Healthcare

[Guest Len B'stard]

That makes perfect sense actually.

Isoptope: Who thinks like that?

Thats the point of view of the Americans who don't want it right? With the idea being that why should I pay for, i dunno, some guy on welfare to get free healthcare...isn't that sort of the nature of how taxes work though? Like council tax or road tax and all that, why are other forms OK and not this one cuz thats what tax amounts to right, all of us chipping in so everybody gets some butter on their slice, as it were.

To me it did seem like you were addressing that to someone specifically.. And I agree with what you're saying there. Suddenly your interested in American healthcare too?

Oh I'm part of what I was making a point of too, because I've been up and down the healthcare threads here putting my opinion in. Never really thought about it until just now, usually the topics are just there so i wade in.

Edited March 14, 2014 by sugaraylen

[downzy]

I have a theory about why healthcare seems to work everywhere else in the world except for the US and Ive thought this for quite some time. Now correct me if Im wrong but I think that most places that today have a proper national health system have had it in place prior to any significant private insurance presence coming to the market. The problem with the US is that theyre trying to do it the other way around.

In the UK we have the state NHS but were perfectly entitled to purchase private insurance if we so wish. The major difference and the crux of the whole matter as I see it is that though I actually do also have private insurance I dont HAVE to rely on it. If the insurance companies here start pulling the shit they do in the US then people can quite happily tell them to get fucked as they always have that safety net.

In the US this isnt the case which is why I dont believe well ever see a proper system put in place over there. The monopoly holders have too much to lose and the patients are too scared of the consequences during what would undoubtably be a rather painful transition. The insurers will fight tooth and nail to stop any genuine national healthcare program because it will hit their profits plain and simple.

If you have an existing government system then private companies can integrate fairly easily as they know they have that competition from the beginning and have to plan and function as a business accordingly. Also the exitence of private insurers will if anything be of benefit to a national system as it will ease the burden as people with private cover will seek treatment elsewhere.

Now if you consider the opposite scenario where an entreched for profit system sees to emergence of something similar to the NHS then all fucking hell will logically break loose. I mean as with any business imagine a competitor entering the market and offering to supply the same product youre selling but to do it for everybody and do it for free?

Good points. And just to piggyback on your post, most developed nations instituted their healthcare systems during a time when the welfare system was still held in high regard. The memories of the Great Depression weren't too faraway and helped many nations to implement systems that would help prevent or limit the effects of such economic calamity. The U.S. never got to that point since individualism is far more engrained in its national character. While elements of individualism have served the U.S. well in certain matters, it has hampered the development in areas where a more collectivist approach has proven better.

I do think it's inevitable that the U.S. will eventually embrace a more collectivized approach to managing its healthcare system. It has to, since its current path is unsustainable. Even with some of the effects of Obamacare, the U.S. will have to address the high costs components found within the system through centralization. Privatization in health services has proven to only drive up costs, not lower them. It will take time, but I'm hopeful the U.S. gets there.

Edited March 14, 2014 by downzy

[foghat43]

No, I don't believe in an immoral system where the fruit of one man's labor is taken by force and given to another.

What is immoral about a system where one man contributes to another man having the possibility of healthcare? Why shouldn't those who obtain massive paypackets give back to society?

I'm disturbed by your notion that the only purpose of labor is to accumulate money for thyself.

Nothing is immoral about it as long as the “one man” belongs to the system by his consent and contributes voluntarily to the healthcare of “another man”. What makes it immoral is when the system is based on force/coercion. To take the fruit of one man’s labor by force and against his consent is theft. It is theft when an individual does it. It is theft when a government does it. Do you not find the use of force and theft to be immoral? I do.

I never said that the only purpose of labor is to accumulate money for myself. I believe I have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate. But what I choose to do with the fruit of my labor is up to me. It’s not up to you or the State.

