Excellent!
Now, about those numbers you have for us of the total number covered now that weren’t before. Care to share them?
The burden of proof is on your side to show that more people are covered than before.
It shouldn’t be hard. This was a trillion dollar law designed to expand coverage, no? Well, show me the coverage!
Let me just be clear and state that in one respect, ACA is a huge success. For the first time, any American who wants health insurance can get health insurance. If the President had stuck to his campaign promise and designed the program with that as the #1 priority, then the program would be a success.
The problem is that he designed it to do a lot more, and so now you have a lot of losers to go along with all the people who can now get access to insurance. That didn’t have to happen and he promised it wouldn’t. So he, and his program, may have to pay the price for that, and I hope if that happens there is no whining.
The death panels / socialism / loss of freedom blather from your guys are “merits”? 
You have obviously forgotten that this was a Republican proposal.
He designed it? First, it was originally a Heritage Foundation plan, pushed by Republicans off and on since the late 90s.
Second, there were 535 other people fighting it, amending it, trying to improve it, and condemning it during the entire process. Then 9 more weighed in on portions of it and made it harder to implement. And these are just the main players, not including their staffs and lobbyists.
Obama owns it, if it succeeds he will reap the historical rewards, if it fails the historical condemnations. But saying he designed it is a gross violation of reality.
And if it doesn’t, let’s hear no whining either.
Actually it isn’t on our side. Your exact words were:
[QUOTE=adaher]
Anyway, so far you don’t have a whole lot of people who actually have coverage who didn’t before.
[/QUOTE]
So, cite?
I’m starting to think that your posts should come with a disclaimer along the lines of “The above is very likely to be the opposite of the know facts.” Could you add that to your signature line? Or perhaps just a random snippet from the huge collection of your earlier posts which would serve the same purpose. Nuggets like:
[QUOTE=adaher]
You guys are forgetting something about the profit motive: those who seek profit are working for their customers.
[/QUOTE]
The WSJ study says that 750,000 people have health insurance that didn’t before. In a nation where 40 million didn’t have health insurance prior to ACA, that qualifies as “you don’t have a whole lot covered who weren’t before”.
Please. If the program becomes popular, it was our idea all along! The Democrats even said it themselves.
Since that number was basically pulled directly from the dirty ass of the WSJ, that doesn’t make it much different from your other claims. You keep conveniently forgetting Medicaid increases, even when I point out that you keep forgetting them. You know you’re going to keep getting asked to back up your bullshit claims, right?
So, how many people have coverage that didn’t have it before ACA?
The Medicaid increases mean nothing either, as the Posts’ Factcheck found:
What we also don’t know is how many lost their private insurance and are now on Medicaid. Those people were harmed by the law even though they are still technically covered by something.
This being the operative words here.
No one should have been forced out of their insurance into Medicaid. The fact that it happened at all=fail.
That ridiculous threshold is recipe for legislative paralysis. Name one piece of conservative legislation that didn’t have any negative repercussions for anyone.
No, no, I smell a talking point here. We’re going to be hearing this a lot in the run-up to November. Democratic policies are evil if even one single person is hurt by them. But Republican policies are designed to hurt people who don’t matter so only the positive effects count.
OK, that is ridiculous, but so are all talking points. We need to pay attention and use adaher as a DEW line, an early warning system.
Then he shouldn’t promise no negative repercussions for anyone. Especially not negative repercussions so severe as being thrown into Medicaid.
He made a very specific promise, and furthermore stated that those who disagreed that this promise would be kept were “spreading misinformation”. We have the right to hang his program by those words.
Sweet Leaping Jesus God, 26 pages of arguing this with adaher? Seriously? Have you people learned nothing?
Good luck with that. Hilary won’t let you repeal it either.
We’re just bored.