rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 29, 2014 14:18:04 GMT -5
"Probably. I've often thought that not only should we have intelligence tests required for the vote, but ideological ones as well. Anyone outside the, say, 10-90 or 15-85 part of the left-right spectrum likely can't be trusted to actually examine an issue, so shouldn't be allowed to vote."
I hope your hunkered down for the backlash from this idea. There are people here who go off at the notion of showing ID as requirement to vote! If you read through some previous posts here you might note there could a number of people who will be impacted if your suggestion is implemented.
1) there are posters who actualy think that forcing everyone to buy an insurance policy for general health care makes sense when insurance was never intended for general health care costs and can never be efficient when used that way. Insurance only makes sense and was only ever intended to be purchased to mitigate unmanageable risk, loss or cost. They definitely don't meet your requirement of logic and will not get to vote!
2) hating big business or the free market insurance industry and supporting ACA defies all logic and would seem like an automatic revocation of voting rights. Yikes there are going to be a lot taken out with this one.
3) yeah you might want to just let this idea slide for now.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 29, 2014 14:28:38 GMT -5
And as many of you know, once you lose your policy, or it changes- you now have a "pre-existing condition". So, more people have the problem now than did before. No they don't- because it isn't a problem anymore, pre-existing conditions are irrelevant thanks to the ACA- and you know it. And everyone would know that if it wasn't for people like you muddying the water with obvious bullshit like that.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 29, 2014 15:32:29 GMT -5
Should he have his voting rights revoked in case he votes next time?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 30, 2014 7:27:59 GMT -5
And as many of you know, once you lose your policy, or it changes- you now have a "pre-existing condition". So, more people have the problem now than did before. No they don't- because it isn't a problem anymore, pre-existing conditions are irrelevant thanks to the ACA- and you know it. And everyone would know that if it wasn't for people like you muddying the water with obvious bullshit like that. Uh... you might want to check the facts on this one before calling BS on someone else. I would hate to see you lose your voting rights. There is still a little thing called "pre exsisting condition exclusion" that insurance companies were allowed that will affect many people for at least a while yet. The real question will be what the effect of "no pre exsisting conditions" will have on how people purchase insurance over the long haul. I think this is one of the most popular aspects of this law and one the Democrats can really use well short term for political purposes but there will certainly be some less obvious down sides over the long haul IMO.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 1, 2014 9:31:04 GMT -5
No they don't- because it isn't a problem anymore, pre-existing conditions are irrelevant thanks to the ACA- and you know it. And everyone would know that if it wasn't for people like you muddying the water with obvious bullshit like that. Uh... you might want to check the facts on this one before calling BS on someone else. I would hate to see you lose your voting rights. There is still a little thing called "pre exsisting condition exclusion" that insurance companies were allowed that will affect many people for at least a while yet. The real question will be what the effect of "no pre exsisting conditions" will have on how people purchase insurance over the long haul. I think this is one of the most popular aspects of this law and one the Democrats can really use well short term for political purposes but there will certainly be some less obvious down sides over the long haul IMO. What proponents of the PPACA fail to realize is you cannot fix bad economics with policy- with political decrees. The simplistic notion that if people are hungry a sovereign can decree more food shall be produced and it shall be that hungry people have plenty of food. Years of demagoguery against big, rich, insurance companies notwithstanding, the reality is that ObamaCare fails to address the KEY problem with healthcare in America: rising costs. The simplistic belief that politicians can decree your policy to have no limitations is rather absurd. Once again, it's a problem of looking around at the fruit, and instead of planting a different kind of tree, declaring peaches to be apples. Government caused every problem with healthcare in America, and now it proposes to solve those problems by policy that declares they are no longer problems. Ain't how the economy works. If an insurance company doesn't provide coverage for something, it's because they can't feasibly provide it. And if the math doesn't work, there's no policy that will fix math. The main problem with healthcare in America remains in place with ObamaCare: we don't have the money to provide everyone with what they need. We need to bring down costs. For that we need the market. Not more regulation. When has government involvement ever resulted in better and cheaper? In human history it has yet to happen. So, you can fantasize that PPACA fixed the problem of pre-existing condition if you want. It remains, and not only will it not be fixed, it will be exacerbated by PPACA.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 1, 2014 9:53:36 GMT -5
The reality is, the market and providers have not been addressing the one of the key problems of healthcare in America, which overall is more costly than almost anywhere else in the world. The market would not address what you state is the key problem TY not so much.