What you should find disturbing is that you favor a society that is based on force/coercion (and ultimately violence) rather than a free society based on consent, and that you feel that you are entitled to tell me and others what we can and can’t do with our time/money.

Personally I find the statist/collectivist mindset disturbing.

[Orsys]

But it works both ways. The fruit of my labor is taken to benefit others, whether I agree or not. True. But I have more fruit because of those same coercive laws. For example, yes, I must pay $750 per year for my Ontario health plan. No choice in the matter. But I am also paid a premium for certain work situations under the Employment Standards Act. This type of "coercion" giveth and it taketh away. I also have more fruit because I benefit from a community's resources to earn my fruit.

Is it immoral to take the fruit of one's labor? Maybe. but so is a society that does not find solace and aid for its weakest because its people want to keep the fruit of their labor. Not sure you can count on the majority doing their part to donate to those less fortunate willingly.

You take a seed, plant it, grow your apple and eat it, fine. No one should take part of that apple from you. But it is seldom that simple. You earn the fruit of your labor using resources provided to you by a community. I think you are required to participate in that community too.

[foghat43]

@ Orsys

I have no problem with the idea of a community where there is some give and take, and people are sharing the fruit of their labor with those less fortunate. But when I think of these “communities” that you speak of I think of local communities working together at a more decentralized level, not an authoritarian federal government forcing a one-size-fits-all model on a huge nation of 50 states.

So it’s not the idea of community that I dislike, but the “you are required to participate in that community” is where I must disagree because ultimately what is implied in that statement is this…”if you refuse to participate in our community we will threaten you with fines and imprisonment, and if that doesn’t work we will seize your assets and send uniformed thugs to your home with guns who will either take you by force or kill you if you resist”. Again, if you think this is an exaggeration…stop paying your taxes. You used an apple as an example of the fruit of my labor. You agreed that no one should take part of that apple from me. In a free society the apple would belong to me. If I choose to give half the apple to my hungry neighbor I can, and I may even feel that I am morally obligated to do so. But in a collective society, the idea that I “own” the apple is just an illusion. Again if you think this is an exaggeration, try it out…if you think you own your home, your car, or any other state regulated or taxed property, try to stop paying the taxes on the item. You'll find out very quickly who really owns your property. Now think about your labor, which is an extension of yourself and therefore solely your property by definition. Do you believe that your labor, which is an extension of yourself, which is solely your property by definition, is actually your property? Then try to stop paying your income tax. You'll find out very quickly who owns you.

Collectivism is based on force/coercion and ultimately violence/theft, and therefore it is an immoral system. It is a form of aggression against the life, liberty and property of the individual.

Let’s go back to the example of the apple. Suppose my neighbor is hungry and I refuse to share my apple with him. Is it moral (or even legal) for him to force me at gunpoint to give him the apple, or for him to kill me and then take the apple? I think most people would agree that this is evil, it is theft or murder. Most people would never do this, right? Of course not. Instead of getting their hands bloody, they simply vote to have the violence institutionalized and “legitimized” via a government tax. Voting to have your neighbor’s property taken at gunpoint by a government agent is so much more civilized than committing the act your self. So collectivists believe that it is immoral for an individual to inititate aggression against another individual for the purpose of taking his property, but they think it's A-OK for the State to do it on their behalf as long as they can get a majority vote to go along with them. You've probably heard the saying about two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. In these types of societies government becomes “the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else".

I favor a free society based on private property rights and voluntary participation in communities. Freedom should be the highest political end, and the default position for any ethical or political theory. It should be the most fundamental social value. Collectivism in all it’s many forms is the enemy of freedom. But believing that freedom is the highest political end, does not mean that it is the highest end of man per se (paraphrasing Acton here). We do have moral obligations. But to say that the role of government is to force people (by violence or threats of violence, theft via taxation/fines, etc.) to be moral and charitable creates somewhat of a conundrum, not to mention a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Is it moral to help our fellow man? Yes. Should we be forced to be moral at gunpoint? No. In fact, if one is forced to do something it is no longer a moral act. Can we build a moral society on an immoral foundation (force, violence, theft, aggression against the individual and his property by the State)? No, that is a logical contradiction. Can we have a free society based on forced collectivism? No, again that is a logical contradiction...the idea of being coerced against one's will to do something stands in direct opposition to the idea of freedom.

