The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[B-Man]

 

Reports of erroneous WA health exchange debits

 

For the second week in a row, the Washington Healthplanfinder website is down, and it's causing problems for people who are dealing with billing issues. Some of them say the website is mistakenly debiting their accounts.

http://www.kgw.com/n...-235244701.html

 

 

 

If You Like Your Checking Account, You Can Keep Your Checking Account

By Mark Steyn

 

Looks like the government may have found a way to pay down all that debt:

Shannon Bruner of Indianola logged on to her checking account Monday morning, and found she was almost 800 dollars in the negative.

“The first thing I thought was, ‘I got screwed,’” she said.

The Bruners enrolled for insurance on the Washington Healthplanfinder website, last October. They say they selected the bill pay date to be

December 24th.

Instead the Washington Healthplanfinder drafted the 835 dollar premium Monday.

 

But don’t worry, the government is in full compliance with its requirement to give them advance notice of the early seizure:

Washington Healthplanfinder emailed the Bruners a few days ago telling them to log in to view their invoice, something they couldn’t do because the website has been down. The Bruners haven’t been able to get through on the helpline either. They finally contacted Healthplanfinder administrators by posting a message on their Facebook page.

 

Renting a blimp to fly over the Healthplanfinder parking lot may also work.

 

By the way, just to make certain your Obamacare application will be fully processed by January 1st, the government is thoughtfully garnishing your first month’s premium twice:

One viewer emailed KING 5 saying, “They drafted my account this morning for a second time.”

 

When Obama has your PIN, it’s Christmas all year round. For him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 15, 2013 by B-Man

[Koko78]

Why would they be so stupid as to give the government their bank account information, especially where there has been demonstrated severe security issues that have not been addressed?

 

The idiots who support this abortion deserve what they get.

[keepthefaith]

True story from this week...

 

If you think Medicare will cover your recovery from an injury, think again. Close friend of mine has an older relative that fell while living at home. The person couldn't walk and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. Xrays showed broken pelvis and a broken vertebrae. No way to treat it except pain meds, bed rest and therapy. 2.5 days later the person was to be released from the hospital but only into an environment where the proper care was available. Rehab in a proper facility was recommended. The hospital would not release the person to simply go home. Medicare is denying the claim for rehab reimbursement as the patient's case failed to meet 2 requirements. (1) that the hospital stay was 3 days or longer and (2) that the patient did not receive "treatment" while hospitalized. So this elderly person who cannot walk and needs about 2 months to recover from the injury was told that you cannot go home unless you can demonstrate that you have the proper medical care in-home and that medicare will not pay for that or the stay in a rehab facility. So in other words, being injured and having a need for care for 2 months is not reason enough for Medicare to provide benefits.

 

Also, the person was asked early in their stay at the hospital if they had the mean to pay for rehab. They do. Why would that matter? Shouldn't benefits be based on need? The rules have changed. Welcome to the new world of government controlled healthcare in the U.S.

Edited December 15, 2013 by keepthefaith

[DC Tom]

True story from this week...

 

If you think Medicare will cover your recovery from an injury, think again. Close friend of mine has an older relative that fell while living at home. The person couldn't walk and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. Xrays showed broken pelvis and a broken vertebrae. No way to treat it except pain meds, bed rest and therapy. 2.5 days later the person was to be released from the hospital but only into an environment where the proper care was available. Rehab in a proper facility was recommended. The hospital would not release the person to simply go home. Medicare is denying the claim for rehab reimbursement as the patient's case failed to meet 2 requirements. (1) that the hospital stay was 3 days or longer and (2) that the patient did not receive "treatment" while hospitalized. So this elderly person who cannot walk and needs about 2 months to recover from the injury was told that you cannot go home unless you can demonstrate that you have the proper medical care in-home and that medicare will not pay for that or the stay in a rehab facility. So in other words, being injured and having a need for care for 2 months is not reason enough for Medicare to provide benefits.

 

Also, the person was asked early in their stay at the hospital if they had the mean to pay for rehab. They do. Why would that matter? Shouldn't benefits be based on need? The rules have changed. Welcome to the new world of government controlled healthcare in the U.S.

