Oh, come on. You knew the WH would never admit that a lot of the people who are newly covered by exchange plans used to be covered by those, what are we calling it “inadequate” plans that the ACA did away with (well, temporarily) or other plans in the individual market. And of course they’d never say that a lot of those shiny new Medicare sign ups are in states that didn’t expand so those people had already been able to sign up for it before the affordable health care act was a twinkle in Obama’s eye.
Please. You guys aren’t even defending, nor even trying to defend, the law on its merits anymore. Every last argument used to pass the law has now been completely abandoned. Every last negative outcome regarding Obamacare’s impact on premiums, insurance costs and the economy is disregarded.
Nope. That shit doesn’t matter.
Instead, you’ve somehow shifted the focus onto the eeevil insurance companies or want to argue how unpalpable (yeah, that’s probably not a word) it would be if “everyone” currently enrolled in Obamacare were “suddenly forced” off of it (though y’all seemed to have little qualms about people being forced off of their current insurance plans).
So yup. Definitely amusing.
If this were a football field, the goalposts would be somewhere in the parking lot.
I have no idea whatsoever where you’re getting any of that. If you’re not seeing as much debate on the merits as you used to, the reason would be that the debate is over - and you lost, on the merits.
That wasn’t even coherent.
In any thread involving adaher, there will inevitably be an endless game of “chase the goalposts”.
I have to get to them first. You guys keep running around with them.
And comparing ACA to SS and Medicare? Get real. According to the latest story, the bulk of people insured through ACA already had insurance. I’m wondering exactly what people are getting that they’ll so badly want to keep.
As of right now, you still don’t have a big enough constituency to keep this bill alive. Better hope enrollment picks up.
Which you no doubt were about to thoughtfully link for us, to assess its credibility … right?
It’s not a bill, it’s a law. Here’s how the process works, since you’re unfamiliar with it. “Keeping it alive” means nothing more than continuing to laugh at all of your guys’ pointless repeal votes.
Still, that’s nothing like the wholesale shift that went on when the Democrats pushed through a Republican proposal for universal health care - and got it named for their Dear Leader, too. Suddenly it became the reimposition of slavery.
Most of the people who got insurance on the exchanges were already insured. And I bet most of them were happy with their old insurance.
“Early Estimates Suggest That Majority of Sign-Ups Already Had Health Plans”
*Well, if early estimates suggest…
*:rolleyes:
In any case, the plans they are transitioning into, are almost certainly better. In that they can’t have lifetime caps or abrupt cancellations.
That’s the fundamental lack of understanding you have about the issue. If someone with a high deductible plan was happy, it was because he hadn’t hit his lifetime limit or hadn’t been dropped when he became too expensive.
If you’re paying a pittance for the illusion of insurance, that’s fine, I can see why you’re happy with the fiction, but when you need it, the substance matters.
That’s just a talking point, with zero evidence to back it up.
Do your responses, in general, have anything to do with what you are responding to?
Lifetime limits: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/limits/
Cancellations: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/appeal/curbing-insurance-cancellations.html
Some plans had lifetime limits. Many did not. There is as of yet no firm data on how many plans were truly inadequate and which only technically didn’t meet ACA standards.
Since when has having no firm data even slowed you down? 
It certainly doesn’t slow down the administration, as we’ve seen time and time again. How many pinocchios have they racked up?
At least I don’t repeat their talking points. Given their record, I’m astonished that any self-respecting Doper would.
Considering the fantasy world that you seem to live in in the Elections forum, I imagine that astonishment at interaction with the real world is pretty much your status quo.
This stuff writes itself.
Hey, I make up my own talking points. I don’t repeat the ones discredited by fact checking sites, thinking that if the President said it, it must be true.
QFT.
Anyway, so far you don’t have a whole lot of people who actually have coverage who didn’t before. All you’ve got is people who had coverage forced out of that coverage and into the exchanges.
Unless that changes, there is still no constituency opposed to repeal other than partisan Democrats.
Thank goodness someone finally has the numbers we’ve been looking for. Now if only they would share them with the rest of us.