Will a society based on the ideas of liberty be perfect, will there be no poverty or no freeloaders who only take and don't give to the community? Of course not. There is no utopia. But will a society based on collectivism be any more moral (it can't be since it is based on an immoral premise), will it eliminate poverty or freeloaders? No. We have the history of fascism and communism as examples of what collectivist socities are capable of. Again, there are no utopias and never will be. But at the end of the day I would much prefer to live in a free and imperfect society while doing what I can to to help my fellow man rather than living in an unfree and imperfect society.

Edited March 15, 2014 by foghat43

[downzy]

shades, on 13 Mar 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

downzy, on 13 Mar 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

. It's also a rollout of the Medicaid program to cover lower-income and poor individuals. It was projected in May 2013 that as a result of the ACA, 14 million people would receive health coverage by March 2014. The Congressional Budget Office in February of this year revised their projection (since it

. But it is expected that several million will sign up between March 1st and March 31st.

several million between 3/1 and 3/31?

that's 42 sign ups per minute every minute between now and the 31st, one every 1.4 seconds.

lest talk again in 2 weeks 3 days, numnuts

http://acasignups.net

Latest projections put enrolment at 6.54 million by the end of March, which actually exceeds what the CBO projected in February.

Shades: spouting facts that are based on opinion since '87.

Edited March 28, 2014 by downzy

[Jakey Styley]

I don't know anything about the merits of Obamacare, but I've been trying to apply for my mother, for which it is an urgent matter, for a month now. I am shocked that a federal system is this poorly organized. The website is terrible and littered with error codes that the idiots at customer service don't even know the meaning of. Today, I've been calling, and they tell me that there's a heavy call volume right now. Normally in this situation, a customer service department throws on some bad instrumental music and makes you wait 20 minutes, not here. They just say to call back later and hang up. Of course, this has happened 3 times since this morning.

[downzy]

I don't know anything about the merits of Obamacare, but I've been trying to apply for my mother, for which it is an urgent matter, for a month now. I am shocked that a federal system is this poorly organized. The website is terrible and littered with error codes that the idiots at customer service don't even know the meaning of. Today, I've been calling, and they tell me that there's a heavy call volume right now. Normally in this situation, a customer service department throws on some bad instrumental music and makes you wait 20 minutes, not here. They just say to call back later and hang up. Of course, this has happened 3 times since this morning.

Yeah, I would imagine March is a bad time to apply since a large majority of people waited until the last month as well. Apparently, however, they've extended the deadline until April 15th (don't quote me on the exact date) for those people who have tried to apply for insurance through the federal exchanges but have been hampered due to technical problems.

Apparently you can apply in person, in addition to online and telephone applications.

[Dazey]

I don't know anything about the merits of Obamacare, but I've been trying to apply for my mother, for which it is an urgent matter, for a month now. I am shocked that a federal system is this poorly organized. The website is terrible and littered with error codes that the idiots at customer service don't even know the meaning of. Today, I've been calling, and they tell me that there's a heavy call volume right now. Normally in this situation, a customer service department throws on some bad instrumental music and makes you wait 20 minutes, not here. They just say to call back later and hang up. Of course, this has happened 3 times since this morning.

Yeah, I would imagine March is a bad time to apply since a large majority of people waited until the last month as well. Apparently, however, they've extended the deadline until April 15th (don't quote me on the exact date) for those people who have tried to apply for insurance through the federal exchanges but have been hampered due to technical problems.

Apparently you can apply in person, in addition to online and telephone applications.

Does this mean that they've hit the estimated targets then?