 

It's been that way for a while. I've mentioned my niece before: on Medicaid, broke her hand, went to the ER, got treatment and told to see an orthopedist. The only two orthopedists in her county were the ER doc and his partner, neither of whom could see her for the injury (since the one doc treated her in the ER, him or his partner treating her after would constitute some sort of "self-referral," hence illegal under Medicaid). The state Medicaid office told her to commit fraud - go to Jacksonville, claim residence, and get treatment. THEN, when she did just that, the state threatened to kick her out of the Medicaid program for fraud. After nine months of back-and-forth, we finally get Medicaid to agree that the original ER doc's partner can treat her...except now the fracture has healed wrong, and the simple reduction and cast has now become an expensive surgery and long rehab to fix the injury, and Medicaid won't pay for it because it's her fault for not getting treatment for the fracture in a timely fashion...

 

They will, however, pay for plenty of hydrocodone for the pain from the injury...which she just turns around and sells on the street.

[Rob's House]

http://economistsvie...-spending.htmlS ranks near bottom among industrialized nations in efficiency of health care spending. EurekAlert: A new study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and McGill University in Montreal reveals that the United States health care system ranks 22nd out of 27 high-income nations when analyzed for its efficiency of turning dollars spent into extending lives.

 

The ... U.S.'s inferior ranking reflects a high price paid and a low return on investment. For example, every additional hundred dollars spent on health care by the United States translated into a gain of less than half a month of life expectancy. In Germany, every additional hundred dollars spent translated into more than four months of increased life expectancy.

 

The researchers also discovered significant gender disparities within countries.

 

"Out of the 27 high-income nations we studied, the United States ranks 25th when it comes to reducing women's deaths," said Dr. Jody Heymann, senior author of the study and dean of the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. "The country's efficiency of investments in reducing men's deaths is only slightly better, ranking 18th." ...

 

"While there are large differences in the efficiency of health spending across countries, men have experienced greater life expectancy gains than women per health dollar spent within nearly every country," said Douglas Barthold, the study's first author...

 

That statistic without context is utterly meaningless - good for propaganda though. Are we comparing $ spent on cosmetic surgery and knee replacements in America to $ spent on life saving surgery? Also, is it possible that a great portion of the the disparity is due to the amount of money spent on end of life care that is not extended to old folks in other countries?

[boyst]

It's been that way for a while. I've mentioned my niece before: on Medicaid, broke her hand, went to the ER, got treatment and told to see an orthopedist. The only two orthopedists in her county were the ER doc and his partner, neither of whom could see her for the injury (since the one doc treated her in the ER, him or his partner treating her after would constitute some sort of "self-referral," hence illegal under Medicaid). The state Medicaid office told her to commit fraud - go to Jacksonville, claim residence, and get treatment. THEN, when she did just that, the state threatened to kick her out of the Medicaid program for fraud. After nine months of back-and-forth, we finally get Medicaid to agree that the original ER doc's partner can treat her...except now the fracture has healed wrong, and the simple reduction and cast has now become an expensive surgery and long rehab to fix the injury, and Medicaid won't pay for it because it's her fault for not getting treatment for the fracture in a timely fashion... They will, however, pay for plenty of hydrocodone for the pain from the injury...which she just turns around and sells on the street.

True story from this week... If you think Medicare will cover your recovery from an injury, think again. Close friend of mine has an older relative that fell while living at home. The person couldn't walk and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. Xrays showed broken pelvis and a broken vertebrae. No way to treat it except pain meds, bed rest and therapy. 2.5 days later the person was to be released from the hospital but only into an environment where the proper care was available. Rehab in a proper facility was recommended. The hospital would not release the person to simply go home. Medicare is denying the claim for rehab reimbursement as the patient's case failed to meet 2 requirements. (1) that the hospital stay was 3 days or longer and (2) that the patient did not receive "treatment" while hospitalized. So this elderly person who cannot walk and needs about 2 months to recover from the injury was told that you cannot go home unless you can demonstrate that you have the proper medical care in-home and that medicare will not pay for that or the stay in a rehab facility. So in other words, being injured and having a need for care for 2 months is not reason enough for Medicare to provide benefits. Also, the person was asked early in their stay at the hospital if they had the mean to pay for rehab. They do. Why would that matter? Shouldn't benefits be based on need? The rules have changed. Welcome to the new world of government controlled healthcare in the U.S.

