The success of ObamaCare far outweighs the setbacks

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Nov 10, 2011
32,266
13,021
1,600
Colorado
Have there been setbacks? Yes but the good far outweighs the bad. Republicans need to acknowledge this.

The long-awaited Rand Corp. study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law.

That's a net figure, accommodating all those who lost their individual health insurance because of cancellations. The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79855583/
 
Last edited:
I guess it's fair to say we're at a net negative of private insurance plans considering how many enrolled and how many got cancelled. How can anyone call this a success is beyond me.
 
This is like saying those who died from the radiation via the Hiroshima bomb fared better than those who died in the blast itself.

No. Just no.

No it is absolutely nothing like that...

Yeah it is. You can't sit there and praise the law for it's strengths without acknowledging its weaknesses; glaring ones at that.

For those who lost their plans, just how well is the law working for them? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Well, if these people have any benefits, that is. Face the fact this law has hurt more than it helped.
 
Last edited:
This is like saying those who died from the radiation via the Hiroshima bomb fared better than those who died in the blast itself.

No. Just no.

No it is absolutely nothing like that...

Yeah it is. You can't sit there and praise the law for it's strengths without acknowledging its weaknesses; glaring ones at that.

For those who lost their plans, just how well is the law working for them? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Well, if you have any benefits, that is.

Um no, I did acknowledge the weaknesses. It is such simple minded thinking to suggest that just because a law is imperfect that somehow means the whole thing is a bust.
 
I guess it's fair to say we're at a net negative of private insurance plans considering how many enrolled and how many got cancelled. How can anyone call this a success is beyond me.

What so we should just call it a total failure huh?
 
I guess it's fair to say we're at a net negative of private insurance plans considering how many enrolled and how many got cancelled. How can anyone call this a success is beyond me.

What so we should just call it a total failure huh?

Anyone looking at this objectively would, yeah.
 
I guess it's fair to say we're at a net negative of private insurance plans considering how many enrolled and how many got cancelled. How can anyone call this a success is beyond me.

What so we should just call it a total failure huh?

Anyone looking at this objectively would, yeah.

:lol: okay go ahead and objectively explain why ObamaCare is a total failure.
 
No it is absolutely nothing like that...

Yeah it is. You can't sit there and praise the law for it's strengths without acknowledging its weaknesses; glaring ones at that.

For those who lost their plans, just how well is the law working for them? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Well, if you have any benefits, that is.

Um no, I did acknowledge the weaknesses. It is such simple minded thinking to suggest that just because a law is imperfect that somehow means the whole thing is a bust.

Less people have private insurance now than before Obamacare started. What else is needed to call it a failure?
 
Yeah it is. You can't sit there and praise the law for it's strengths without acknowledging its weaknesses; glaring ones at that.

For those who lost their plans, just how well is the law working for them? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Well, if you have any benefits, that is.

Um no, I did acknowledge the weaknesses. It is such simple minded thinking to suggest that just because a law is imperfect that somehow means the whole thing is a bust.

Less people have private insurance now than before Obamacare started. What else is needed to call it a failure?

What are you even talking about? :cuckoo:
 
We get it. You got our money. Take your subsidy and go. No reason to keep rubbing it in.
 
I guess it's fair to say we're at a net negative of private insurance plans considering how many enrolled and how many got cancelled. How can anyone call this a success is beyond me.

It's ridiculous to count people who had their current health insurance cancelled because of ObozoCare as new enrollees of ObamaCare.
 
No it is absolutely nothing like that...

Yeah it is. You can't sit there and praise the law for it's strengths without acknowledging its weaknesses; glaring ones at that.

For those who lost their plans, just how well is the law working for them? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Well, if you have any benefits, that is.

Um no, I did acknowledge the weaknesses. It is such simple minded thinking to suggest that just because a law is imperfect that somehow means the whole thing is a bust.
. It's unconstitutional no matter how many Supreme Court justices are blackmailed.
 
Liblogic. Change health insurance laws for everyone in the US, make it illegal to not go along with it and call the small percentage of enrollees a smashing success. The fact that anyone believes it shows how screwed up our country has become.
 
The fact that people signed up with ACA really means nothing at this point, well, it means a whole lot of people didn't want to be fined for not buying a product forced upon them by the government...


The true effects of the ACA will be known when people start using their new insurance...
 
It's always funny to watch people get so upset over something they clearly so don't understand. Your outrage is comical.
 
This is like saying those who died from the radiation via the Hiroshima bomb fared better than those who died in the blast itself.

No. Just no.

It's like asking whether you'd rather die by having your balls cut off and bleeding out slowly or beign torn apart by wild chimps.
 

Forum List

Back
Top