Obamacare was not created to address the problem of rising costs anymore than Romneycare its predecessor did. It only created a framework for coverage of more citizens and some limits on cost. Given all most all countries with lower healthcare costs and better overall outcomes than the US have a version of universal healthcare it makes sense that Obamacare would be the first step in that direction after Romneycare's survival and Hilary laying groundwork for it to happen.
If the market was perfect the way market theory says it is, the market would have fixed the problem before a political and legal framework was needed to shepherd it there. Car manufacturers regularly come up with ways to meet government mpg requirements. Without the stick of law from the people, car manufacturers would not address those concerns or desires as fully and as timely. When consumer behavior does not inspire change in a business or businesses, society can use law to bring about that change.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 4, 2014 13:48:47 GMT -5
Courtesy of Dan Bongino's Facebook Page:
A summary of last week's Obamacare headlines broken down by topic:
The Lies: Barney Frank 'Appalled' By Obama Administration: 'They Just Lied To People.' -Huffington Post
The Increased Costs: "in 3,137 of America’s 3,144 counties, Obamacare has hiked 2014 individual-market premiums by an average of 49%" -Avik Roy from Forbes
The Public Revolt: "More people than ever (53%) last month said they viewed the law unfavorably, an increase of 8% points since June — one of the biggest opinion swings ever." -The Washington Post
The Coming Bailout: "The Obama White House and the health insurance industry have an uneasy alliance to defend Obamacare's subsidies and mandates — at the expense of the taxpayer. ...the report finds it’s likely to cost taxpayers around $1 billion this year." -The Washington Examiner
The legislation was passed with deception, has been defined by failure, enacted through usurpation of constitutional authority, and has done more to damage the liberal ethos of the "benevolent" big-government than any Conservative activist could lay claim to.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 4, 2014 15:11:34 GMT -5
Haven't heard anything from Barney, but the rest has no context:
2014 individual market premiums may have risen that high on average- so? That's what happens when you get rid of cheap policies that are only good for collecting premiums.
53% view the law unfavorably- again- so? That includes me and many other people that are pissed off insurance companies are still sucking money out of the system. Poll how many people want A) to keep it as is B) improve it C) replace it with single payer or D) go back to what we had and see what kind of numbers you get there- might shock you.
Bailout- I doubt it. Transition to single payer- we can hope.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 4, 2014 15:24:04 GMT -5
I still haven't heard a clear answer from anyone here on what they think "single payer" is and how they would fund it. Would they want it structured like our VA system?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 4, 2014 15:32:56 GMT -5
I still haven't heard a clear answer from anyone here on what they think "single payer" is and how they would fund it. Would they want it structured like our VA system? I honestly don't know enough about how it works in other countries, but IMO single payer would merely change the payment mechanism of healthcare. Instead of dozens of insurance companies with different rules, structures, premiums, etc - everything just rolls through one govt entity. And not everything is covered. Not like VA. Doctors are not employees of the govt, hospitals are not govt own nor govt run. Funded by taxes. If you replace what companies & individuals currently pay in insurance & healthcare costs, you could easily fund single payer. And since you are removing the profit in the insurance industry & simplifying the process, there is cost savings. There is a reason we have the highest per capita health costs by far - the insurance industry is a big part of it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 4, 2014 16:04:12 GMT -5
Yerp- single payer= the end of Medicare, Medicaid, & VA.
Taxes pay providers, you can go wherever you want for treatment. If you are a citizen you are covered- nothing else matters.