I am sorry to hear both of the struggles those you know are going through.

[DC Tom]

I am sorry to hear both of the struggles those you know are going through.

 

Don't bother. My niece (wife's niece) is an idiot. We cut ties with her years ago.

[B-Man]

House Report: Ill-Trained Obamacare Navigators Encouraging Fraud, Jeopardizing Private Info

 

The Obama administration decided that Obamacare Navigators, tasked with helping Americans enroll in a health insurance plan, would not undergo mandatory background checks. Now, in the ten weeks since the launch of Healthcare.gov, the ill-trained Navigators have put Americans' sensitive health and tax information at risk.

 

Breitbart News has obtained a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report on the Obamacare Navigators that will be released Monday. It has found that Obamacare Navigators have been giving Americans misinformation and, in some cases, actively encouraging enrollees to commit fraud in order to raise their subsidies. To complicate matters further, there is no way for Americans to find out whether their Navigators are properly certified.

 

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a Congressional hearing that it was “possible” for convicted felons to become Navigators. The report, titled Risks of Fraud and Misinformation with ObamaCare Outreach Campaign: How Navigator and Assister Program Mismanagement Endangers Consumers, concludes that is only one of many worries Americans should have about Navigators.

 

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart...-Financial-Info

[OCinBuffalo]

http://economistsvie...-spending.htmlS ranks near bottom among industrialized nations in efficiency of health care spending. EurekAlert: A new study by researchers at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and McGill University in Montreal reveals that the United States health care system ranks 22nd out of 27 high-income nations when analyzed for its efficiency of turning dollars spent into extending lives.

 

The ... U.S.'s inferior ranking reflects a high price paid and a low return on investment. For example, every additional hundred dollars spent on health care by the United States translated into a gain of less than half a month of life expectancy. In Germany, every additional hundred dollars spent translated into more than four months of increased life expectancy.

 

The researchers also discovered significant gender disparities within countries.

 

"Out of the 27 high-income nations we studied, the United States ranks 25th when it comes to reducing women's deaths," said Dr. Jody Heymann, senior author of the study and dean of the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. "The country's efficiency of investments in reducing men's deaths is only slightly better, ranking 18th." ...

 

"While there are large differences in the efficiency of health spending across countries, men have experienced greater life expectancy gains than women per health dollar spent within nearly every country," said Douglas Barthold, the study's first author...

Again, you call ME stupid?

 

How does something that:

1. sets price for insurance via fixed subsidies

2. sets features for insurance via fixed benefits

3. sets reimburement rates via slave wages

 

Provide ANY chance for efficiency increase?

 

Sure, in the VERY short-term, you may see some lower prices here and there, but that's because they are being government enforced, and not as a result of "better mouse traps".

 

In this model, just like in dopey Canada/England/Germany et al, you have quite literally removed all of the incentives to increase efficiency. Where's the ROI for a doctor who agrees to see Medicaid people? 0. He's going to get paid the exact same for his 200 patients, now and forever. Oh, there might be a COLA increase every few years. Hooray!

 

The only thing this leaves is "cut cost". Which...is why, if I really was a selfish prick, narcissist, whatever, I'd be Obamacare's #1 supporter. Cutting cost is our specialty consulting practice in the health care industry.

 

But, I am none of those things, and, I would like to see the best firms be able to charge premium prices for the best service...you know...like why Mercedes Benz exists? And, "economy" firms charge "economy" prices...like why Honda civics exist.

 

You know, basically how the F markets actually work?

 

Insurance itself is the culprit here. Health insurance, just like Medicare, was a means to an end...and an idea from 60 years ago which is now obsolete. Insurance existed because "don't you know there's a war on?" Cue: Harry Fonda and James Cagney. "Yeah buster, the government's got this new plan to win the war, see? And, where's your fedora, fella?" Obama himself called this "outdated" and/or "organized poorly". That's why we need to go to HSAs, that's why we need to do catastrophic/bankruptcy protection pools, that includes millions(and is sold by Wal Mart)

 

...and that's why liberals getting involved in things they no nothing about, and being aggressively stupid...is ALWAYS a recipe for chaos.

Edited December 16, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

More bad news for Democrats in Obamacare poll: AP-GfK poll: Health law seen as eroding coverage.

