This one of the recent articles, May, 2015, on the ACA.

It’s like Republicans are cursed by facts these days.

Just days after House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) went on Meet the Press to fearmonger about Obamacare, yet another study came along to sock it to his desperate Obamacare claims. An independent health policy research program study released Wednesday showed all of his predictions about Obamacare were wrong. Way wrong. Wrong on every single fearmongering prediction and claim they made.

Under Obamacare, nearly 17 million have gotten insurance coverage since the fall of 2013. Seventeen MILLION.

The Rand analysis of their study revealed the facts:


Insurance coverage has increased across all types of insurance since the major provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act took effect, with a total of 16.9 million people becoming newly enrolled through February 2015, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

Researchers estimate that from September 2013 to February 2015, 22.8 million Americans became newly insured and 5.9 million lost coverage, for a net of 16.9 million newly insured Americans.

Republicans are running on taking that insurance away?

Republicans like to claim that it’s all Medicaid expansion. Survey says, wrong again.


Among those newly gaining coverage, 9.6 million people enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans, followed by Medicaid (6.5 million), the individual marketplaces (4.1 million), nonmarketplace individual plans (1.2 million) and other insurance sources (1.5 million).

And remember how Republicans sounded the hysteria alarms that Obama was ruining their insurance and nobody would get to keep their insurance?


The study also estimates that 125.2 million Americans — about 80 percent of the nonelderly population that had insurance in September 2013 — experienced no change in the source of insurance during the period, according to findings published online by the journal Health Affairs.

Republicans said Obamacare would cause private employers to stop offering insurance. Survey says, wrong again:


RAND researchers say the findings that the biggest gain in coverage was from employer-sponsored insurance runs counter to predictions that many employers may quit offering insurance in response to the Affordable Care Act and suggests that regardless of whether that occurs, employer-sponsored coverage will remain the greatest source of health insurance coverage.

And after reading the above is there a question or point to be made.

Because it was not included!

Where are the figures regarding those that lost their insurance and were forced to purchase new insurance?
Where are the figures on the percentage that the existing insurance premiums went up? Highest increase ever.
Where's the figures on how many business owners sold their business rather than go bankrupt because of Obamacare?
How many were forced to purchase insurance that didn't need it?

"[T]here can be no doubt that health care today is more costly than it would have been without Obamacare...

Measured over two years, Obamacare's rate hikes remain toxic. And further increases are on the horizon in 2017, when some of the law's subsidies to insurance companies are set to expire...

"[T]he Democrats' health care law [Obamacare] will increase the budget deficit by $131 billion over the current 10-year budget window (FY 2015–2024). This estimate is arrived at by taking the $180 billion in projected deficit reduction from the CBO 2012 extrapolation and then accounting for the lower net cost of the coverage provisions ($83 billion), the lower estimated federal health care savings under the plan ($132 billion), as well as the lower projected revenue levels when including the labor market effects of the legislation ($262 billion). The difference between the 2012 extrapolation and the current estimate of the cost of the Democrats' health law amounts to a $311 billion change in its net deficit impact."

"To partially offset the ACA's new spending, the law contains spending cuts to Medicare that amount to $716 billion from 2013 to 2022. The Medicare Trustees have warned since the law's passage that if these cuts are implemented as the law requires, they will significantly impact seniors' access to and quality of care. For example, the law reduces payments in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, the private insurance option under Medicare, by $156 billion from 2013 to 2022. These cuts are already causing MA plans to adjust their benefit packages by restricting provider networks. The end result of course is that seniors have fewer provider options and in some cases are forced to find new doctors."

"According to a recent study, perhaps up to 80% of ObamaCare's new Medicaid enrollees previously had private insurance plans...

One recent study found that Medicaid is not only worse than private insurance — it can be worse than having no insurance at all. Medicaid patients were 25% likelier to have an in-hospital death than those completely without health insurance.

The same study also found that, compared with private insurance, Medicaid patients were twice as likely to have an in-hospital death, had the longest lengths of hospital stays and had the highest costs...

These are startling results for a government-run health care system advertised as a quality substitute for private insurance. In reality, ObamaCare has created a two-tier health care system — and it's forcing millions of patients out of the top tier and into the bottom."

