More Obamacare fuckups

[Parkbandit]

Good video. Thanks for posting that. I really liked her quote of Obama "change is hard". That sums up the heartburn you all are feeling about this. It's a big change and conservatives struggle with that. Oveall, that's probably good for the yin/yang of things.

Yea, we don't like change... that is the reason that we have problems with the ACA.

Well, that and we're obviously all racists and sexist xenophones.

You nailed it!

[Tgo01]

We may even have an increase in rates offered on the exchange next year, maybe the year after too. The ACA is going to take time.

Gee I'm sure the people already struggling are going to love hearing this. So when can we expect Obamacare to finally do what it was supposed to do and stop doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe our grandchildren will see the benefit of Obamacare.

The good news here is that it's proof positive that your President is not in fact a socialist dictator. If he were he'd just force everyone that doesn't have the right coverage into the exchange and back that up with confiscations, jail terms and general dictatorish hassles.

True. It is comforting to know he's just an incompetent boob and not a socialist dictator.

[Tgo01]

Your position involves complaining that ACA isn't liberal enough while a member of a party that would've never supported a better version.

Not this argument again. "My party" didn't support THIS version so what's the difference?

[Warriorbird]

Not this argument again. "My party" didn't support THIS version so what's the difference?

It makes all your complaints disingenuous at best.

[Tgo01]

It makes all your complaints disingenuous at best.

Nuh uh!

[cwolff]

Gee I'm sure the people already struggling are going to love hearing this. So when can we expect Obamacare to finally do what it was supposed to do and stop doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe our grandchildren will see the benefit of Obamacare.



True. It is comforting to know he's just an incompetent boob and not a socialist dictator.

It's already working for a lot of people. If you can't accept that then you've got nothing to say. It's ok if you think that it's not good in general but you've got to admit that for some people it's been a good thing.

Yea, we don't like change... that is the reason that we have problems with the ACA.

Well, that and we're obviously all racists and sexist xenophones.

You nailed it!

con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

noun
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

ya, I guess I did nail it.

[Tgo01]

It's already working for a lot of people. If you can't accept that then you've got nothing to say. It's ok if you think that it's not good in general but you've got to admit that for some people it's been a good thing.

You just got finished saying it might already raise premiums and might raise premiums for the next couple of years. So who is this working for?

It's kind of pointless to say Obamacare is "working" for some people while recognizing that things are going to get worse for a lot of other people.

[cwolff]

You just got finished saying it might already raise premiums and might raise premiums for the next couple of years. So who is this working for?

It's kind of pointless to say Obamacare is "working" for some people who recognizing that things are going to get worse for a lot of other people.

You're assuming it's going to get worse for A LOT of people and only work for SOME people. Do you have any numbers to support this? How are you defining getting worse? Like the people who only had catastrophic coverage; is it worse for them if they buy greater coverage for more money? Is it better? Is it a break-even?

[Tgo01]

You're assuming it's going to get worse for A LOT of people and only work for SOME people. Do you have any numbers to support this?

Sure. 9.5 supposedly previously uninsured people are now insured (half of whom are so poor they are now on Medicaid), meanwhile tens of millions of people who already had healthcare will most likely see their premiums go up.

How are you defining getting worse?

Healthcare costs not going down.

Like the people who only had catastrophic coverage; is it worse for them if they buy greater coverage for more money? Is it better? Is it a break-even?

Don't you think they only had catastrophic coverage for a reason? How are you defining "better"? They had "worse" coverage but are now forced to buy "better" coverage and pay more?

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Sure. 9.5 supposedly previously uninsured people are now insured (half of whom are so poor they are now on Medicaid), meanwhile tens of millions of people who already had healthcare will most likely see their premiums go up.



Healthcare costs not going down.



Don't you think they only had catastrophic coverage for a reason? How are you defining "better"? They had "worse" coverage but are now forced to buy "better" coverage and pay more?