 

 

 

 

ObamaCare: Connecticut’s Epic Fail.

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE: Public Confidence in Britain’s NHS At Record Low.

 

 

.

[JuanGuzman]

Explain how the ACA addresses spending efficiency.

 

First things first, I should note that the best part of Obamacare is the fact that those 40-50 million people with out health insurance will get health insurance. That being said I believe ACA or Obamacare will have result in more efficient health spending then what was the status quo. Here a couple ways:

1. The "Community Rating" which prohibits insurers from varying rates based on health status or claims history will mean reduced administrative costs as insurers stop devoting administrative dollars yp investigating peoples health history or gaming insurance contracts so that they include only healthy people in their risk pool. I think this has already been seen in reduced premiums and rebates for consumers.. from the June 2013 Kaiser study: the study focused on actual experience under the Affordable Care Act as it affected individual market consumers (those buying insurance on their own). The study found that the Medical Loss Ratio provision of the Act had saved this group of consumers $1.2 billion in 2011 and $2.1 billion in 2012, reducing their 2012 costs by 7.5%.
    
    
    
   
2. Expansion of medicaid benfits to more people. Medicaid has been the most cost efficient insurer over the last decade.. performed better .
    
   
3. Buying workhorse/brand name pharmaceutical drugs and using bulk buying to negotiate discounts, yes that means lower profits for pharmaceutical firms but lower costs health insurance.
    
    
    
   
4. Moving away from fee-for-service to bundled payments.. bundled payments allow insurers to negotiate for one episode of care instead of doctors doing unesscessary treatments in the old fee for service model. I'm interested to see how this works for medicare but its expective to incentivize better care ass doctors and hospitals are rewarded for good treatment and lower re-admission rates ect. Most studies expect bundled payments to deliver better service for less cost. I think the RAND corporations expects savings of at least 5.4 per cent over a 10 year period
    
    
   
5. penalties for cadillac plans... basically one of the ways employer delivered health insurance was encouraged in the U.S. is due to favourable tax treatment for health benefits, it would be treated differently than income and not tax so employers/employees were incentivized to take health insurance instead of income. The problem is that for really high income earners it makes sense to increase your health insurance benefits, rather be taxed at the highest rate.. you get these cadillac plants with small or nonexistent co-pays, deductibles, or caps that encourage the overuse of medical care, driving the cost up for the uninsured or those on other plans. The nex tax limiting cadillac plans is a good thing for spending efficiency.
    
    
   
6. More people having access to preventative care, for instance heart diseases, diabetes, blood pressure etc. all develop over time. If those people who are now insured due to Obamacare start having regular check-ups, preventative care such as early diagnosis of diabetes can lower life time health spending.
    
    
    
   
7. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act added section 1886(q) to the Social Security Act establishing the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which requires CMS to reduce payments to IPPS hospitals with excess readmissions, effective for discharges beginning on October 1, 2012.
   
8. (Edit) one more creating... online health exchanges is a good thing. One stop shop to compare prices allows for more competition (assuming the tech issues get solved)
   

Last but not least I believe Conservatives talking point on this is "DEATH PANELS" .. .but I think that

 

The establishment of indpendant advisory panels that limit "government spending" on treatments with low effectiveness and/or patients who aren’t going to live much longer is a good thing. Remember this only for government tax payer supported insurers programs. For me its such a contradiction that conservatives hate low-income people getting insured by goverment but then go around screaming bloody murder/DEATHPANELS when the government actually tries to spend more efficiently on treatment.

 

It just makes a lot of sense of panels to evaluate what treatments are working and what are just a waste of money. Then they relay that information to doctors and hospitals

Edited December 16, 2013 by JuanGuzman

[boyst]

 

 

First things first, I should note that the best part of Obamacare is the fact that those 40-50 million people with out health insurance will get health insurance. That being said I believe ACA or Obamacare will have result in more efficient health spending then what was the status quo. Here a couple ways:

1. The "Community Rating" which prohibits insurers from varying rates based on health status or claims history will mean reduced administrative costs as insurers stop devoting administrative dollars yp investigating peoples health history or gaming insurance contracts so that they include only healthy people in their risk pool. I think this has already been seen in reduced premiums and rebates for consumers.. from the June 2013 Kaiser study: the study focused on actual experience under the Affordable Care Act as it affected individual market consumers (those buying insurance on their own). The study found that the Medical Loss Ratio provision of the Act had saved this group of consumers $1.2 billion in 2011 and $2.1 billion in 2012, reducing their 2012 costs by 7.5%.
    