[downzy]

I don't know anything about the merits of Obamacare, but I've been trying to apply for my mother, for which it is an urgent matter, for a month now. I am shocked that a federal system is this poorly organized. The website is terrible and littered with error codes that the idiots at customer service don't even know the meaning of. Today, I've been calling, and they tell me that there's a heavy call volume right now. Normally in this situation, a customer service department throws on some bad instrumental music and makes you wait 20 minutes, not here. They just say to call back later and hang up. Of course, this has happened 3 times since this morning.

Yeah, I would imagine March is a bad time to apply since a large majority of people waited until the last month as well. Apparently, however, they've extended the deadline until April 15th (don't quote me on the exact date) for those people who have tried to apply for insurance through the federal exchanges but have been hampered due to technical problems.

Apparently you can apply in person, in addition to online and telephone applications.

Does this mean that they've hit the estimated targets then?

A year ago they estimated that 7 million people would sign up by the end of March. They're on track for 6.5 million. They (as in the CBO) lowered their forecast in February due to the technical problems many faced when the federal exchanges first opened in October. I think they figured it would be around 6 million, so they're actually exceeding projections made only a month ago.

But they're not generally targets but more projections regarding how many people will sign up. Missing the 7 million figure by a half million won't affect the outcome of the law one way or another. Far more important is the young to old ration. They want 40 percent of enrolees to be young and healthy, but for the first few months is sat around 25 percent. I think February it moved to 27 percent, and they're expecting a bigger percentage for the month of March. The law will crumble if the percentage doesn't get to a 35-40 percent range. It's going to take many years before we know for sure whether it's seen as successful or not.

Edited March 28, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

It's being reported that Obamacare hit 7 million sign-ups late last night. That means it hit the projections made a year ago despite a website that was, for the most part, inoperable for the first two months of its launch. The 7 million mark also exceeded the revised projections made by the CBO two months ago by a million people.

Still a long way to go to see how the law will workout, but I think the common argument that Americans don't want the law is starting to crumble.

[AxlisOld]

Americans don't want this law.

[shades]

Americans don't want this law.

Of course they don't,

or at least the Americans that pay the bills

November will be a gauge as to whether the non contributing in our society have managed to keep enough of their tree hugging liberal youth to stay on board with the disaster that is Obama pretending to be a leader.

But as far as the ACA is concerned there are no sane people in either party that still try and defend this thing.

Edited April 1, 2014 by shades

[shades]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

[arnold layne]

College healthcare kicks ass.

I had to get some blood work done, $24 total for the whole test. Tomorrow I have to get a blood sugar test so that's like $9.

It could be a lot worse.

Americans don't want this law.

Of course they don't,

or at least the Americans that pay the bills

November will be a gauge as to whether the non contributing in our society have managed to keep enough of their tree hugging liberal youth to stay on board with the disaster that is Obama pretending to be a leader.

But as far as the ACA is concerned there are no sane people in either party that still try and defend this thing.

Hey shades. I am a liberal tree hugging dick!

Thanks to your contributions I understand my liver is in good shape as of right now.

[AxlisOld]

College healthcare kicks ass.

I had to get some blood work done, $24 total for the whole test. Tomorrow I have to get a blood sugar test so that's like $9.

It could be a lot worse.

Americans don't want this law.

Of course they don't,

or at least the Americans that pay the bills

November will be a gauge as to whether the non contributing in our society have managed to keep enough of their tree hugging liberal youth to stay on board with the disaster that is Obama pretending to be a leader.

But as far as the ACA is concerned there are no sane people in either party that still try and defend this thing.

Hey shades. I am a liberal tree hugging dick!

Thanks to your contributions I understand my liver is in good shape as of right now.

Aren't you still on your parents' insurance?

[Val22]

Well, since my son has a pre-existing condition no insurance company would insure him even though he's been healthy for 25 years. They don't care.

Because of Obamacare at least my son has good insurance coverage from Blue Cross and Blue shield now and it covers all his medicines and doctor visits.

