Obamacare has over 540,000 signups in the first week

You should stop posting about things you know NOTHING ABOUT. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Actually you should follow your own advice. The CBO is notorious for revising figures and "wikipedia" is hardly a resource for reliable information.

Cutting and pasting shit from articles is not "knowing" .... you are Gruberized.

In JD's case, it's either Obamacare or back to the VA for him. I believe that is what he posted. Originally Posted by flghtr65

I wrote that that was the intent of Obama care.

There are other options in the free market.

I wrote that that was the intent of Obama care.

There are other options in the free market. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I keep googling for a health care insurance provider called "Obamacare"!

Actually you should follow your own advice. The CBO is notorious for revising figures and "wikipedia" is hardly a resource for reliable information.

Cutting and pasting shit from articles is not "knowing" .... you are Gruberized. Originally Posted by LexusLover

But YOU are a source for reliable information, LLephantMan?

Despite the experience that J.D. Barleycorn had with the ACA, people are signing up. The enrollment numbers are higher than the previous year. It is better to be insured than uninsured.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-in-first-week Originally Posted by flghtr65

If the ACA was such a great thing the government would not have needed an actual law to force people to participate. And on that note, 540K is a long way from 320 million and again, you would think it would be higher considering ACA compliance, even for those purchasing insurance from other sources is an actual law. This means the majority of Americans would prefer to break the law than comply. Again, that is not such a good sign. Much of this is because unless you live in one of the 5 states in which ACA is actually less expensive or are unemployed or underemployed the "A" for Affordable is a lie. It is far more expensive. In fact, my company provided Blue Cross insurance premiums went up by over 20%. I went on the ACA website to price out a possible alternative and it was even more expensive for less coverage.

If the ACA was such a great thing the government would not have needed an actual law to force people to participate.

In fact, my company provided Blue Cross insurance premiums went up by over 20%. I went on the ACA website to price out a possible alternative and it was even more expensive for less coverage. Originally Posted by Vachon

You are not supposed to be publicizing reality, the Gruberized charts and graphs used by Flighty are supposed to be the only information one is to consider when evaluating the value and success of the ACA!!!!

After all ... that's what the GOVERNMENT SAID!

Remember they think everyone else is too dumb to understand!

"The Obama Legacy"



One rat at a time.

Care to voxsplain this frightr??? http://nypost.com/2015/11/20/a-new-t...cares-failure/





A new taxpayer bailout to cover up ObamaCare’s failure? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Sure thing Iffy. The concept of Risk Corridors is NOT new. The Medicare Part D legislation signed into law by Bush43 has the same thing. The ACA has it as well. With both laws, the Federal Government has asked health insurance companies to take risks that they normally would not take before these laws were passed. Providing prescription insurance or selling health insurance to someone who is Already Sick is HIGH RISK. The government knew that potentially some insurance companies could lose money participating in both laws. The Risk Corridors were put in place in both laws so that if health insurance companies lost money, they would be reimbursed by the health insurance companies that made excess profit and the government. In Medicare Part D the risk corridors (Bailouts) are on going (year after year). With the ACA the risk corridors are only in place for three years with 2016 being the last year. Both laws have the Bailout protection for the companies that lost money. See the link below( this link is not from the CBO). Study Up.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...t-d-in-charts/

The government knew that potentially some insurance companies could lose money participating in both laws. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Really? When does "the government" ..... KNOW ... anything?

And since "the government" DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING .....

... exactly WHAT PERSON IN THE GOVERNMENT KNEW THAT FACT?

... AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WHEN WERE THE U.S. VOTERS TOLD THAT BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED?

Your confession reveals the REAL PURPOSE OF THE ACA.

Really? When does "the government" ..... KNOW ... anything?

And since "the government" DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING .....

... exactly WHAT PERSON IN THE GOVERNMENT KNEW THAT FACT?

... AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WHEN WERE THE U.S. VOTERS TOLD THAT BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED?

Your confession reveals the REAL PURPOSE OF THE ACA. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why don't you ask your hero Bush43 why he signed a law that had Bailouts for insurance companies to paid for in part by the Federal Government?

Why don't you ask your hero Bush43 why he signed a law that had Bailouts for insurance companies to paid for in part by the Federal Government? Originally Posted by flghtr65

Bush43 had NOTHING to do with Obamacare. That's why.

For some "reason" (perhaps you don't want to discuss "Obamacare") you want to discuss a prescription drug supplement for medicare and NOW "Bush43"!

I ask you a direct question .... on what you brought up ...

.. and all you can do is deflect with a question answering a question! Can't find a "cut and paste"?

Here's probably why ...

"The Obama Legacy" .... see above!

If the ACA was such a great thing the government would not have needed an actual law to force people to participate. And on that note, 540K is a long way from 320 million and again, you would think it would be higher considering ACA compliance, even for those purchasing insurance from other sources is an actual law. This means the majority of Americans would prefer to break the law than comply. Again, that is not such a good sign. Much of this is because unless you live in one of the 5 states in which ACA is actually less expensive or are unemployed or underemployed the "A" for Affordable is a lie. It is far more expensive. In fact, my company provided Blue Cross insurance premiums went up by over 20%. I went on the ACA website to price out a possible alternative and it was even more expensive for less coverage. Originally Posted by Vachon

Vachon, I am glad you posted this. It just illustrates how much confusion there is out there about the ACA law.

1. The ACA is NOT for 320 million people. It is not meant to replace getting health insurance from your employer (assuming you work and your employer offers health insurance to its employees).

2. The ACA law is for the individual market. Typically self employed or underemployed or full time people who work for a small company that does not offer its employees health insurance. People who retire before age 65 and want health insurance are in the individual market.

3. There are about 55 million uninsured people before the ACA law was passed. The ACA is only for citizens. So, subtract out 8 million illegal immigrants, the number of people the law is trying to insure approximately 47 million. The CBO projects or estimates that the ACA law will insure 39 million more people by 2018. Of that 39 million 23 million are projected to go the government exchanges (HealthCare.gov) and sign up for a private plan. You are not going to get 300 million people going to HealthCare.gov for health insurance. The most you will ever see is like 25 million.

4. Stay with me now. IF your employer offers you health insurance your ARE NOT eligible for a subsidy on the government exchanges (HealthCare.gov). If you are offered health insurance coverage from your employer, you should not be shopping on HealthCare.gov.

5. You can do all the comparison shopping you want. Getting health insurance from your employer will always be cheaper than getting it on the government exchange. The risk pools are more favorable. A company with 50,000 employees, most of them will be healthy. That is what an insurance underwriter looks at, RISK.

6. Premiums have gone up for everyone, because the health insurance companies can't weed out high risk people, like they could in the past. Once the risk pools stabilize the premiums price will stabilize ( another year or two). Over 90% of people under age 65 are now insured because of the ACA.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

Bush43 had NOTHING to do with Obamacare. That's why.

For some "reason" (perhaps you don't want to discuss "Obamacare") you want to discuss a prescription drug supplement for medicare and NOW "Bush43"!

I ask you a direct question .... on what you brought up ...

.. and all you can do is deflect with a question answering a question! Can't find a "cut and paste"?

Here's probably why ...

"The Obama Legacy" .... see above! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bush43 had something to do with Medicare Part D which has the Risk Corridors concept (Bailouts paid to the insurance companies that lost money, paid for by the government). Did you read the link? The bailout cost is the same for both laws.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...t-d-in-charts/

Check this out... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...ove-obamacare/










.