ACA success stories

[esmith]

Once again...Due to the ACA these people who desperately need insurance and who may not have qualified for Medicaid or other forms of insurance are now able to get it. It matters not that it is under Medicaid or private insurance to me. These stories rightfully deserve to be in this thread. The thread is calling for ACA success stories...not ACA "private insurance"...success stories....

Well in both example they would have qualified for Medicaid even if the ACA had not been passed.

From Eligibility | Medicaid.gov
Many states have expanded coverage, particularly for children, above the federal minimums. For many eligibility groups, income is calculated in relation to a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). For example, 100% of the FPL for a family of four is $23,550 in 2013

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Obamacare success stories you haven't been hearing about - latimes.com

Last summer Ellen Holzman and Meredith Vezina, a married gay couple in San Diego County, got kicked off their long-term Kaiser health plan, for which they'd been paying more than $1,300 a month. The cause wasn't the Affordable Care Act, as far as they knew. They'd been living outside Kaiser's service area, and the health plan had decided to tighten its rules.


That's when they discovered the chilly hazards of dependence on the individual health insurance market. When they applied for a replacement policy with Anthem Blue Cross of California, Ellen, 59, disclosed that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome. She wasn't sure--her condition was still being diagnosed by Kaiser when her coverage ended. But the possibility was enough to scare Anthem. "They said, 'We will not insure you because you have a pre-existing condition,'" Holzman recalls.



But they were lucky, thanks to Obamacare. Through Covered California, the state's individual insurance marketplace, they've found a plan through Sharp Healthcare that will cover them both for a total premium of $142 a month, after a government subsidy based on their income. They'll have a higher deductible than Kaiser's but lower co-pays. But their possible savings will be impressive.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000 | ThinkProgress

after doing a little research, Matthews eventually realized how much the law could help him. And on Tuesday, his local Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) provider confirmed that he would be able to buy a far better plan than his current policy while saving at least $13,000 per year through Arkansas’ Obamacare marketplace.

Matthews was self-employed between 1997 and 2010, meaning he had to purchase his own plan on the individual market. He chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan for himself and his wife that charged a $250 per month premium and had a $2,000 deductible. But the price of that policy kept rising even as it covered fewer of his costs, eventually devolving into his current rate of $1,069 per month with a $10,000 deductible. At this point, it doesn’t even cover his medication or doctors’ visits — particularly concerning considering he had to have two stents placed in his heart in 2006.

“I do not work now, I’m 61, and we do have assets saved up. But still, to come up with that $1,069 per month….” he said, trailing off. “I went to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they don’t even sell that plan anymore, but I could not change it to anything else. So I was locked in with it.”

That all changed once Obamacare’s state-level marketplaces opened to the public on Tuesday. Matthews knew that, at his income level, the law would help him pay for insurance. But even he might not have expected just how good of a deal he could get: his new coverage will cost him absolutely nothing in monthly premiums after factoring in federal subsidies, and has a deductible of $750.


“Which is a lot different from $10,000,” he pointed out, laughing.
The mid-level “Silver” policy that he picked out also offers a significantly better benefits package. “It’s a lot better plan,” Matthews said. His old plan was considered to be “Bronze” and had much higher co-pays. Under Obamacare, when Matthews visits a doctor, it will no longer cost him around $150. It will cost $8.

So what would Matthews tell other Americans who are skeptical about Obamacare? “I would tell them to learn more about it before they start talking bad about it,” he noted. “Be more informed, get more information, take your time and study and not just go by just what you hear on one side or the other. Actually check the facts on it.”

“I still am a very strong Republican, but this… I’m so happy that this came along,” he continued. “Our home is paid for, vehicle’s paid for, this is our expense that we have. We have more expense on medical care than everything else put together, so this is going to be a great help for us.”

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well in both example they would have qualified for Medicaid even if the ACA had not been passed.

Now you're squirming. Your link doesn't prove your claim. Moreover, it seems they did get Medicaid due to the ACA considering:

In rural Kentucky, health-care debate takes back seat as the long-uninsured line up - The Washington Post

In a state where 15 percent of the population, about 640,000 people, are uninsured, 56,422 have signed up for new health-care coverage, with 45,622 of them enrolled in Medicaid and the rest in private health plans, according to figures released by the governor’s office Friday.