If someone can come up with something better to insure all the Americans without insurance, then why don't they try?

[saber_]

Healthcare is the reason you want to be a good saver for retirement, not to mention poor people aren't going to get cloned organs when that becomes a thing.

[bran]

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

i think the 7 million were just the number of hits recorded by the site, the government counted 7 million hits = 7 million signups which is asinine. in 2009 the US had almost 50 million without insurance adding to the 30+ million that have lost their health insurance since the law was implemented or will lose their coverage in 2014, and this 7 million(which in truth is lower than 7 million) is somehow praise worthy?

Edited April 1, 2014 by bran

[Guest NGOG]

I don't know anything about the merits of Obamacare, but I've been trying to apply for my mother, for which it is an urgent matter, for a month now. I am shocked that a federal system is this poorly organized. The website is terrible and littered with error codes that the idiots at customer service don't even know the meaning of. Today, I've been calling, and they tell me that there's a heavy call volume right now. Normally in this situation, a customer service department throws on some bad instrumental music and makes you wait 20 minutes, not here. They just say to call back later and hang up. Of course, this has happened 3 times since this morning.

Hope your mother is doing OK, man.

Edited April 1, 2014 by NGOG

[downzy]

Americans don't want this law.

Not according to the most recent polling. Though the law still remains unpopular, a majority of Americans want to keep the law as is or see some changes to it, as opposed to repealing it all together:

Nearly six in ten in the Kaiser study said Congress should work to improve the measure or keep it the way it currently stands. Just under three in ten advocated repealing the law or replacing it with a Republican-backed plan.

And when you ask Americans about individual components of the law, almost everything in it gets overwhelming support. The only aspect of the law where a very small majority (51 to 47 percent) is against relates to the individual mandate. It's only when you label it "Obamacare" do perceptions on the law change.

Americans don't want this law.

Of course they don't,

or at least the Americans that pay the bills

November will be a gauge as to whether the non contributing in our society have managed to keep enough of their tree hugging liberal youth to stay on board with the disaster that is Obama pretending to be a leader.

But as far as the ACA is concerned there are no sane people in either party that still try and defend this thing.

Hey look,

It's the guy who just two weeks ago who claimed that there was no way 6 million people would enrol in the private exchanges (see post on the previous page). Honestly, ever you ever right about anything?

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

i think the 7 million were just the number of hits recorded by the site, the government counted 7 million hits = 7 million signups which is asinine. in 2009 the US had almost 50 million without insurance adding to the 30+ million that have lost their health insurance since the law was implemented or will lose their coverage in 2014, and this 7 million(which in truth is lower than 7 million) is somehow praise worthy?

Absolutely not true. 7.1 million people have enrolled in the private exchanges. Where are you getting this 7 million website hits = 7 million signups?

7 million is the initial enrolment period in the private exchanges. There will be future enrolment periods where more will be added. The law also includes Medicaid expansion, which will provide insurance for an additional six to seven million Americans this year. It's estimated that the ACA will provide insurance for 13-14 million its first year and hopefully 25 to 30 million by the time the law is fully implemented by 2018.

It's a scam,

Did I not hear for 4 years "we have approx. 40 million uninsured in this country, blah blah blah"

Now, they tout 7 million, (which is not a real number anyway) as some sort of mission accomplished.

I believe you left out 33 million or so there jr.

wake up, this is embarrassing

What's embarrassing is your total lack of education or understanding about what the law is and how it works. The law will take years to fully implement. This is only the first phase.

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[arnold layne]

Don't bother with shades. Dude cannot even write a grammatically correct sentence.

