Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A minor reminder, not to shoot the messenger here, but NY Magazine is as militantly liberal, if not more so, than anything in Mother Jones. Take any political issue they discuss with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I understand that they lean left.
Did you read the article? Do you disagree with the data presented?
If its a flaw the same flaw exists with Medicare with people with very high net worths and high incomes getting subsidies worth almost $500 per month. You wont find too many conservatives on Medicare complaining about that little subsidy. Lots of people in California for example also are living in $800,000 houses they bought 30 years ago or more but have relatively low incomes. Should they have to sell their house to qualify for the ACA or Medicaid? Probably since they live in California...By the way nobody forced you to sign up for Medicaid. You could have signed up for the ACA or just bought a plan from a broker. So you took advantage of the law just like a lot of people who use section 179 write offs for SUV's..You wont see conservatives wanting to change that anytime soon.
Not in Michigan.....we had BC/BS....but, when the yearly income was put in....all we could get was Medicaid.
Unless we lied and said we have more income on our 1040 taxes page.....then our 1040 will not match our insurance information.
Our business insurance broker was who sent the forms in.
"Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct."
Good article that shows that all the rightwing talking points about the ACA have proven to be untrue.
If you've read the plethora of polls about how Americans feel about the ACA, it isn't just republicans or conservatives that are unhappy with Ocare. The reasons usually boil down to lack of affordability.
Did you read the article? Do you disagree with the data presented?
I did read the article and I have no way at the moment to dig into their links and stats. I dropped a twenty year subscription to NY Magazine because I just stopped trusting them. While I think it's important to get your news and information from as many sources as possible, no matter their political leaning, I at least have to be able to have some faith in what they write. NY Magazine failed that test.
If you've read the plethora of polls about how Americans feel about the ACA, it isn't just republicans or conservatives that are unhappy with Ocare. The reasons usually boil down to lack of affordability.
You obviously didn't read the article, but like most of the people who have responded thus far, are falling back on old talking points, the very talking points the article debunks. I guess it's easier to spout rhetoric than read something that debunks all you hold dear.
I'm kind of liking Obama, he's doing everything that helps me get richer You poor folks, not so much.
You see, the rich will make money in all kinds of economic climates. People like you will hold on to HOPE and you'll be disappointed in the end.
Obamacare, I might have to pay for your insurance now but I'm working toward changing that too.
Sorry, but I'm one of those Democratic voters that doesn't hope for government to give me things, I believe you have to make the effort yourself to get ahead. That being said, I don't believe voting for a party that believes in stomping on people's throats is good, either. That's the fundamental difference between you and me. You believe in the same thing I do, but you believe in if you make a mistake, you deserve to burn for it. I don't.
You obviously didn't read the article, but like most of the people who have responded thus far, are falling back on old talking points, the very talking points the article debunks. I guess it's easier to spout rhetoric than read something that debunks all you hold dear.
The polls speak to the facts. One author's opinion is just that, an opinion, including your opinion.
The polls speak to the facts. One author's opinion is just that, an opinion, including your opinion.
The polls speak to the perception of the effects of the ACA. The article speaks to the facts of what has actually transpired following the implementation of the law. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.
Because we should always evaluate all major new transformational government programs based on the initial performance during the first 6 months after roll out ...
Anybody who believes that Obamacare will improve access to medical care for anyone over the long term is delusional. It lowers the cost of access for a wide range of consumers, lowers the payments to providers for that care, and does nothing to increase the number of providers. This is fundamental economics folks, and the long term impact is clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You poor folks, not so much.