Emphasis added. Isn't that a weird coincidence that 56,422 people magically signed up for new coverage, 45,622 of them in Medicaid, at the same time the ACA goes into effect and expands Medicaid? Why now? Why didn't those people sign up years ago, if they didn't need the ACA?

Furthermore even if they were eligible before the ACA Lively is the person who got them finally signed up:

Lively grew up in the county and works for Juniper Health, which has a federal contract to enroll people in the state health-care exchange

Emphasis added. Wait, is that the same state health-care exchange that didn't exist before the ACA? Is that the same Juniper Health that didn't have a contract to get people signed up before the ACA? Thought so.

One reason is that the state set up its own health-insurance exchange ... Also, Gov. Steve Beshear (D) is the only Southern governor to sign on to expanded eligibility parameters for Medicaid

... Set up its own exchange ... why? Because of the ACA. ... Signed on to expanded Medicaid parameters ... why? Because of the ACA.

Keep squirming and spinning though, esmith, don't let the facts get in the way of what you want to be true.

 

[esmith]

Well, just wondering if all you Obamacare advocates are taking or did take the advice given by Organizing for Action to hype up Obamacare during and after that big Thanksgiving dinner. Yeah right, that's all I need during and especially after eating,as usual, too much turkey, ham, potatoes and gravy, candied yams, etc ..... a rousing argument over Obamacare. Anyone mentioning anything political is going to........

 

[esmith]

Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000 | ThinkProgress

In rural Kentucky, health-care debate takes back seat as the long-uninsured line up - The Washington Post

Just out of promiscuity, any affiliation with this group?


Families USA Received $1 Million to Promote ObamacareCapitol City Project

 

[metis]

The thing so many Republicans are worried about, with Ted Cruz mentioning it a while back, is that eventually the ACA will grow in acceptance and popularity, thus making the Republicans look like Grenches, which so many of them are. I never thought I'd see the day when so many Americans would turn their back on nearly 50 million Americans in need while at the same time trying to get more tax breaks for the "job creators" that are creating jobs all right-- mostly overseas, as in China, India, ... And if these companies are getting all these tax breaks as they have been, who does one think has to make up the difference in loss of tax revenues?

 

[esmith]

The thing so many Republicans are worried about, with Ted Cruz mentioning it a while back, is that eventually the ACA will grow in acceptance and popularity, thus making the Republicans look like Grenches, which so many of them are. I never thought I'd see the day when so many Americans would turn their back on nearly 50 million Americans in need while at the same time trying to get more tax breaks for the "job creators" that are creating jobs all right-- mostly overseas, as in China, India, ... And if these companies are getting all these tax breaks as they have been, who does one think has to make up the difference in loss of tax revenues?

Maybe the country will accept Obamacare or maybe it will not, only time will tell. However, if the recent figures are any indication of the countries dislike of federally mandated health insurance are any indication of the trend I would say it appears to be in a negative direction. Your assumption that the US is turning its collective back on those in need is, in easy to understand words, false. The citizens of the US are the most generous people in the world. What they do not like is the idea that government is the all-saving entity. You only have to look to the current administration to find who is killing job growth in this country. The reams and reams of new rules and regulations are stifling the economic growth of this country. Who, is responsible for killing thousand of jobs in this country? You do not have to look far. New EPA regulations, Keystone pipeline, the highly probable loss of jobs or reduction in full-time employment due to the ACA. The anti-capitalistic rhetoric of certain supporters of the current administration. There are numerous proposals that would bring money back into this country that this administration does not favor. You say the loss of federal revenue is due to the "tax breaks" given to companies is fallacious...the federal revenue for this year will be the highest in history accompanied with the highest debt in history. I could continue, but I think you might get my point. Suggest you read the following articles before making foregone conclusions.

Obama's Policies Have Crushed the Economy | RealClearPolitics

No End In Sight To Obama's Job-Killing Policies - Forbes

Obama

I could continue to list more, but again I think you need to look at the facts vice the hyperbole

 

[metis]

Maybe the country will accept Obamacare or maybe it will not, only time will tell. However, if the recent figures are any indication of the countries dislike of federally mandated health insurance are any indication of the trend I would say it appears to be in a negative direction. Your assumption that the US is turning its collective back on those in need is, in easy to understand words, false. The citizens of the US are the most generous people in the world. What they do not like is the idea that government is the all-saving entity. You only have to look to the current administration to find who is killing job growth in this country. The reams and reams of new rules and regulations are stifling the economic growth of this country. Who, is responsible for killing thousand of jobs in this country? You do not have to look far. New EPA regulations, Keystone pipeline, the highly probable loss of jobs or reduction in full-time employment due to the ACA. The anti-capitalistic rhetoric of certain supporters of the current administration. There are numerous proposals that would bring money back into this country that this administration does not favor. You say the loss of federal revenue is due to the "tax breaks" given to companies is fallacious...the federal revenue for this year will be the highest in history accompanied with the highest debt in history. I could continue, but I think you might get my point. Suggest you read the following articles before making foregone conclusions.

