defines as "success." The rest of the country is presumably meant to take heart from the fact that California's performance highlights the best-case scenario for Obamacare. And there are other problems--a boycott by Calfornia doctors, for one. Originally Posted by gnadfly

1. Romneycare and Part D had rollout problems too.

2. There is nothing in the ACA law from preventing anyone from getting a new policy.

3. JD was able to get a new policy. Every preventive procedure known to man is covered with his premium. Checkups, CAT Scan, Chest X-Ray, Stress Test, Blood Tests, you name it, it's covered.

4. In the individual market old system, 40 plus million citizens are uninsured. What is the solution from the right? Just leave them uninsured?

I still think these are "best case" scenario numbers, as in, everyone hadn't paid and the the Medicaid enrollment numbers aren't too different from the same month last year.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/l...ps-in-delaware

Delaware's goal for sign-ups through the new health care marketplace was 35,000 by March 31, the end of open enrollment for health insurance coverage in 2014.

However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put Delaware's enrollment goal at just 8,000.

"Two different entities set the benchmark," Delaware Department of Health and Social Services Secretary Rita Landgraf said. "In Delaware in 2010, we looked at our uninsured population and at that time it was 90,000. And then we said out of those 90,000, how many do we think that we can outreach to... that's how we came up with 35,000."

Here we go again, the House DID NOT vote to discontinue unemployment benefits. This House DID NOT vote to "continue" unemployment benefits. Huge difference! The Senate has NOT voted to create jobs with bills from the House. According to your logic (?) that is the equivalent of the Senate VOTING to stop the creation of jobs. This is more than simple semantics. IT is a horrible lie that you threw out there flighter.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, the republicans have blocked another bid to extend benefits to the long term unemployed. Here is the link. Clearly the republicans are insensitive to the unemployed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sena...-business.html

JD, the republicans have blocked another bid to extend benefits to the long term unemployed. Here is the link. Clearly the republicans are insensitive to the unemployed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sena...-business.html Originally Posted by flghtr65

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

He did not get fired. He chose not to work. That's a big difference.

How many bills have the democrats voted for that would help create jobs......none? Keystone pipeline? Knocking down some EPA regs? Opening land for drilling? Just a few things that democrats have voted against. So what's wrong with democrats?