There are other universal options- I just like the idea of single payer for its simplicity.
For what we pay we could fund almost 2 healthcare systems- and we just about do because of the government programs that cover what the insurance companies don't want to- i.e. unprofitable patients- poor,sick, old, pre-existing conditions,etc.- one of the things the ACA was attempting to put a stop to.
It's coming eventually- just have to wait for the gubmit is evil faction to die off.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 4, 2014 17:06:32 GMT -5
So no health insurance? Just everybody covered for everything? No exceptions? Illegal immigrants covered?It sounds good. Who does this now and for how long have they done it?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 4, 2014 17:37:03 GMT -5
It seems like if the Democrats wanted this they should have done it in 2008. They could have simply expanded Medicare to all and skipped the drama and trillions ACA will cost.I guess for that matter Obama could do it now while congress is on vacation. Why are the liberals not blaming their own party?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 4, 2014 17:45:41 GMT -5
The reason Obama has bad poll numbers isn't just because conservatives don't agree with him. Those who want single payer / universal healthcare thought he could have gotten that done in his first two years, that he had the votes, but he sold out to the insurance companies. Many on the left have disliked him ever since.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 4, 2014 18:07:08 GMT -5
So no health insurance? Just everybody covered for everything? No exceptions? Illegal immigrants covered?It sounds good. Who does this now and for how long have they done it? Not necessarily- and no. We as a society determine what the standard coverage should entail for all citizens (as was said above) and at that point when the national system is in force it becomes illegal to sell any policy that covers what the national system covers. You would be free to buy insurance for anything else- maybe private rooms, heroic life saving measures, procedures that are determined to have little chance of success, etc. Or even a generic whatever the system doesn't cover umbrella plan. You could pay cash and go to an elite cash only hospital for rich people if you like- the only thing is you still pay into the system- use it or not. So as you described it- no one does it. Everywhere else (not including some 3rd world shitholes) has some form of national plan that covers their citizens and costs much, much less than our system. How long? Norway 1912 Single Payer New Zealand 1938 Two Tier Japan 1938 Single Payer Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer Kuwait 1950 Single Payer Sweden 1955 Single Payer Bahrain 1957 Single Payer Brunei 1958 Single Payer Canada 1966 Single Payer Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer Finland 1972 Single Payer Slovenia 1972 Single Payer Denmark 1973 Two-Tier Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate France 1974 Two-Tier Australia 1975 Two Tier Ireland 1977 Two-Tier Italy 1978 Single Payer Portugal 1979 Single Payer Cyprus 1980 Single Payer Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate Spain 1986 Single Payer South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate Iceland 1990 Single Payer Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier Singapore 1993 Two-Tier Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate Israel 1995 Two-Tier truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 4, 2014 19:16:07 GMT -5
In theory it, like communism makes great sense. Unfortunately there are some serious risks to giving federal government such control and have to be considered as well.Canada has what they refer to as "brain drain" as brightest doctors leave to work for better compensation in our country. I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 4, 2014 19:25:54 GMT -5
If we are only focused on reducing costs then there are some things that should be given serious consideration first. Industry monopolies, poor diet, lack of exercise, aging population and encouraging people to become dependants instead of producers are thr primary reasons for the high cost. Why not address thuse root causes first?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 4, 2014 21:03:48 GMT -5
In theory it, like communism makes great sense. Unfortunately there are some serious risks to giving federal government such control and have to be considered as well.Canada has what they refer to as "brain drain" as brightest doctors leave to work for better compensation in our country. I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world. So where do they go when the USA is no longer the last bastion of overpaid doctors? And I mean that not to say they don't deserve to be paid well- but our doctors are paid super well because it is so damn expensive to become a doctor here. When insurance companies will pay to fly you to another country for a procedure we have a problem.
And I have to add we are not the best health care provider in the world by any measure other than what you can get if you are rich. Technology will keep coming regardless of us- plenty of new procedures are developed elsewhere- not to mention a lot of breakthroughs here are due to government investment through the NIH, etc. Many private companies are making bank off of research and development they had shit to do with.