Obama's Policies Have Crushed the Economy | RealClearPolitics

No End In Sight To Obama's Job-Killing Policies - Forbes

Obama

I could continue to list more, but again I think you need to look at the facts vice the hyperbole

First of all, roughly 15% of those who disapprove of the ACA do so because they believe it didn't go far enough, and I am one of those who has badmouthed it when it was passed because I believed, and still believe, extending the Medicare system to the uninsured was a simpler and better approach. If we add that 15% to those who do like the ACA, it more than overwhelms the numbers of those who don't like the entire enchilada.

As far as the economic recovery is concerned, too many people just don't get close to connect the dots correctly, so I'll briefly do that. The Great Recession was unlike any recession we've seen since the Great Depression, not only in it's magnitude, but also because our economic system almost collapsed. IOW, the "freefall" left us with a severely systemic problem which still hasn't been properly fixed due to obstructionism. Some of the economists predicted even before the 2008 election that it would take 5-10 years to recover and that we were not going back from whence we came.

Now, where's the stock market? Highest it's ever been, and corporations are making record profits. So, the idea that somehow this administration has hurt recovery is bogus, plus we have to remember that unemployment has been dropping, albeit not a quickly as we would like to see it.

Then there's the actions-- or should I say in-actions-- from the Party of No, that has not at all been a partner in helping this recovery, including voting against programs that they originally proposed. Even the few moderate Republicans have chafed over what these "conservatives (in name only) have done to actually hurt this country and even their own party.

To move on. EPA regulations are there for a reason, and I personally like clean are, clean water, and not all animals being killed off, but maybe you prefer otherwise? Instead, there's always going to be a problem trying to find the middle ground, and never is everyone going to be pleased with what's decided.

The administration offered a sensible solution to the Keystone Pipeline controversy that makes sense, namely building refineries in the north rather than using pipelines to send it to the Gulf of Mexico. Just the other day, another leak showed up, I believe it was near the Mississippi River. Maybe you don't mind having oil flowing through your backyard and into your water supply, but I do. BTW, we are now the world's #1 energy exporting nation, and next year it is projected that we will pass Saudi Arabia in oil production. Ya, this Obama is really hurting us so badly here.

As far as the ACA and the economy, apparently you disregard the fact that the non-partisan CBO has judged that the ACA will both create jobs and lower the debt, but those who watch the Fox Propaganda Channel will probably never run across that.

The idea that the administration is "anti-capitalist" is just way too bizarre. The ACA works through private insurance companies. The administration has tried to get Congress to pass legislation to help rebuild our infrastructure, which also goes through private companies and created more jobs. And which party has opposed both of those that would create more private-sector jobs? Yours.

Your last point really shows just how totally bogus your above claim is. We have seen tax break after tax break being given to major corporations, along with deduction after deduction being allowed to the top earners in this country. To the first item, even though the top corporate tax rate is high, very few companies pay anywhere near that rate, and some, like Exxon-Mobile, which is the wealthiest in the world, not only paid $0 taxes, they got government subsidies on top of that.

Therefore, put it altogether, and what you believe in are fairy tales about what's really happening, plus you have been endorsing a party that has done everything possible to not only hurt the administration but the country as a whole. And it's really pretty much impossible to have a serious discussion when somebody lives in an alternative world based on political and economic delusion.

 

[Amechania]

Wouldn't ACA lower cost of healthcare in the case of ill homeless persons since hospitals and clinics won't have to eat the bill or pass the cost on to others? Seems to be much of that in my locale.

 

[metis]

Wouldn't ACA lower cost of healthcare in the case of ill homeless persons since hospitals and clinics won't have to eat the bill or pass the cost on to others? Seems to be much of that in my locale.

