Included in the WSJ link. At most, 750,000 people have private insurance who didn’t before.
The Medicaid expansion is probably more successful. When Republicans get their hands on ACA after the 2016 election, they’ll probably keep that, while getting rid of the subsidies and insurance mandates that drive up the cost of insurance. People won’t need subsidies if the insurance isn’t so damn expensive.
“Partisan” being defined as “opposed to repeal”?
Partisan being defined as “Democrats with no direct stake in the law”. Ideological fervor alone can’t save any law, and it’s not like there’s much ideological enthusiasm for this law to begin with.
It will only be viable if the beneficiaries fight for it, and right now you don’t have enough beneficiaries.
Simply not doing anything is more than enough, though. Are you under the impression that there is a way they just go away somehow? 
There is no sunset provision in ACA, and there are few laws that do have them. But at least you now seem to understand that it’s no longer a bill, but a law, so there’s that.
Only ideological fervor can *repeal *a law, except that (A) There isn’t an argument behind that other than “Obama is the Antichrist” etc., and (B) The fervid are in a minority and still shrinking, despite whatever unskewed polls you may be swallowing.
If a law’s not working, then it’s easy to repeal. So far, you don’t even have any evidence that the number of uninsured has decreased. THat’s failure.
Tell John Boehner that.
Uh, actually, we do.
The thing about the 18-34 demographic is, it is the wrong demo. A lot of 25 and under are going to be sticking with their parents insurance. So really they need to look at he individual signups of the 26-34 year olds.
Something few of them could have done before Obamacare, it’s worth mentioning.
From here
So, none of those 3.9 million were insured before. And the number would be larger if the Republican governors refusing Medicaid expansion had accepted it.
I understand, these are just poor people and not worthy of attention.
I’m looking forward to the ads featuring people who were sick before since they couldn’t afford a doctor, but who are now well due to ACA. And those no longer living in fear of bankruptcy.
Since you’re moving the goalposts so fast it’s causing tornado warnings, what would you consider success? Or are the multiple cites that the above statement is wrong sufficient and you’re finally going to come around to our side?
He’s already explained that RepubliCare would be pretty much the same damn thing as ObamaCare, just without that Kenyan Muslim Socialist’s name on it.
Or was that yesterday’s position? It’s so hard to keep track.
So do people who are newly covered under Medicaid expansion not count? I didn’t realize that when you said “covered”, you were specifically leaving out those who now fall under Medicaid. Do you have a link to this special dictionary that you use, so that we’re all on the same page?
In case I’m mistaken and you do indeed share our language, what number of people are now covered who weren’t before? That would help me understand what “not a whole lot” means.
The fact that you would actually type this out is rather amusing.
Do you not remember Democrats running around claiming how no one would lose their current insurance plans? Do you not remember Democrats running around claiming that no one would see a rise in their premiums due to Obamacare? Do you not remember Democrats running around claiming that Obamacare was a cost saving measure and airing the public that there were no cost increases embedded into the law, etc? Because, if not, I’d love to provide you a refresher course in the myriad of absolute lies (which we righties called lies) that were used over and over and over again to promote Obamacare.
…Although, you’ll probably just hand wave them away…
Oh well.
What part of “you lost” don’t you understand?
I find it funny that the GOP - or at least some of their more desperate members - are waxing on about the Obamacare bailouts for the insurance companies, referring of course to the reinsurance and risk corridor mechanisms that have been in the law since it passed and that have been discussed ad nauseum already by policy wonks. I mean, I guess that it might seem like good politics for the GOP to rail against these policies, but jettisoning them would be a terrible move even by conservative standards.
Keep in mind, though, that those mechanisms fade away entirely post-2016, whereas you didn’t see the GOP rail against the risk corridors in Medicare Part D which exist in fucking perpetuity.
Stupid, stupid, hypocritical horseshit.
Oh, and didn’t you hear? Conservatives can’t lose now that every single election ever will henceforth be a referendum on the ACA.
Even in elections in which the GOP gets their asses thoroughly handed to them - such as Obama’s reelection or the Democratic sweep in Virginia - those results were STILL referendums on Obamacare.
But how could that be if the GOP lost? Because. :rolleyes:
The purpose of the risk corridors was to reimburse insurance companies if their particular pool was sicker and older than average. It was never intended as an industry-wide bailout should healthy people in general refuse to enroll.
The insurance companies hopped on board the ACA express enthusiastically. They should bear 100% of the risk for getting in bed with the government.
Do you have a position on the perpetual risk corridors and non-negotiated drug prices in Medicare Part D?
Seems to me like Big Pharma got a better deal under the Bush Administration than Big Insurance under Obamacare who will lose their risk corridors in a few years.
Abandoning your “on the merits” position so soon?