These tech companies will do just fine- plenty of customers. The medical world does not revolve around the USA.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 5, 2014 7:29:13 GMT -5
In theory it, like communism makes great sense. Unfortunately there are some serious risks to giving federal government such control and have to be considered as well.Canada has what they refer to as "brain drain" as brightest doctors leave to work for better compensation in our country. I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world. So where do they go when the USA is no longer the last bastion of overpaid doctors? And I mean that not to say they don't deserve to be paid well- but our doctors are paid super well because it is so damn expensive to become a doctor here. When insurance companies will pay to fly you to another country for a procedure we have a problem.
And I have to add we are not the best health care provider in the world by any measure other than what you can get if you are rich. Technology will keep coming regardless of us- plenty of new procedures are developed elsewhere- not to mention a lot of breakthroughs here are due to government investment through the NIH, etc. Many private companies are making bank off of research and development they had shit to do with.
These tech companies will do just fine- plenty of customers. The medical world does not revolve around the USA.
My doctor works half the year here, and half the year in a nation to the south of us. In three years, he's retiring there- and we already have a foothold there, and we're already planning for socialist healthcare in America with plans to see our current doctor, or another doctor outside US borders, for cash.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 5, 2014 7:40:57 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 5, 2014 10:03:43 GMT -5
I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world. Yeah, the best health care provider for the rich, the healthy, those with great insurance. All those others are basically told to suck it. The rich will still be able to pay for the best health care and at least everyone else could get adequate health care. I would take that over our current system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 8:26:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 18:40:54 GMT -5
Agreed. We certainly do NOT have the "best healthcare provider" in the world. On average (for the average person) it is sub par at best. The ACA, aka Obamacare, means to change that.Thanks! I haven't had a deep, heartfelt belly laugh quite that good in MONTHS! (please, Please, PLEASE! Tell me you weren't serious when you typed that!)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 12, 2014 20:10:39 GMT -5
Reminds me of the poster who said with such conviction "Don't doubt me. Ever." That same poster said, in this very thread, "enrollment" isn't the proper measure. Policies in force is what will ultimately matter. he nation's third-largest health insurer had 720,000 people sign up for exchange coverage as of May 20, a spokesman confirmed to IBD. At the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. Aetna expects that to fall to "just over 500,000" by the end of the year. news.investors.com/politics/obamacare.htm
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 12, 2014 20:23:03 GMT -5
I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world. Yeah, the best health care provider for the rich, the healthy, those with great insurance. All those others are basically told to suck it. The rich will still be able to pay for the best health care and at least everyone else could get adequate health care. I would take that over our current system. It's remarkable that so many otherwise intelligent people are so obsessed with the supposed unfairness of rich people driving Bentleys, that they miss the fact that in tbe United States, so many poor people at least own a Chevy. Sometimes due specifically in part to a system which mostly leaves people alone to achieve the ability to pick any car they choose. It's equally mystifying that people think health care exists on a separate metaphysical plane where the laws of economics do not apply. Healthcare works no.different than cars. And to the extent that liberals understand on some level the reality that we can't just give everyone a Bentley, they seem to rejoice at the thought of forcing everyone into a Yugo. This of course completely ignores the benefit we all get of driving much better Chevys, Fords, Hondas, Toyotas- even Hyundais- because some can shell out for the Caddy, Lincoln, Lexus, or Genesis / Equis.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 12, 2014 20:53:48 GMT -5