Yes, this will hopefully be one of the savings. Also, there's more emphasis on prevention.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, where's the stock market? Highest it's ever been, and corporations are making record profits. So, the idea that somehow this administration has hurt recovery is bogus, plus we have to remember that unemployment has been dropping, albeit not a quickly as we would like to see it.

Stock prices are not a measure of economic productivity, & consequently do not signal recovery. They are simply the investor's estimated net present value of the expected return compared with the alternatives. With fed interest rates at historic lows, this market distortion makes stocks worth more than bonds or other lending financial instruments. If interest rates rise, the stock bubble will collapse. Consider that the gross value of the stock market is based solely upon a relatively small volume of recent trading. Moreover, this multiplying effect results in fluctuations & market instability. Economists & politicians like to focus on stock prices because they're easy to measure.

Then there's the actions-- or should I say in-actions-- from the Party of No, that has not at all been a partner in helping this recovery, including voting against programs that they originally proposed. Even the few moderate Republicans have chafed over what these "conservatives (in name only) have done to actually hurt this country and even their own party.

If you think only one party is responsible for this mess, then that is to let the Dems off the hook for their mismanagement, crony capitalism, & dysfunctional nanny state.

The idea that the administration is "anti-capitalist" is just way too bizarre.

Obama's pushing tax & regulation increases is anti-capitalist. Moreover, I'd call his (& Bush's) crony capitalism more of the same.

Your last point really shows just how totally bogus your above claim is.

Stones & glass houses.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Obama's pushing tax & regulation increases is anti-capitalist.

So the tax decreases and spending decreases were pro-capitalist, then. Obama has done both, we can agree or disagree about whether what he's done is a good thing but the false dichotomy of pro- vs. anti-capitalism is unhelpful at best.

 

[esmith]

First of all, roughly 15% of those who disapprove of the ACA do so because they believe it didn't go far enough, and I am one of those who has badmouthed it when it was passed because I believed, and still believe, extending the Medicare system to the uninsured was a simpler and better approach. If we add that 15% to those who do like the ACA, it more than overwhelms the numbers of those who don't like the entire enchilada.

Don't know where you are getting your data from but my response is from SOURCE
36% Somewhat Favorable; 57% Unfavorable; this include 17% very favorable and 46% very unfavorable.
Now to your desire to extend Medicare to everyone.
My "Facts" will come from NCPSSM > Medicare > Medicare Fast Facts
Not sure if you mean Medicare Part A, or Part B. Of course there is Part C, and D also. Yo do know the limitations on Part A don't you? Do you know that Part B only pays for 80% of "authorized" medical procedures? Do you know that there is a monthly premium for every single person who has Part B, there is no "family plan".
(note figures in billions) Part A Part B & D Total
Medicare Trust Fund Assets at end of 2011 $244.2 $80.7 $324.9
Total Income in 2012 $243.0 $293.9 $536.9
from:
Payroll Taxes $205.7 $205.7
Interest 10.6 2.8 13.4
Taxation of Benefits 18.6 18.6
Premiums 3.4 66.3 69.8
General Revenue 4.6 224.7 229.3

Total Expenditures in 2012 $266.8 $307.4 $574.2
from:
Benefits $262.9 $303 $565.9
Administrative 3.9 4.3 8.3

Net Change in assets -$23.8 -$13.5 -$37.3 Assets at end of 2012 $220.4 $67.3 $287.6
note totals may not add due to rounding.
So it appears that Medicare lost $3.7 billion in 2012 and this was even with premiums and taxation. So, what do you think it would cost if the entire country went on Medicare?

As far as the economic recovery is concerned, too many people just don't get close to connect the dots correctly, so I'll briefly do that. The Great Recession was unlike any recession we've seen since the Great Depression, not only in it's magnitude, but also because our economic system almost collapsed. IOW, the "freefall" left us with a severely systemic problem which still hasn't been properly fixed due to obstructionism. Some of the economists predicted even before the 2008 election that it would take 5-10 years to recover and that we were not going back from whence we came.

Now, where's the stock market? Highest it's ever been, and corporations are making record profits. So, the idea that somehow this administration has hurt recovery is bogus, plus we have to remember that unemployment has been dropping, albeit not a quickly as we would like to see it.