[bran]

"Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because “HHS figures . . . count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-made-up-good-news-about-obamacare/2014/03/31/1ed97eba-b8d1-11e3-899e-bb708e3539dd_story.html

even if it is 7 million( i have read and heard more like 6) but say if all 7 million people signed up and say all 7 million bought the premiums you are breaking even on the people who lost their health care when parts of the law kicked in january 1st. the whole point of this law was to reach the 50 million people who had no insurance, and this has utterly failed(so far)

[downzy]

"Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because “HHS figures . . . count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-made-up-good-news-about-obamacare/2014/03/31/1ed97eba-b8d1-11e3-899e-bb708e3539dd_story.html

even if it is 7 million( i have read and heard more like 6) but say if all 7 million people signed up and say all 7 million bought the premiums you are breaking even on the people who lost their health care when parts of the law kicked in january 1st. the whole point of this law was to reach the 50 million people who had no insurance, and this has utterly failed(so far)

A couple of issues with Thiessen's argument. First, he's leaving out the millions of people who signed up directly with insurance companies. Second, and I've made this point earlier, the Medicaid expansion is projected to cover an additional 4-7 million up to this point, something Thiessen never addresses. Third, there is no study anywhere that I have read that proves 5 to 6 million people had their policies cancelled as a result of Obamacare. Finally, the total tally would be greater, had many Republican Governors not blocked the expansion of Medicaid in their respective states. So if you want to blame the ACA for not covering as many as it could (or should), perhaps you might want to look at those who are actively denying coverage to those they are representing.

EDIT: just doing some more reading on this at the LA Times and what's not included in this tally is the 3 million Americans who are 26 and under who will have health insurance as a result of staying on their parents plans.

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

I referenced this article in my previous post, but I think it deserves its own post.

LA Times Debunks Claims Over Numbers:

"How many have paid?" (Also known as "The statistics are full of deadbeats"):

We examined this argument a few days ago. We observed that the concern is probably exaggerated and certainly premature, since many people who enrolled late in the cycle, including those in the March surge, may not have payments due for as much as six weeks after enrollment. Many haven't even received their first monthly premium bill yet.
Figures from states that track this metric, including California and Vermont, show that 85% to 90% of enrollees have paid on time, which secures them the coverage they applied for.

"Most of them were already insured":

The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.
The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.
The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are people merely signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans, and the McKinsey surveys fail to do that.
The few states that do break out their own numbers, moreover, contradict McKinsey. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.

"'Young invincibles' aren't signing up":

This is related to the oft-mentioned threat of a "death spiral" in the insurance market -- if the enrollees are predominantly older and sicker consumers, they'll drive up premiums, which will discourage younger and healthier people from enrolling, which drives up premiums, which discourages, the young, etc., etc.

Federal officials have set an informal target of 40% of enrollments in the 18-34 age range. The latest figures from various states put the enrollment rate at the mid-20% level. But it was always expected that younger people would be among the last to enroll, and reports from the states suggest that's happening.

Even if the statistics remain fixed in the mid-20s, however, the death spiral won't be happening. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that even if the young enrolled at only 50% of expected levels, premiums for 2015 would have to be raised a couple of percentage points. That's nowhere near enough to set off a death spiral.

Moreover, as we explained way back in October, the ACA has a corrective to the death spiral written in. It's called risk adjustment, and it works by paying a subsidy to insurance companies that end up with older or sicker customer bases than they anticipated. The money comes from payments made by carriers that end up with favorable customer profiles. Republicans know this arrangement will keep Obamacare stable. How do we know? Because in a majestically cynical move spearheaded by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., they tried late last year to kill it, calling it an insurance "bailout."

"More people got cancellations than signed up":

The numbers never supported this claim, and the latest estimates make it even more of a fantasy. It's based on the wave of reports late last year of insurance companies canceling old policies that didn't meet ACA standards, which led to hysterical claims that as many as 17 million Americans were being left uninsured.

Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.

"The White House is 'cooking the books'":

This is the last refuge of scoundrels like Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who made the claim this weekend on Fox News Sunday while the slack-jawed host, Chris Wallace, sat silently by.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-numbers-20140331,0,4488747.story#ixzz2xgveIhp5

Edited April 2, 2014 by downzy