In your estimation, does my fiancee, who received a letter informing her that her plan was going to be changed to one that was ACA-approved, count as one of the millions whose plan has been canceled?
In my opinion she does not, which is why I am protesting your claim of millions with insurance cancelled. There is certainly a definition under which you could include her, but I don’t think it’s a very productive one.
A large number of those who can’t get new insurance are in Red states, which, each and every one, has refused the (Federally-funded) Medicaid expansion.
At least some of the affected would have been eligible for the expanded Medicaid.
So yes, the 'pubbies can be credited with some of those screwed.
nothing, we still have emergency rooms, don’t we?
Not so, Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Arizona are expanding Medicaid. Tennessee is still debating it.
Also, note that it’s only fully federally funded for three years.
The state exchanges are doing great.
The federal website problems have been sufficiently resolved, and by the deadline that Obama set at the beginning of November. Here’s the evaluation of the site from Consumer Reports:
(bolding is mine)
from: Consumer Reports on healthcare site: 'It's terrific'
As Paul Krugman has said, now that opponents of the ACA will no longer be able to throw a fit about the website, they are going to become more and more agitated and will engage in greater levels of dissembling.
Here’s another one of these horror stories that does not stand up to scrutiny! It’s really quite remarkable.
from: CNN’s Jake Tapper and Elizabeth Cohen Try to Be Fair About Obamacare ‘Sticker Shock’
Well, this is all kinda irrelevant, isn’t it? The OP has given us a thread rather like a gated community, it has a distinct preference of theme: is Obamacare an abject failure, or is it a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, like a stern and vengeful Deity might visit upon the infidels?
Naturally, the OP would prefer that we apply the same discipline and restraint as he has, and not wander off into a pointless pursuit of facts that have no bearing on the central theme.
:). indeed. That Vinyl Turnip is one prescient mellon farmer.
One has to appreciate such a dispassionate, clear-eyed and agenda free evaluation of this issue, conducted over multiple threads.
I’ll try my hand at predicting an upcoming topic, as the improved enrollment system moves forward: “Successful health care enrollees: innocent dupes or complicit partisan sheeple?”
Also in that thread is this observation by PhillyGuy pointing out a new standard - keeping your insurance - against which any future attempts to repeal, modify, replace or defund the ACA will be held.
The concept of hypocrisy has no meaning to any politician of any stripe. How can you lead the people without first figuring out which way they are going?
If things keep going as they are (and that is far from settled) then a year from now the Republicans will be calling it Romneycare again. Not only was it their idea to begin with, but it is a clear example of how superior the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it…) is to any “big government” solution.
0 people enrolled in Oregon, less than 300 in Hawaii. That’s your definition of “doing great”?
The website screws up on third to one fifth of the attempts to purchase insurance. That’s your definition of “problems sufficiently resolved”?
Hawaiians, in general, are pretty lazy. If they don’t have to sign up for something until a certain date - they just won’t.
The problems with Oregon’s state exchange? Are you going to be making any comments relevant to the question at hand? Or is relevance a criteria for others, but not applicable to yourself?
There are some minor deferences offered to the OP as a matter of courtesy, the title of Thread Dictator is not on the list.
As to the whole system, the main options are fix or repeal. Obama won’t sign repeal, so unless you have a veto-proof majority in your pocket, your options are fix or fix. Unless you have something else? “Bitch about it” is an option, I suppose…
Ah, I forgot that we live in the United States of Hawaii and Oregon. Keep pluckin’ that cherry!
Hey, I’m just going by the evaluation of the nonpartisan Consumer Reports review that I linked to upthread.
Also, Hawaii already has near universal coverage. It’s had it for decades actually.
And I’ve been trying to use the Hawaii Connector and it’s lagging on getting the accounts verified. So less than 300 makes sense. Not that I’m holding out that this will change ITR’s view. The heart wants what it wants.
So, ITR, will you retract your claim about Sue Klinkhamer, now that you have more information?
Previously you made an unqualified statement that “the state exchanges are doing great”. I’ll take this as your admission that the state exchanges in Hawaii and Oregon are actually doing incredibly badly, contrary to what you said. (I won’t bother mentioning Vermont and Maryland and Massachusetts and …)
The claims that you posted are obviously false. They say that Sue Klinkhamer can get a plan with a $0 deductible at $228.66 per month. Anyone remotely familiar with health care rates would know that this is impossible.
Klinkhamer is a 60-year-old in Illinois. Let’s head over to healthcare.gov and search for plans for 60-year-olds in Illinois. Here are the results.
As you can see, there is no plan with a $0 deductible. Not at the price you quoted, not at any other price either. The website that you pasted from is full of shit.
So, is it fix, repeal, or bitch about it?
Interestingly, BCBS seems to have switched up the plans.
The “Blue Precision Bronze HMO 003” for the period “01/01/2014-12/31/2014” has two different plan statements:
The Illinois exchange links to the first one for *any *age person.
It looks like the plan in the second link is for American Indians?