U.S uninsured rate falls by 35%

[Boxlicker101]

The figures are backed up by insurance companies own figures. You can look it up if you're so inclined. Or, you know, keep shouting "LALALALALALALA" with your fingers in your ears.

YOU made the statement. YOU prove it.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

YOU made the statement. YOU prove it.

The numbers are right there in the HHS report. YOU doubt them. YOU provide numbers that contradict them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you believe everything the gov. tells you? Only a damnfool does. That's not to say they ALWAYS lie, but they do often enough that you can't believe anything they say without proof.

I can't prove these figures are falsified, but I don't have to. Generally speaking, when somebody makes a self-serving statement, as HHS is doing here, they are obligated to prove it.

A real man makes a statement, he should be able to back it up.

oh look, the "everybody knows!" logical fallacy.

If you have proof that the government fudged the numbers, by all means share it with the class.

Otherwise, we'll just go with "sour grapes" on your part.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The numbers are right there in the HHS report. YOU doubt them. YOU provide numbers that contradict them.

Casey Anthony told me the numbers are inflated, and she's less dishonest than HHS.

 

[Boxlicker101]

oh look, the "everybody knows!" logical fallacy.

If you have proof that the government fudged the numbers, by all means share it with the class.

Otherwise, we'll just go with "sour grapes" on your part.

Of course I don't. I'm pretty sure they cooked the books. I can't prove it but I also don't believe their numbers.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Casey Anthony told me the numbers are inflated, and she's less dishonest than HHS.

Doubtful, and not even a giggle worthy attempt at humor. But I guess jokes about someone murdering a child might be hilarious in your circles.

Of course I don't. I'm pretty sure they cooked the books. I can't prove it but I also don't believe their numbers.

You can always find some source that presents an actual case that the numbers have been massaged in some way, with you know, evidence rather than "I don't believe it so Nyah!"

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll take your silence as an admission of situational bullshit outrage over "but it was done at the end of a gun!!" boo hoo.

 

[mark_j]

Does holding a gun to their head decrease the accomplishment somehow?

Yes

Point is there are 35% less uninsured assholes leeching the system than there were under your teams rules of free for all ER gang fuck the tax payer.

My team? I never thought the GOPs plan was all that great to begin with. Sort of like handing the fox the keys to the henhouse. BTW all those subsidies are STILL leeching off the taxpayer. Only the methodology has changed.

I mean either way we are getting galactically fucked in the wallet for HC.....I mean ripped the fuck off b/c broken US system. But at least 35% fewer uninsured is a negative how?

Because you are still getting as you put it "galactically fucked". The game didn't change and nothing got truly fixed other than a couple of minor regulations that could have been done without 2000 pages of horse shit.

Or is this just more rage because Obamacare isn't making the fabric of time space unravel the way you and your GOP buddies claimed it would.....??

Oh please... Your attempted insult just makes you look like a partisan hack.

I'll take your silence as an admission of situational bullshit outrage over "but it was done at the end of a gun!!" boo hoo.

Actually it means I have a business to run instead of spending my day arguing about crap on a message board.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes

Where is your proof that the 35% figure is wrong and it's actually a smaller figure? Or that a larger number would have gotten insurance without ACA??

And how exactly was holding a gun to their head responsible for the low(er) figure?

Uninsured dropped 35% with the addition of the gun to their head....sounds like an improvement to me.

My team? I never thought the GOPs plan was all that great to begin with. Sort of like handing the fox the keys to the henhouse. BTW all those subsidies are STILL leeching off the taxpayer. Only the methodology has changed.

GOP doesn't have a plan....except "fuck Obama" that's the entire GOP platform summed up and they have done little more than that since he took office.

And the methodology has resulted in 35% less uninsured...I'm still looking for you to explain exactly how that's a bad thing.

Because you are still getting as you put it "galactically fucked".

Yes, but now we got a little lube tossed up there.....still not an explanation as to how this is a negative, neutral or anything other than positive? Let's see if you come up with anything.....

The game didn't change and nothing got truly fixed other than a couple of minor regulations that could have been done without 2000 pages of horse shit.

Nope.....

And that horse shit resulted in 35% less uninsured over Reagancare's vision of socialized HC.

Oh please... Your attempted insult just makes you look like a partisan hack.

Says the man failing to explain how positive results from Obamacare are actually bad after making the claim that it's no good because the people were held at the end of a gun.

Actually it means I have a business to run instead of spending my day arguing about crap on a message board.

That wasn't directed at you...... boxlicker was the last person I was talking to.

He was flailing horribly at trying to explain why improvements in society like 35% less uninsured, because under threat of penalty is a bad thing....but only when democrats do it.