My Source is SOURCE
One of the major reasons the stock market is soaring is the Federal Reserves pouring trillions of dollars into the economy, in other words printing money. Read the article.
Now to the unemployment figures
SOURCE
When you move the goal post in the middle of the game you get different figures. The "real unemployment" according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics rose from 13.6% in Sept to 13.8% in Oct.
The U6 number in Jan 2009 was 14.25%. The U6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013 when it hit 13.8%, the same as Oct 2013.
The U-6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013, when it hit 13.8%, the same rate for October 2013. - See more at: 'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News
The U-6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013, when it hit 13.8%, the same rate for October 2013. - See more at: 'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News

Then there's the actions-- or should I say in-actions-- from the Party of No, that has not at all been a partner in helping this recovery, including voting against programs that they originally proposed. Even the few moderate Republicans have chafed over what these "conservatives (in name only) have done to actually hurt this country and even their own party.

Facts not opinions please.

To move on. EPA regulations are there for a reason, and I personally like clean are, clean water, and not all animals being killed off, but maybe you prefer otherwise? Instead, there's always going to be a problem trying to find the middle ground, and never is everyone going to be pleased with what's decided.

Out-of-Control EPA Is Hurting the Economy - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
Milloy: EPA Regulations Hurting the Economy | Fox Business Video
EPAs Greenhouse Gas Regulations Will Hurt Jobs - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association
HURT: EPA sets its sights on eradicating human race - Washington Times
EPA tightens standard for fine particle pollution; manufacturers say it will hurt economy - The Business Journals
I could continue but you get the idea. Care to debunk any of these?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey esmith, I notice you totally ignored my post #64, which was a correction to your spinning/squirming in post #61. To recap, you said: "Well in both example they would have qualified for Medicaid even if the ACA had not been passed."

I'm just curious, do you or do you not acknowledge that they got coverage due to the ACA? You seem to have some allergy to or phobia of facts which contradict your negative perception of the ACA.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First of all, roughly 15% of those who disapprove of the ACA do so because they believe it didn't go far enough, and I am one of those who has badmouthed it when it was passed because I believed, and still believe, extending the Medicare system to the uninsured was a simpler and better approach. If we add that 15% to those who do like the ACA, it more than overwhelms the numbers of those who don't like the entire enchilada.

Don't know where you are getting your data from but my response is from SOURCE
36% Somewhat Favorable; 57% Unfavorable; this include 17% very favorable and 46% very unfavorable.

Those data do not contradict metis' conclusion.

Metis is saying that of those 57% Unfavorable, 15% think the ACA didn't go far enough.

If so, then the 36% Favorable + 15% Didn't Go Far Enough = 51% "Favorable or Didn't Go Far Enough".

Meanwhile, 57% Unfavorable - 15% Didn't Go Far Enough = 42% Unfavorable to the Whole Enchilada.

This tentatively validates metis' conclusion. So does this, from another thread (see sources cited therein):

Consider the fact that before 2010, a solid majority of Americans favored a "public option" (65% in 2009) and had favored this going back many years., Interestingly, of the Republicans and Independents who disagree with the current reform, around 70% reject it "overall" while around 30% feel it "does not go far enough", and 51% of Democratic opponents also feel it "does not go far enough". Add to this the fact that 56% of Americans wanted Congress to pass "major healthcare reform" in year 2009 while only 33% opposed it, and we start to see a picture emerging: a significant amount of the "opposition" to Obamacare is due to the hope in 2009 that major reform would be passed, including a public option. Lots of people were disappointed that this didn't happen and oppose the law on that basis.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-americans-support-obamacare-provisions.html

 

[esmith]

Hey esmith, I notice you totally ignored my post #64, which was a correction to your spinning/squirming in post #61. To recap, you said: "Well in both example they would have qualified for Medicaid even if the ACA had not been passed."

I'm just curious, do you or do you not acknowledge that they got coverage due to the ACA? You seem to have some allergy to or phobia of facts which contradict your negative perception of the ACA.

Yes, after looking at the figures only the first would have qualified under the old state eligibility requirement. What I don't understand is if he is getting disability check it would seem that he would be eligible for Social Security disability. Correct?

 

[esmith]

Those data do not contradict metis' conclusion.

Metis is saying that of those 57% Unfavorable, 15% think the ACA didn't go far enough.

If so, then the 36% Favorable + 15% Didn't Go Far Enough = 51% "Favorable or Didn't Go Far Enough".