    
    
   
2. Expansion of medicaid benfits to more people. Medicaid has been the most cost efficient insurer over the last decade.. performed better .
    
   
3. Buying workhorse/brand name pharmaceutical drugs and using bulk buying to negotiate discounts, yes that means lower profits for pharmaceutical firms but lower costs health insurance.
    
    
    
   
4. Moving away from fee-for-service to bundled payments.. bundled payments allow insurers to negotiate for one episode of care instead of doctors doing unesscessary treatments in the old fee for service model. I'm interested to see how this works for medicare but its expective to incentivize better care ass doctors and hospitals are rewarded for good treatment and lower re-admission rates ect. Most studies expect bundled payments to deliver better service for less cost. I think the RAND corporations expects savings of at least 5.4 per cent over a 10 year period
    
    
   
5. penalties for cadillac plans... basically one of the ways employer delivered health insurance was encouraged in the U.S. is due to favourable tax treatment for health benefits, it would be treated differently than income and not tax so employers/employees were incentivized to take health insurance instead of income. The problem is that for really high income earners it makes sense to increase your health insurance benefits, rather be taxed at the highest rate.. you get these cadillac plants with small or nonexistent co-pays, deductibles, or caps that encourage the overuse of medical care, driving the cost up for the uninsured or those on other plans. The nex tax limiting cadillac plans is a good thing for spending efficiency.
    
    
   
6. More people having access to preventative care, for instance heart diseases, diabetes, blood pressure etc. all develop over time. If those people who are now insured due to Obamacare start having regular check-ups, preventative care such as early diagnosis of diabetes can lower life time health spending.
    
    
    
   
7. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act added section 1886(q) to the Social Security Act establishing the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which requires CMS to reduce payments to IPPS hospitals with excess readmissions, effective for discharges beginning on October 1, 2012.
   
8. (Edit) one more creating... online health exchanges is a good thing. One stop shop to compare prices allows for more competition (assuming the tech issues get solved)
   

Last but not least I believe Conservatives talking point on this is "DEATH PANELS" .. .but I think that

 

The establishment of indpendant advisory panels that limit "government spending" on treatments with low effectiveness and/or patients who aren’t going to live much longer is a good thing. Remember this only for government tax payer supported insurers programs. For me its such a contradiction that conservatives hate low-income people getting insured by goverment but then go around screaming bloody murder/DEATHPANELS when the government actually tries to spend more efficiently on treatment.

 

It just makes a lot of sense of panels to evaluate what treatments are working and what are just a waste of money. Then they relay that information to doctors and hospitals

none of that matters to a dude like me. I want to make my own choices and I am content on facing the consequences of those, too. Because I make good decisions.

 

The ACA does nothing but take my freedoms and choices and tell me how I have to do something. It takes free market and capitalist value out of America. Those are two things I like. It forces me to pay for coverage I do not want and makes me pay for others I don't give two craps about. Yes, that means I don't really care about them. If you still need help understanding how heartlessly cold that is - I don't want to pay for an alcoholic druggie d-bag getting a new liver.

Edited December 16, 2013 by jboyst62

[4merper4mer]

none of that matters to a dude like me. I want to make my own choices and I am content on facing the consequences of those, too. Because I make good decisions.

 

The ACA does nothing but take my freedoms and choices and tell me how I have to do something. It takes free market and capitalist value out of America. Those are two things I like. It forces me to pay for coverage I do not want and makes me pay for others I don't give two craps about. Yes, that means I don't really care about them. If you still need help understanding how heartlessly cold that is - I don't want to pay for an alcoholic druggie d-bag getting a new liver.

 

I see what you mean about paying for other people but why single out Mr. Wawwrrwwrorwrrw?

[IDBillzFan]

First things first, I should note that the best part of Obamacare is the fact that those 40-50 million people with out health insurance will get health insurance.

 

Which 40-50 million people are you referring to? The 40-50 million who didn't have health insurance before Obamacare, or the extra 40-50 million on top of them who lost their insurance because of Obamacare?

