That is not what I said, read it again, they should had moved the people to better plans instead of making it more inconvenient.
If we say Yes, what do you win?
There are two chambers of Congress. We won both of them. ACA better start getting popular quick. The next Democratic nominee might not have Obama’s mad campaigning skillz.
How many times do we … oh, never mind, you’re hopeless.
If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say that, instead of “Most people are pretty happy with the ACA”, which is demonstrably untrue?
“If you like your girlfriend, you can keep her.”
Now, does this mean that I’m going to force her to stay with you, or that I won’t break you up?
As shown, it is already popular with the users of the ACA, what it is also clear is that it is also a reality that most people are not supportive of dismantling the law, they are more supportive of making changes.
Of course because congress if full of hammers they only look at the ACA as only a nail. It is clear to me that ignoring the nuances of how people are seeing the law is a feature of the Republicans and it is more likely to lead to people to learn once again that they made a mistake into thinking that they voted for adults in the last election.
Well, it is more likely that you were wrong, it happens.
If we don’t like this thread, can we get rid of it?
It means you won’t break us up. Which the administration did do. Not everyone lost their insurance because the administration required it, but many did. In fact, people losing their insurance was essential for the law to work. The whole idea was to move everyone into plans that had certain benefits and which were community rated.
Trade guild plans were often more generous than required, but still had to be discontinued because they weren’t community rated.
Funny, I thought the insurance companies had something to do with that.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Americans love being lied to. Anyone disagree?
I disagree. Grandfather clauses are not a new concept.
I am not wrong, in this case. “Most people” are not “pretty happy” with the ACA.
Gallup 37 for , 56 against.
Associated Press 29 for, 41 against.
Quinnipiac 40 for, 54 against.
It’s not even close.
As opposed to grandfather claws, which are fairly novel.
As referenced above, among actual participants, its rather popular. Why? Because so many of them had no actual insurance before now, and they like that now they do. Tres duh, mais non?
Now, who is more likely to know more about ACA: someone who is participating, or someone who is not? Or, to put it the opposite way, who is more likely to be *ignorant *of the actual results of the ACA? Who is more likely to be swayed by appeals to said ignorance?
Now, suppose you are an intelligent, aware person, like myself. Suppose you believe that the ACA is a start in the right direction, but woefully inadequate and in need of much, much improvement. What do I say if you ask me if I’m “happy” with the ACA?
Yeepers, I wonder if your insurance covers that ignorance that makes you ignore what one is talking about, :p. Once again I was referring to the users of the plan and most of them are happy with it.
BTW I noticed that on a recent post you came in support of climate change deniers, just a demonstration that you do not know when misinformers are pulling your leg, so seek help with proper scientists, not creationists and paid merchants of doubt.
So are you the same person as the user named Procrustus? Because that’s who I was originally replying to, regarding his fanciful claim.
With a few exceptions, the ACA made us ALL participants. My insurance payments skyrocketed*, but since I had insurance already, is it your contention that I’m not “a participant”?
*Yes, I know I’m part of the minority that got screwed by the ACA, and I’m actually OK with that, philosophically, as long it does turn out to be a net good for the country. We shall see about that.