"Perhaps one of the most troubling parts of Obamacare is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The IPAB will consist of fifteen unelected bureaucrats who are granted substantial powers to reduce Medicare spending. IPAB's proposals could, for example, cut reimbursement for specific services that it determines not to be of high value… DEATH PANELS??

"Since the implementation of the ACA, the majority of member physicians have noticed an increase in the volume of emergency patients. Specifically, 47% of emergency physicians indicate slight increases in the number of patients, while 28% of respondents report significant increases in the number of emergency patients."

This is big enough that many won't read it, so I will stop here. Before expounding on how great Obamacare is, you had better look at the sacrifices required to everyone. Obamacare was not well thought through and as a result it is going to cost America a great deal. It was not bipartisan and therefore, it focuses only on the socialist aspect of medicine and not how it will impact the economy. Liberals are selfish and only look at what it can do for them, and care nothing for what it will do to the American way.

Things I don't like about Obamacare:

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
EMPLOYER MANDATE
ANTI-CONSCIENCE MANDATE
MEDICARE PAYMENT CUTS
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER DOCTOR DECISIONS
NEW AND HIGHER TAXES
HUGE DEFICITS
159 NEW BOARDS, AGENCIES, AND PROGRAMS

We lost our insurance. Our policy didn't meet ACA standards. Silly us, we didn't buy prenatal coverage. Thought I could do without at 58.

Our new policies were nearly the same cost, but with a $12,000 deductible, and no pharmacy coverage. None. We knew, from a common sense standpoint, the premiums were too low to be sustained.

Sure enough, in 2015, Minnesota premiums skyrocketed: <snip>Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, wants to raise rates an average of 54 percent on nine plans. <snip>

Source:

We had Blue Cross.

Luckily, we were only in Minnesota for four months of 2015. We are now happily in Florida, where our premiums are lower, deductible is lower and we actually have drug coverage.

8:12 here. can't edit, so here's the source for health care costs in Minnesota.

Health insurers seek higher premiums in Minnesota | Minnesota Public Radio News

Originally Posted by Guest

We lost our insurance. Our policy didn't meet ACA standards. Silly us, we didn't buy prenatal coverage. Thought I could do without at 58.

Our new policies were nearly the same cost, but with a $12,000 deductible, and no pharmacy coverage. None. We knew, from a common sense standpoint, the premiums were too low to be sustained.

Sure enough, in 2015, Minnesota premiums skyrocketed: <snip>Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, wants to raise rates an average of 54 percent on nine plans. <snip>

Source:

We had Blue Cross.

Luckily, we were only in Minnesota for four months of 2015. We are now happily in Florida, where our premiums are lower, deductible is lower and we actually have drug coverage.

I empathize with you. Our premiums only went up almost 50% with less coverage on the important stuff. Stuff that pertained to us, not to the young. One of the cancer detection procedures is no longer provided under our same policy. Being a cancer survivor is already a nerve racking life, without having to also worry about no longer having the tools to assist the battle. And we have been told that we have an excellent policy.

You want a point. Republicans absolutely refuse to accept the fact that ACA doesn't even come close to the gloom and doom that they have peddled, since day one.
Nothing will ever change their mind. Facts be damn. Why bother to talk to closed minded individuals?

People that lost their insurance! Like the one that appeared on the Sean Hannity show in 2009. They lost their insurance. A fact checker called the couple back, and they got a better policy, and it was cheaper. Or on that same show, the employer that said he was going to have to lay off people, due to the ACA. That employer had four employees, and ACA didn't apply to him.

Originally Posted by Guest

You want a point. Republicans absolutely refuse to accept the fact that ACA doesn't even come close to the gloom and doom that they have peddled, since day one.
Nothing will ever change their mind. Facts be damn. Why bother to talk to closed minded individuals?

People that lost their insurance! Like the one that appeared on the Sean Hannity show in 2009. They lost their insurance. A fact checker called the couple back, and they got a better policy, and it was cheaper. Or on that same show, the employer that said he was going to have to lay off people, due to the ACA. That employer had four employees, and ACA didn't apply to him.

It is good form to provide a link ~ even if you have to try three times because the hyperlink is wonky.

Would you please provide a link?