Meanwhile, 57% Unfavorable - 15% Didn't Go Far Enough = 42% Unfavorable to the Whole Enchilada.

This tentatively validates metis' conclusion. So does this, from another thread (see sources cited therein):
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-americans-support-obamacare-provisions.html

Yes there are certain provisions within the ACA that people like. However, it does not say that they like the "total law". We can argue the facts but only time will determine if this law continues as written or if it will be modified to the point that is unrecognizable as it is now written.
The major issue is that the Democrats did not look at the problem they only threw money at it. Yes, I know there are a few that would like to see universal health care. However, this administration screwed-the-pooch so bad on Obamacare that it will take a considerable amount of time for the general public to trust government to do anything about healthcare.

 

[metis]

Don't know where you are getting your data from but my response is from SOURCE
36% Somewhat Favorable; 57% Unfavorable; this include 17% very favorable and 46% very unfavorable.
Now to your desire to extend Medicare to everyone.
My "Facts" will come from NCPSSM > Medicare > Medicare Fast Facts
Not sure if you mean Medicare Part A, or Part B. Of course there is Part C, and D also. Yo do know the limitations on Part A don't you? Do you know that Part B only pays for 80% of "authorized" medical procedures? Do you know that there is a monthly premium for every single person who has Part B, there is no "family plan".
(note figures in billions) Part A Part B & D Total
Medicare Trust Fund Assets at end of 2011 $244.2 $80.7 $324.9
Total Income in 2012 $243.0 $293.9 $536.9
from:
Payroll Taxes $205.7 $205.7
Interest 10.6 2.8 13.4
Taxation of Benefits 18.6 18.6
Premiums 3.4 66.3 69.8
General Revenue 4.6 224.7 229.3

Total Expenditures in 2012 $266.8 $307.4 $574.2
from:
Benefits $262.9 $303 $565.9
Administrative 3.9 4.3 8.3

Net Change in assets -$23.8 -$13.5 -$37.3 Assets at end of 2012 $220.4 $67.3 $287.6
note totals may not add due to rounding.
So it appears that Medicare lost $3.7 billion in 2012 and this was even with premiums and taxation. So, what do you think it would cost if the entire country went on Medicare?



My Source is SOURCE
One of the major reasons the stock market is soaring is the Federal Reserves pouring trillions of dollars into the economy, in other words printing money. Read the article.
Now to the unemployment figures
SOURCE
When you move the goal post in the middle of the game you get different figures. The "real unemployment" according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics rose from 13.6% in Sept to 13.8% in Oct.
The U6 number in Jan 2009 was 14.25%. The U6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013 when it hit 13.8%, the same as Oct 2013.
The U-6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013, when it hit 13.8%, the same rate for October 2013. - See more at: 'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News
The U-6 rate did not fall below 14% under Obama until March 2013, when it hit 13.8%, the same rate for October 2013. - See more at: 'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News


Facts not opinions please.


Out-of-Control EPA Is Hurting the Economy - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
Milloy: EPA Regulations Hurting the Economy | Fox Business Video
EPAs Greenhouse Gas Regulations Will Hurt Jobs - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association
HURT: EPA sets its sights on eradicating human race - Washington Times
EPA tightens standard for fine particle pollution; manufacturers say it will hurt economy - The Business Journals
I could continue but you get the idea. Care to debunk any of these?

And it's the above that makes it so hard to have any discussion with you as you're not putting things together properly (apples to apples, not apples to cartoons), plus your constant use of right-wing articles and blogs is simply just pathetic because they're opinions, not facts. And if anyone else reading this doubts this, just take a look at where these links take you.

Plus you really don't respond in any coherent way to what I posted. I'm sure you don't see it that way since you much prefer right-wing opinions over reality and common sense.

Sorry, but I really don't like wasting my time on posts like the nonsense above.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, after looking at the figures only the first would have qualified under the old state eligibility requirement. What I don't understand is if he is getting disability check it would seem that he would be eligible for Social Security disability. Correct?

I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't his disability check, but his wife's.

It's a moot point. Even if these people were eligible for Medicaid before the ACA (which they clearly weren't, but let's suppose for the sake of argument) they were clearly signed up because of the ACA, namely this program to go out into rural areas and get people signed up. And 10,000 were signed up to private plans with federal subsidies thanks to the ACA. That's tens of thousands of success stories any way you slice it.