You seem to just be avoiding the question....care to take a shot??

Why does Obamacare make 35% fewer uninsured in America a not really a good thing?

I'll hurry the guessing game the fuck up...you have 3 options....

1) Because Democrat....I'm such a partisan hack IDC if ACA solved world hunger, started peace and enlightenment on earth and cured every disease ever, fuck it because I'mma ride republican till I die.

2) Because nigger in Whyte Haus...WHYTE GAWD DAYM IT! WHYTE!! Whut don't yew understand about WHYTE??

and

3) It's not really a bad thing that Obamacare has allowed 16 million Americans to score some HC insurance.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I guess admitting all aspects of ACA aren't totally horrible has an integrity bill attached to it no conservatives seem to be able to pay......pathetic you guys....seriously sad.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I believe his "Theory" on only the methodology has changed is that it costs the same amount just arranged a different way. Which appears to be false, certain the CBO claims there are savings to be had and when you add bureaucracy AND lower costs at the same time I can only assume you've found savings somewhere.

 

[mark_j]

Where is your proof that the 35% figure is wrong and it's actually a smaller figure? Or that a larger number would have gotten insurance without ACA??

I never made the claim that the 35% figure was wrong. What I originally said was:

Great.... oh yeah be sure to remember it IS "under penalty of law".

After your response I said:

Simple.. don't pat yourself on the back for the "great accomplishment" when in essense you're holding a gun thier head.

Now where in that exchange did I say that the numbers were wrong?

What I did was to point out that the so called great accomplishment in respect to the numbers are colored by that pesky little thing called "penalty" (or tax as some called it).

In simple terms:

If="insurance"
Then ="no penalty"
Else = "no insurance"
Then = "penalty"
EndIf

Pretty simple, yes?

It's sort of like Auto Insurance. We all know that as responsible adults we need to carry at least basic liability. Not so much because we are worried about getting into an accident as having to worry about the "the other guy".
For a long time there was no law saying that you had to have such insurance but as a responsible adult it was a good idea to protect yourself this way.

So we all know what happens here.

A significant number of people decide that, for whatever reason, they don't carry auto insurance. A lot of bad shit happens and a law gets enacted that says now you must carry insurance. BTW, if you don't carry the minimum and we catch you, here's a nice little ticket for $500 bucks, plus a moving violation on your driving record (which makes your insurance higher).

So of course, most reasonable adults, will make sure they get the insurance rather than risk the fine (which is money just basically tossed away) and the mark on thier driving record. Now, of course, someone can look at the data after the implementation of the law and say "Hey look.. we have 35% fewer uninsured motorists! Our program worked!". Well duhhh.. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

You stick a gun to thier head and most people will comply since they neither want to run afoul of the law nor flush a substantial chunk of cash down the toilet and get nothing for it.

Now explain to me how I was refuting the 35% claim?

And how exactly was holding a gun to their head responsible for the low(er) figure?

Uninsured dropped 35% with the addition of the gun to their head....sounds like an improvement to me.

"Gun to thier head" is a metaphor. You do understand what that is right? As far as improvement? While I can agree that getting the overall insured population higher would be an improvement but at what cost? Is this something that the Government really needs to be involved in? Since we all know how efficient they are..

GOP doesn't have a plan....except "fuck Obama" that's the entire GOP platform summed up and they have done little more than that since he took office.

And this matters why?

And the methodology has resulted in 35% less uninsured...I'm still looking for you to explain exactly how that's a bad thing.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Methodolgy as in you are getting fucked either way.

Yes, but now we got a little lube tossed up there.....still not an explanation as to how this is a negative, neutral or anything other than positive? Let's see if you come up with anything.....

Getting fucked is getting fucked either way you look at it. In this context a little lube doesn't make it any better. The result is still the same.

Nope.....

And that horse shit resulted in 35% less uninsured over Reagancare's vision of socialized HC.

You've put this up a few times and I've yet to figure out what you are talking about. Reagancare's vision of socialized HC.? what the hell is that?

Says the man failing to explain how positive results from Obamacare are actually bad after making the claim that it's no good because the people were held at the end of a gun.

That wasn't directed at you...... boxlicker was the last person I was talking to.

He was flailing horribly at trying to explain why improvements in society like 35% less uninsured, because under threat of penalty is a bad thing....but only when democrats do it.

I didn't make that claim. Yes I have problems with it. I didn't like the way it was presented. I fail to see the substantial cost savings. The impementation is a nasty convoluted mess. If you were going to do something like this then either go all the way or go home. (They should have done single payer and been done with it. But we all know that would not have sold.) and in the end it is going to cost way more than estimated without providing any real benefit to the overall issue. And no matter what you do, the taxpayers are still on the hook for a substantial block of it. Granted I found a way through the mess without having to use the exchanges nor did I need to use any subsidies.

