By November the GOP will be claiming they wrote the law! LOL
That piece doesn't tell us anything other than people are satisfied, with a policy they chose to purchase.
You know your source just wants people to buy HI.
I say give it time. I don't know much about it and I feel most people don't much either but I'm willing to see what happens. This could blow up in Obama face 3-4 years from now and Clinton may have to scrap it. I'm saying let's see where this plays out.
Give it a chance, but from what I have seen on our policy, it doesn't seem like a bad thing....so far.
But doesn't it make you want to scratch your head why organization would spend over 400 million to fight it...humm
But I think only about 27 million has been spent to promote it. But look into it as this number is something that I came across when I saw that 400 million was spend to oppose it vs. what was spent to promote it.
You have no comprehension so you shoot blanks one of after another.
The Common Wealth Fund is a pro-universal HC coverage, Obamacare style group.
If you look at the RCP average of polls, Obummercare is FOURTEEEN points underwater. There isn't a single poll by a reputable pollster in the country showing it is popular. NOT ONE. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
The gap of for/against has widened against Barry SINCE all that "good" press about the reaching of their goals, ahem, of 7.1 million.
Any more propaganda for us or are you done for the day? lo
A poll showing the Aca is working as being fraudulent. H'mm.
Besides your polls don't even address whether republicans like their obamacare. H'mm.
Both sets of polls are meaningless anyway as I have pointed out to you but...h'mmm.
I have asked you a number of times why O-Care has gone down in approval since the law went into effect and you always dodge my question. Why?
You're an attorney. Make an argument.
Propaganda? And, plenty of it!
-- Modified on 7/11/2014 10:15:11 AM
Think about Obamacare from concept to implementation. From Pelois saying we have to implement first then you can read it, to one of the worst program implementations I've ever seen in the public or private sector. Obama stepped on his dick a number of times, along with Sebelius being the most inept project leader I've ever seen. So a lot of this shit was self-inflicted.
When you design, develop and implement system, you think about how can do it with the least amount of effort, in the shortest period of time, and with no problems. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it.
At the end of the day what is the primary component, or should I say benefit to ACA. Subsidy Matt! OK, keeping kids on your parents plan, eliminating pre-existing conditions is important, but the subsidy is the key driver.
Did we really need the Federal and State exchanges to implement ACA? NO! At the end of the day, the subsidy is handled through a tax credit. This whole debacle could've been avoided by just allowing existing insurance companies, or 3rd party existing sites like ehealthinsurance. com to sell the various "metal" plans, and use their existing and proven back office systems, with some modifications of course, to validate and verify the applicants with the IRS data base.
Again, this is basically a TAX CREDIT program. But no, Obama and the Dems had to fuck it up.
Matt, Obama and the Dems are to blame for the negative press, They brought it on themselves. And you know what is really funny, most liberals don't really care about Obamacare. You guys want a single payer system, i.e. Medicare for all, or preferably Universal Health Care, similar to the U.K.
Most notably, you can shop different plans on the exchanges and the plans in all four categories are quite different depending on insurer both as to premium cost, provider network, and out of pocket limits. That is why buying from the insurer directly is such a bad idea- it would take hours to comparison shop.
And it makes no sense to have the insured certify income to the insurer and for the insurer to pass this infor to fed gov to get the subsidy. Just creating a unnecessary middleman.
The exchanges now run like clock work. I can buy a policy on the exchange in a fraction of the item you could buy directly from many of the insurers who have crappy websites of their own.
I think you are way off o this one. Exchanges good.
Mari, you ignorant slut! Sometimes you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
The "METAL" plans are on both the exchanges and insurance websites. This difference is basically a little wording change for branding purposes, and of course the price on the insurance exchange is the full retail price. The only reason to go to the Fed or State exchanges is if you can get a subsidy. With respect to comparison shopping, that's why you have www.ehealthinsurance.com type sites.
Unnecessary middleman! So I guess spending $1B+ for the Fed exchange, and over $800M for the Calif State exchange, when a perfectly good distribution system already exists. Plus the Fed and State exchanges all have large call centers. Ah yes, the govt full employment act (lol). The insurance and 3rd party systems are simple, intuitive, and easy for and customer. Think of sites like Priceline, Travelocity, Orbitz! Think of outsourcing!
You know what's funny mari, this administration used technology to get elected. They did a pretty good job. They must of had a collective lobotomy, because they resorted to a large scale, costly, fucked up implementation that cost billions.
My main point, which you failed to grasp, was the negative press could have been reduced by 90% if the administration had just thought this through. Here is one small relevant example. There is a lawsuit that is pending about the legality of subsidies on insurance plans bought through the FEDERAL exchanges. Just the Federal exchange, not the State, because of the way ACA was written. Could've been avoided.
By the way, did you buy St. Croix's book and DVD on how rich people can profit from Obamacare?
Exchanges bad!!!!
P.S. I'll make your weekend though. Good call on FCX
And it makes no sense to have the insured certify income to the insurer and for the insurer to pass this infor to fed gov to get the subsidy. Just creating a unnecessary middleman.
The exchanges now run like clock work. I can buy a policy on the exchange in a fraction of the item you could buy directly from many of the insurers who have crappy websites of their own.
I think you are way off o this one. Exchanges good.
Every comparison I have seen finds eheath and the other on line brokers -(no, not select quote jack ) has fewer choices and higher premiums than plans offerd on the fed exchange. The brokers are paid by commission and feature the insurers who pay the highest commissions. The exchanges are commission free.
Plus some states do not allow using e brokers if you claim a subsidy. So all that would have to fixed before a private market would be competitive.
And you can still buy on the brokers if you don't claim a subsidy.
I would argue the slut comment too but since I am down in sandiego doing an inside investigation of that coded stock tip I told you about last fall, that would be wrong.
Dr. Copper over and out-or maybe we should make that "in"
Many IC's bailed out of coming onto the exchanges due to its regulations. Two states have ZERO competition. Some states just have 2 or 3 choices.
The best way to have done this would have been to use a "SelectQuote.com" type method where there would have been hundreds of IC's competing with each other across the whole country.
A feature that R's wanted badly but Obama Inc didn't give a shit about what was best.
Select Quote takes 5-10 minutes Mari not hours. Look into it.
And, with 60% coverage instead of 80% the prior year. Fuck Obamacare
or your insurance company. I'd check it out. Hey bro let's talk about hookers....lol