ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

Let the facts speak for themselves...

Since the Affordable Care Act kicked in fully, the percentage of Americans without health coverage has fallen to its lowest point in five years.

In the last quarter of 2013, just before the federal health law took full effect, 17.1 percent of Americans reported they lacked health insurance, according to a Gallup survey.

When the survey was taken (between Jan. 2 and Feb. 28), the rate had dropped to 1.2 percentage points to 15.9 percent.

The findings come from landline and cellphone interviews conducted with more than 28,000 Americans.

More people reported being covered by insurance they purchased themselves or by Medicaid. The percentage who said they were covered by employer plans fell slightly.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/03 ... ured-falls

How many people were uninsured in 2011

The Affordable Care Act will push the over 45 million uninsured in the United States to find health care coverage.

http://www.valuepenguin.com/2013/12/how ... -companies

What is our population at the moment?

317 million.

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

And the math.

317 million times 15.9 percent still uninsured comes out to about 49 million uninsured

So saying the amount of uninsured is down is correct. But the amount that needs coverage, the amount of people that Obama said would be covered by March 31st 2014 is still way off the mark.

Why aren't all those people signing up?

Reverend Revelant wrote: Why aren't all those people signing up?

You can get a stupid person to vote for an inexperienced empty suit if it doesn't cost him a cent. But you can't get a stupid person to buy a product he doesn't want and/or can't afford.

Smart people already knew the suit was empty and the product was crap.

Well apparently we have a lot of stupid people. Maybe they will get smarter next election go round?

Cancer Patient Who Blamed Obamacare For 'Unaffordable' Costs Will Actually Save Money

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group backed by the Koch brothers, is running Obamacare attack ads featuring a cancer patient who claimed her treatments were "unaffordable" under the new health law. On Monday, The Detroit News reported that the patient will actually save more than $1,000 a year.

Julie Boonstra says in the anti-Obamacare ad that was diagnosed with leukemia five years ago, and her health care plan was canceled when Obamacare went into effect.

"Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it's unaffordable," she said.

Before her plan was canceled, Boonstra was paying a $1,100 monthly premium. That's $13,200 a year, without adding out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and prescription drugs. But under her new plan, the Blue Cross Premier Gold, Boonstra's premiums are down to $571 a month, and out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100. That's a maximum annual expense of $11,952 a year.

Dang... Another "Americans For Prosperity" attack ad blown all to hell. So far, they're 0-for-10. And the new plan is non-cancellable, no lifetime maximums, and she couldn't be turned down for a "pre-existing condition". Imagine that.

(The newspaper reported her ex-husband, Mark Boonstra, had served as chair of the Washtenaw County GOP, and was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012.)

Imagine my surprise..... :Yawn:

---

Meanwhile:

MEANWHILE: Uninsured Rate Drops... Greatest Coverage Gains For People Earning Less Than $36,000...

Someone here once explained the GOP like this "they can't win if they don't cheat", she was dead on with that assessment.

And Americans lose when Obama wins. Spending billions on ACA and less people wind up insured. If this was a private company heads would roll.

According to the poll, 39% of Americans say they support the health care law, up from 35% in December, a record low in CNN polling. The uptick of four percentage points is within the survey’s sampling error. Fifty-seven percent of those questioned say they oppose the measure, down five points from December.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -edges-up/

"The uptick of four percentage points is within the survey’s sampling error." Translation. There is no statistical change. And a majority still oppose this badly-written law.

archer wrote: Someone here once explained the GOP like this "they can't win if they don't cheat", she was dead on with that assessment.

If you honestly think that, you are exposing your own bias. Personally they are some platforms of the Dem party I like and some of the Republicans I like. And some of the Libertarians. I do worry if a party gets too much power. Or Archer, do you think America would be a better place if the Dems had single party rule?

archer wrote: Someone here once explained the GOP like this "they can't win if they don't cheat", she was dead on with that assessment.

Sorry archer but you lost me here. When it comes to the ACA (the subject of this thread), could you elaborate on the Republican "cheating" you claim?

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: Someone here once explained the GOP like this "they can't win if they don't cheat", she was dead on with that assessment.

If you honestly think that, you are exposing your own bias. Personally they are some platforms of the Dem party I like and some of the Republicans I like. And some of the Libertarians. I do worry if a party gets too much power. Or Archer, do you think America would be a better place if the Dems had single party rule?

If the Dems had single party rule, they could stop pretending to give a damn about those they represent and get back to their primary goal of amassing personal power.