But I'd be willing to bet that those 16 million people you mentioned below are going to find that the heavily subsidised plans (for those that have to take that option) with the super high deductables aren't worth the paper they are written on. Sure they scored some "affordable (at taxpayers expense)" insurance. But is that insurance really going to be worth a damn?

You seem to just be avoiding the question....care to take a shot??

Why does Obamacare make 35% fewer uninsured in America a not really a good thing?

I'll hurry the guessing game the fuck up...you have 3 options....

1) Because Democrat....I'm such a partisan hack IDC if ACA solved world hunger, started peace and enlightenment on earth and cured every disease ever, fuck it because I'mma ride republican till I die.

2) Because nigger in Whyte Haus...WHYTE GAWD DAYM IT! WHYTE!! Whut don't yew understand about WHYTE??

and

3) It's not really a bad thing that Obamacare has allowed 16 million Americans to score some HC insurance.

As for the rest of this ^^^^^ shit (except for choice 3) you can shove that up your ass.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I never made the claim that the 35% figure was wrong.

Now explain to me how I was refuting the 35% claim?

I asked if having a gun to peoples heads decrease the accomplishment of getting 16 million more Americans HC insurance...you said yes.

And once again outright fuckin' refuse to explain how exactly being under penalty of law somehow makes 16 million less uninsured anything but bad ass??

"Gun to thier head" is a metaphor. You do understand what that is right? As far as improvement? While I can agree that getting the overall insured population higher would be an improvement but at what cost?

Yeup....2trillion a year and rising like a bat out of hell just like it has for 30 years.

Is this something that the Government really needs to be involved in? Since we all know how efficient they are..

Apparently...the private sector has utterly FAILED to provide HC for America.

And this matters why?

IDK you're the one who brought up the republican HC plan.....I'm just pointing out their plan is "fuck America we have to get shit on Obama's shoes. " so that's why ACA won. Had the GOP put up a cheaper plan that would have gotten more folks insured without trying to cram it full of old testament bullshit in the process.....the GOP would absolutely slaughter, they would have literally taken the DNC the fuck out. Obama would have been O who?

Getting fucked is getting fucked either way you look at it. In this context a little lube doesn't make it any better. The result is still the same.

No...it's not...lube makes it hurt less and minimizes rectal damage. The end result is not the same.

You've put this up a few times and I've yet to figure out what you are talking about. Reagancare's vision of socialized HC.? what the hell is that?

Reagan was the first US president to do socialized HC here...he started it. A HORRIBLE broken fucked up system, but it's socialized HC in the US and St.Ronnie did it first.

It's ok you can forget about that now along with his love for unions, public education, police/prison state and the Taliban. All the St. Ronnie worshipers fuckin' hate what a socialist he actually was.

I didn't make that claim.

You said holding a gun to peoples heads degrades the accomplishment of getting 16 million more american HC coverage.

Yes I have problems with it. I didn't like the way it was presented. I fail to see the

Would a bow and pink rose on top have been better?? LOL

The savings are we get more people preventative medicine because it's cheaper than ER socialized HC (Reagan care) by a long shot. It will take time but it's true....sorry.

But I'd be willing to bet that those 16 million people you mentioned below are going to find that the heavily subsidised plans (for those that have to take that option) with the super high deductables aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Yes I'm sure they would much rather be told to fuck off and die for being poor

Sure they scored some "affordable (at taxpayers expense)" insurance.

EXACTLY!!! Because it's cheaper to give them some HC insurance and get them some pills/therapy or w/e than to give them a triple bypass at the ER every other year.

I also like how you emphasis at the taxpayers expense....like that somehow makes it BAD for a society to take care of it's people.

Israel? War in the middle east? Police? Prisons? No expense is to big...LOL

But is that insurance really going to be worth a damn?

Better than no insurance...

As for the rest of this ^^^^^ shit (except for choice 3) you can shove that up your ass.

Well what reasons do you have for this crazy wild hatred of ACA's benefits showing?

You're seriously bent out of shape because ACA is working and insuring more Americans.....and your best reason is because you don't like how the law was presented.

Think about that for a second.

Could you be a bigger partisan hack and or racist? Those and number 3 are the only reasons you could possibly have. Maybe a white guy presenting the same law would be more appetizing??

http://media.salon.com/2013/04/ap_mitt_romney_ll_120823_wg.jpg


Womp womp womp...the longer you persist that ACA working = bad/not really good "because stuff" instead of just admitting it's really not that bad a thing it's working the more racist you look. Because it's a good thing that the government picked up where capitalism dropped the ball for 16 million folks.