Originally Posted by Guest

You want a point. Republicans absolutely refuse to accept the fact that ACA doesn't even come close to the gloom and doom that they have peddled, since day one.
Nothing will ever change their mind. Facts be damn. Why bother to talk to closed minded individuals?

People that lost their insurance! Like the one that appeared on the Sean Hannity show in 2009. They lost their insurance. A fact checker called the couple back, and they got a better policy, and it was cheaper. Or on that same show, the employer that said he was going to have to lay off people, due to the ACA. That employer had four employees, and ACA didn't apply to him.

Saying something is so, doesn't make it so. We have already had our fill of lies from the left. Not just Clinton but Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. If you are supporting them, then I will go ahead and assume you to be lying also when you make baseless claims of Obama's Utopia. You have no facts to support your claim. Go back to Huffington Post and get some more blanks for your weapon.

Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare - Salon.com

This is the web site. I am not sure how to bring it on this thread. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Guest

You want a point. Republicans absolutely refuse to accept the fact that ACA doesn't even come close to the gloom and doom that they have peddled, since day one.
Nothing will ever change their mind. Facts be damn. Why bother to talk to closed minded individuals?

People that lost their insurance! Like the one that appeared on the Sean Hannity show in 2009. They lost their insurance. A fact checker called the couple back, and they got a better policy, and it was cheaper. Or on that same show, the employer that said he was going to have to lay off people, due to the ACA. That employer had four employees, and ACA didn't apply to him.

Are you ignoring the posts above? Are you ignoring the fact that Obamacare is going to cost us more than the cost you complain about in the Iraqi war? Are you ignoring the fact that money is being STOLEN from our Medicare funding to pay for Obamacare? Also, almost as much as the cost of the war in Iraq. Obamacare did nothing other than take from the haves to give to the have nots. And that was the plan all along. Why dress it up as something different? Basically, your Obamacare is nothing more than a transvestite. Dressing a man up as a woman does not make that man a woman. Dressing Obamacare up as an inexpensive healthcare system for all, does not make it so. It's still just taking from those that have and giving it to those that don't. Most of those that they said got new insurance, lost their insurance first because of Obamacare. There are still millions without insurance. Obamacare did not lower premiums, did not address the tort issues, and actually put more limits on provisions that we already had with our insurance. On top of it all, this is the first time in history that the gov required it's citizens to purchase something. If you were intelligent enough to do a bit of research, you would find out that information on your own, and not need us to provide you with your education. Obamacare is the largest mistake that the Democrat controlled government has ever perpetrated. And you Dems own it. Dress it any way you wish, but it's still a bust.

Originally Posted by Guest

Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare - Salon.com

This is the web site. I am not sure how to bring it on this thread. Sorry.

OK, I read the entire article. It is pretty thin on facts. The author assumed facts about two of the couples, and entered info into a Kaiser site. The author finds cheaper premiums for both.

What the author doesn't cover is deductibles. The deductible on many ACA policies is huge. My coverage, back in MN, had a $12,000.00 deductible.

That means the first TWELVE THOUSAND dollars comes out of my pocket.

Good coverage if you get hit by a bus.

Originally Posted by Guest

We lost our insurance. Our policy didn't meet ACA standards. Silly us, we didn't buy prenatal coverage. Thought I could do without at 58.

Our new policies were nearly the same cost, but with a $12,000 deductible, and no pharmacy coverage. None. We knew, from a common sense standpoint, the premiums were too low to be sustained.

Sure enough, in 2015, Minnesota premiums skyrocketed: <snip>Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, wants to raise rates an average of 54 percent on nine plans. <snip>

Source:

We had Blue Cross.

Luckily, we were only in Minnesota for four months of 2015. We are now happily in Florida, where our premiums are lower, deductible is lower and we actually have drug coverage.

Originally Posted by Guest

OK, I read the entire article. It is pretty thin on facts. The author assumed facts about two of the couples, and entered info into a Kaiser site. The author finds cheaper premiums for both.

What the author doesn't cover is deductibles. The deductible on many ACA policies is huge. My coverage, back in MN, had a $12,000.00 deductible.

That means the first TWELVE THOUSAND dollars comes out of my pocket.

Good coverage if you get hit by a bus.

Do you care to divulge what your deductibles are in Florida, which you said were lower?