[JuanGuzman]

Which 40-50 million people are you referring to? The 40-50 million who didn't have health insurance before Obamacare, or the extra 40-50 million on top of them who lost their insurance because of Obamacare?

 

This is just b.s. We can argue a lot about the merits of obamacare but the impact on the number of uninsured is not up for debate in my mind. My prediction every year for the next 6-7 years you will see drops in both the numbers of unisured as well as the proportion of uninsured. Lets just wait and see Census Bureau figures roll.

 

Yes your going to here isolated stories about some party losing their insurance but the net effect on insurance rolls will be massively positive. It's the same b.s. you here in the job market, all month you hear stories about a factory closing, or jobs being lost due to a mine closure etc, than bureau of labour statistics showss a report saying Average job creation in the last three months is 193,000. Job growth still isn't fast enough for my liking but we are interested in net change not isolated stories.

Edited December 16, 2013 by JuanGuzman

[GG]

This is just b.s. We can argue a lot about the merits of obamacare but the impact on the number of uninsured is not up for debate in my mind. My prediction every year for the next 6-7 years you will see drops in both the numbers of unisured as well as the proportion of uninsured. Lets just wait and see Census Bureau figures roll.

 

... snip

 

There's really not enough time for me to respond point for point, but over the last 5 years that this philosophical debate has been waged while the legislation was born and implemented (and for many years before that), the cranky conservative types here warned that the rosy proclamations used to sell ACA were a ruse because they went counter to any reasonable economic model. In a sense, there was no way that you could have expanded coverage, not turn away people with pre-existing conditions while at the same time cutting healthcare costs, without severely limiting the access to healthcare for the majority.

 

But wait we were told, the administrative cost of Medicare was 2% compared to 20%+ for private insurance, even though those two numbers were picked out of the ether of a rainbow unicorn fart.

 

So now that the fiscal disaster is upon us, we are told again that ACA will defy economic gravity and not come crashing down under its overpromised underdelivered version of healthcare.

 

Yes, I know this guy is from the Hoover Institution, but it's not like they haven't been right in discussing things that have numbers in them, which probably put you to sleep after 1,2,3, ...

 

The "sticker shock" that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experienced—with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage—has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays.

If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a "death spiral" of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded "risk corridors," is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts.

Edited December 16, 2013 by GG

[B-Large]

none of that matters to a dude like me. I want to make my own choices and I am content on facing the consequences of those, too. Because I make good decisions.

 

The ACA does nothing but take my freedoms and choices and tell me how I have to do something. It takes free market and capitalist value out of America. Those are two things I like. It forces me to pay for coverage I do not want and makes me pay for others I don't give two craps about. Yes, that means I don't really care about them. If you still need help understanding how heartlessly cold that is - I don't want to pay for an alcoholic druggie d-bag getting a new liver.

 

- Hey you sign a waiver to indicate you forgoe any treatment you cant afford to pay for, and that may results in very early death, and change the law to hold people to that, I don't really care if you have insurance them- cheaper for the rest of us insured.

 

- Capitalist- There is trllions being spent in Healthcare every year, people are making money hand over first. That sounds capitalist to me.

 

- Your last part got me in the Christmas spirit- your stories of empathy and compassion will really make me reflect on Christ's Birthday- thank you

[IDBillzFan]

This is just b.s. We can argue a lot about the merits of obamacare but the impact on the number of uninsured is not up for debate in my mind.

 

So what you're saying is it's important we note the Obamacare success story that 30 million uninsured people will now get insurance, but it's BS to note the Obamacare failure that it now leaves another 40-50 million without insurance because, somehow, one day in the distant future, this is going to look like a good idea.

 

Got it.

[JuanGuzman]

So what you're saying is it's important we note the Obamacare success story that 30 million uninsured people will now get insurance, but it's BS to note the Obamacare failure that it now leaves another 40-50 million without insurance because, somehow, one day in the distant future, this is going to look like a good idea.

 

Got it.

 

Show me the numbers, don't make stuff up

[IDBillzFan]

Show me the numbers, don't make stuff up

 

You've got me cornered. I can not find a single link that proves 50 million people were uninsured before Obamacare was passed.

Edited December 16, 2013 by LABillzFan