 

[mark_j]

Could you be a bigger partisan hack and or racist? Those and number 3 are the only reasons you could possibly have. Maybe a white guy presenting the same law would be more appetizing??

http://media.salon.com/2013/04/ap_mitt_romney_ll_120823_wg.jpg


Womp womp womp...the longer you persist that ACA working = bad/not really good "because stuff" instead of just admitting it's really not that bad a thing it's working the more racist you look. Because it's a good thing that the government picked up where capitalism dropped the ball for 16 million folks.

That's right dirtbag... Throw down that race card....

If you want to be an idealogue, go right ahead.
Be sure you stick to the party line boy, 'cause that's all you got.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't make that claim. Yes I have problems with it. I didn't like the way it was presented. I fail to see the substantial cost savings. The impementation is a nasty convoluted mess. If you were going to do something like this then either go all the way or go home. (They should have done single payer and been done with it. But we all know that would not have sold.) and in the end it is going to cost way more than estimated without providing any real benefit to the overall issue. And no matter what you do, the taxpayers are still on the hook for a substantial block of it. Granted I found a way through the mess without having to use the exchanges nor did I need to use any subsidies.

But I'd be willing to bet that those 16 million people you mentioned below are going to find that the heavily subsidised plans (for those that have to take that option) with the super high deductables aren't worth the paper they are written on. Sure they scored some "affordable (at taxpayers expense)" insurance. But is that insurance really going to be worth a damn?

Still whining about the cost, aren't you?

How DARE those poor people get their health care premiums subsidized by the federal government!

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's right dirtbag... Throw down that race card....

If you want to be an idealogue, go right ahead.
Be sure you stick to the party line boy, 'cause that's all you got.

No...it's all you've got.

Now explain how 16 million more insured is not really a good thing/accomplishment/positive thing.....because Obamacare.

You have really 3 choices....

1)partisan hack, it would have been better if a Republican presented it.

2) racist shit, ACA would have been fine if a white guy presented it.

or

3) it's really not that bad more Americans now have access to HC because ACA is working.


You going to keep on with that "It's bad because reasons! Not partisan or racist ones but good ones I just can't tell you....because stuff and freedom of speech!!" bullshit that's painting you more and more either option 1 or 2 exponentially the more you try and dodge option 3?

 

[mark_j]

No...it's all you've got.

Now explain how 16 million more insured is not really a good thing/accomplishment/positive thing.....because Obamacare.

You have really 3 choices....

1)partisan hack, it would have been better if a Republican presented it.

2) racist shit, ACA would have been fine if a white guy presented it.

or

3) it's really not that bad more Americans now have access to HC because ACA is working.


You going to keep on with that "It's bad because reasons! Not partisan or racist ones but good ones I just can't tell you....because stuff and freedom of speech!!" bullshit that's painting you more and more either option 1 or 2 exponentially the more you try and dodge option 3?

Nope.. Not going to answer any of it..

You decided to toss out the race card, therefore this coversation is over..

Sling all the mud you want, I'm not going to wallow in that kind of filth.

Have a nice day....

 

[Beco]

Simple.. don't pat yourself on the back for the "great accomplishment" when in essense you're holding a gun thier head.

Minor detail............now back to the celebration

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This just in: healthcare costs, not the sky, are still falling.

Spending on the insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act is projected to be $142 billion lower than the figure arrived at six weeks ago, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's primarily due to reduced enrollment projected for exchange plans and Medicaid, as well as lower than anticipated premium costs.

More here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nope.. Not going to answer any of it..

I figured as much....

Addmitting ACA working and insuring more Americans and getting them basic HC is just too much of a gut wrenching admission of partisan defeat you just can't stand it.

I also assume you would support a trillion dollar a day weapons program.....until you found it it fired food at hungry people.

You decided to toss out the race card, therefore this coversation is over..

I only put it out there as an option because you absolutely REFUSE to explain how ACA working = not really good. Other than...because reasons.

Now you're just calling it a day because you're either too partisan to admit falling cost + more insured = good, or too racist.

Sling all the mud you want, I'm not going to wallow in that kind of filth.

Have a nice day....

I didn't sling mud...you just got presumptuous because you refused to admit falling cost + more insured with Obamacare wasn't all so horrible.

Why are you leaving? Are you really such a horribly sour fuck for (R) you can't explain why you think more insured Americans getting HC is a bad thing?

And you call ME partisan? LOL