2.5 million more Americans insured due to Obamacares

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Right - that's why I was so angry at Obama for taking single payer off the table, and passing health care reform that mostly, for all the 40 million it newly ensures, is a giveaway to the lobbyists of the insurance companies and PhARMA

if it insures 40MM why is the headline 2.5MM and the graph show rapid decline in those who really need insurance (baby making ages)?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

if it insures 40MM why is the headline 2.5MM and the graph show rapid decline in those who really need insurance (baby making ages)?

Because the headline of 2.5 million is obviously (if you had bothered to read the article) referring only the response to one single provision within the ACA regarding the 2.5 million insured that are 21-26 allowed to stay on their parents insurance. Yup. It worked. They are insured.

Without the ACA, they would have been part of the rapid downward line for those who can no longer afford insurance, or lost their jobs, or no longer get insurance through work. These are not covered, now, by any provisions in the ACA, and will not be until the state insurance exchanges are up and running. Then, their line will go back up, too.

In other words, 2.5 million of the massive uninsured in their 20's have been insured now due to ACA provisions.

How many additional outside those kids have been temporarily insured through the goverment website? Through the changes to SCHIP, Medicaid? Will be when the exchanges are fully operational within the states (unless idiots like Gov. Haley continue to try and subvert them).

Every senior on Medicare has now had the "donut hole" fixed, and has cheaper Rx drugs, and less expensive preventive visits. The average senior has received $800-$1000 a year in lower healthcare costs due to provisions in the ACA.

The Republicans worse nightmare was to see all the ACA provisions kick in before the 2012 election. It's coming true.

[Honu]

I thought people were considered adults when they turned 18 and were no longer the responsibilty of their parents. To refer to someone in their 20's as a "kid" just seems a little ridiculous.....they are old enough to vote.They are old enough to go to war and fight and die for their country.
If a person over 18 commits a crime the police dont come after their parents they come after the adult who did the crime.
Its another step into the nanny state that is the agenda of some of the leaders of this country.
Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill. Yeah they had a good 50 to 60 year run but now there isnt any money left to keep supporting the masses and their needs, LOL f uckers are gonna have to get jobs and pay for insurance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

I thought people were considered adults when they turned 18 and were no longer the responsibilty of their parents. To refer to someone in their 20's as a "kid" just seems a little ridiculous.....they are old enough to vote.They are old enough to go to war and fight and die for their country.
If a person over 18 commits a crime the police dont come after their parents they come after the adult who did the crime.
Its another step into the nanny state that is the agenda of some of the leaders of this country.
Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill. Yeah they had a good 50 to 60 year run but now there isnt any money left to keep supporting the masses and their needs, LOL f uckers are gonna have to get jobs and pay for insurance.

I think that's Obama's fault.

And the "nanny state" is not forcing any one of those "young adults" to be insured. Not a one. It is their own decision, their parents decision, and they are paying 100% for it.

When I worry about the "nanny" state, I worry about the constant unending Republican fight to take my rights as a woman away. To take birth control away. To dictate who I can marry. To tell you that you do not have the same rights I do to marry who you want. To dictate my religion and what religions are "allowed" and "supported". To dictate who can and cannot build houses of worship, there. Who want to start wars because they just don't like the other country.

Open your eyes, Honu. If you really worried about a "nanny" state, look who is doing that very thing to you.

Just recently read a Time article talking about the downfall of France's perfect "socialistic" state and that the rest of Europe is sure to go down the same hill.

How's Germany doing?

[Honu]

Germany is doing very well for themselves I agree to that.
You get me wrong, I am conservitive fiscally and socially I am liberal. I will not vote for anyone for any position who brings their religion or their ideal of what they think is moral to any office.
I also will not support any candidate who suggests that we should all be equal and all should have the same things because when that is suggested what gives people a motive to do better and to be better?
I am for free enterprise and for capitalism I am for social freedoms void of any religous point of view. Im am not for any public employee who's salary is funded with my tax dollars going on strike and causing hardships on other people to further the agenda of a Union.
Im for giving people who came to this country illegally the option to join the armed forces for 4 years and become citizens or they will be sent back to the **** hole they come from.
I do not think health insurance is a right neither is driving a car, they are privilages and it is not the federal governments role to provide it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

Germany is doing very well for themselves I agree to that.
You get me wrong, I am conservitive fiscally and socially I am liberal. I will not vote for anyone for any position who brings their religion or their ideal of what they think is moral to any office.
I also will not support any candidate who suggests that we should all be equal and all should have the same things because when that is suggested what gives people a motive to do better and to be better?
I am for free enterprise and for capitalism I am for social freedoms void of any religous point of view. Im am not for any public employee who's salary is funded with my tax dollars going on strike and causing hardships on other people to further the agenda of a Union.
Im for giving people who came to this country illegally the option to join the armed forces for 4 years and become citizens or they will be sent back to the **** hole they come from.
I do not think health insurance is a right neither is driving a car, they are privilages and it is not the federal governments role to provide it.

You sound like what Republicans used to be like I agree with much of what you say.

I think, that in a first world country, being healthy and having food on the table is a right, in the sense that society wants to ensure that every citizen has that. Rather than leaving everyone alone to fend for the basics themselves.

Does that mean it should be "given away for free"? No. But yes, to the poor and destitute. And it should be made affordable for everyone else to purchase. Nobody, in a first world country as rich as ours, should starve, or not get health care, or not get the chance for education.

Although, the 2010 Census indicates that our middle class is indeed virtually gone, with 1 of 2 of us living within or just above poverty levels. That's a shame, as the country is wealthier than ever.

Does that mean I think money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor? Not at all. Keep what you earn. But the rules have to be the same for every citizen. Not just the plutocracy that rule us.

And this is me :-)

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You sound like what Republicans used to be like I agree with much of what you say.

I think, that in a first world country, being healthy and having food on the table is a right, in the sense that society wants to ensure that every citizen has that. Rather than leaving everyone alone to fend for the basics themselves.

Does that mean it should be "given away for free"? No. But yes, to the poor and destitute. And it should be made affordable for everyone else to purchase. Nobody, in a first world country as rich as ours, should starve, or not get health care, or not get the chance for education.

Although, the 2010 Census indicates that our middle class is indeed virtually gone, with 1 of 2 of us living within or just above poverty levels. That's a shame, as the country is wealthier than ever.

Does that mean I think money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor? Not at all. Keep what you earn. But the rules have to be the same for every citizen. Not just the plutocracy that rule us.

And this is me :-)

We (the country anyway) are not "rich" we are in debt, enormous debt and that is why the complaints come in about social programs from one side and expensive wars from the other. Perhaps the tax-cuts that everyone is making such a huge deal out of right now (which actually amount to an average of $20 per week/per person) should be ended and applied elsewhere. If I had any faith that my money would be put to good use I would gladly sacrifice my $20.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

How's Germany doing?

When are you moving? Soon we all hope.

BTW my relatives still living in Germany will dislike you as much as I do!

Greece is calling you

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When are you moving? Soon we all hope.

BTW my relatives still living in Germany will dislike you as much as I do!

Greece is calling you

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I need this sign for my house!