In theory it, like communism makes great sense. in reality it makes pretty good sense, too.Unfortunately there are some serious risks to giving federal government such control and have to be considered as well. i have never understood this objection. what control?Canada has what they refer to as "brain drain" as brightest doctors leave to work for better compensation in our country. that is because they have "single payer only". we don't, and we never will, if we have two brain cells to rub together. we will have a "dual system" which has both private and public health insurance functioning WELL in it.I'm all for improving our system and costs but we really need to be careful not to destroy what has been the best health care provider and medical technology development country in the world. i have no concerns about that whatsoever. but the longer we delay having a universal system, the riskier it gets.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 12, 2014 20:54:57 GMT -5
Reminds me of the poster who said with such conviction "Don't doubt me. Ever." That same poster said, in this very thread, "enrollment" isn't the proper measure. Policies in force is what will ultimately matter. he nation's third-largest health insurer had 720,000 people sign up for exchange coverage as of May 20, a spokesman confirmed to IBD. At the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. Aetna expects that to fall to "just over 500,000" by the end of the year. news.investors.com/politics/obamacare.htmIBD is about as reputable as Breitbart, and somewhat less reputable than the Washington Times.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 12, 2014 21:10:52 GMT -5
Yeah, the best health care provider for the rich, the healthy, those with great insurance. All those others are basically told to suck it. The rich will still be able to pay for the best health care and at least everyone else could get adequate health care. I would take that over our current system. It's remarkable that so many otherwise intelligent people are so obsessed with the supposed unfairness of rich people driving Bentleys, that they miss the fact that in tbe United States, so many poor people at least own a Chevy. Sometimes due specifically in part to a system which mostly leaves people alone to achieve the ability to pick any car they choose. It's equally mystifying that people think health care exists on a separate metaphysical plane where the laws of economics do not apply. Healthcare works no.different than cars. And to the extent that liberals understand on some level the reality that we can't just give everyone a Bentley, they seem to rejoice at the thought of forcing everyone into a Yugo. This of course completely ignores the benefit we all get of driving much better Chevys, Fords, Hondas, Toyotas- even Hyundais- because some can shell out for the Caddy, Lincoln, Lexus, or Genesis / Equis. All running cars will get you where you are going reasonably well. Not much will do as well as chemo if you need cancer treatment. And a weekly visit to the er is not nearly as good as some asthma maintenance meds. Your constant insistance that are system works just fine is spoken like a person who has never had chronic health issues.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 12, 2014 22:16:03 GMT -5
It's remarkable that so many otherwise intelligent people are so obsessed with the supposed unfairness of rich people driving Bentleys, that they miss the fact that in tbe United States, so many poor people at least own a Chevy. Sometimes due specifically in part to a system which mostly leaves people alone to achieve the ability to pick any car they choose. It's equally mystifying that people think health care exists on a separate metaphysical plane where the laws of economics do not apply. Healthcare works no.different than cars. And to the extent that liberals understand on some level the reality that we can't just give everyone a Bentley, they seem to rejoice at the thought of forcing everyone into a Yugo. This of course completely ignores the benefit we all get of driving much better Chevys, Fords, Hondas, Toyotas- even Hyundais- because some can shell out for the Caddy, Lincoln, Lexus, or Genesis / Equis. WTF does a Bentley owner have to do with healthcare?
And WTF does the fact that our 'poor people' have a car, a refrigerator, electricity, etc. have to do with anything?
Healthcare is nothing like cars and you know it- but you persist to treat it as a common purchase. I get it- in your world only people that can afford healthcare get it and fuck everyone else. Time to canonize St. Paul. You go Christian soldier!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 20, 2014 7:31:24 GMT -5
That same poster said, in this very thread, "enrollment" isn't the proper measure. Policies in force is what will ultimately matter. he nation's third-largest health insurer had 720,000 people sign up for exchange coverage as of May 20, a spokesman confirmed to IBD. At the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. Aetna expects that to fall to "just over 500,000" by the end of the year. news.investors.com/politics/obamacare.htmIBD is about as reputable as Breitbart, and somewhat less reputable than the Washington Times. Wow, now the IBD is not considered a reliable source, too.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2014 11:28:49 GMT -5
The source is not IBD. The source is the nation's third-largest health insurer. IBD is merely the messenger. If you have information that contradicts the messenger, you're welcome to share it. Otherwise, my post is fact, and your post is merely deflection.
|
|