Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
11. I won't argue single digits
Mon Jan 30, 2012, 04:09 PM
Jan 2012

The numbers are basically the same, roughly 4-6% of those eligible now, were eligible before. The numbers that will end up with insurance because of this bill is around 8 - 12%. And you're taking the lowest statistic for the number covered, and comparing to the highest number estimated to ultimately be covered. Nominally, the numbers are more like 85% and 93%.

The vast majority (80+%) will see no change in their coverage or care, and that was by intent. Obama sold this on the basis that most people wouldn't notice.

Those who will recieve rebates, and those that will have coverage for existing conditions is a VERY small percentage of the overall population. And all they will get is coverage, they won't get a guarantee of CARE because the bill did NOTHING to establish health CARE as a right. And quite the opposite, it made insurance and obligation, with the governments duty specifically limited.

I don't dengrate the law, unless you mean accurately reflecting what is does AND DOESNT' do "denegrating". The original author on the other hand vastly overstated what the bill actually does. I guess he's the one that doesn't think to much of what it does, so he has to imbellish it to make it sound worth while at all.

That lie again zipplewrath Jan 2012 #1
That ProSense Jan 2012 #2
Which has nothing to do with CARE zipplewrath Jan 2012 #3
Because ProSense Jan 2012 #4
There is no "right" estalished zipplewrath Jan 2012 #5
If ProSense Jan 2012 #6
It is interesting behavior zipplewrath Jan 2012 #7
What's ProSense Jan 2012 #8
They will zipplewrath Jan 2012 #9
Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #10
I won't argue single digits zipplewrath Jan 2012 #11
Of ProSense Jan 2012 #12
Most folks had something similar zipplewrath Jan 2012 #15
You ProSense Jan 2012 #17
After zipplewrath Jan 2012 #23
Dismissing the fact that hundreds of healthy kids can now no longer get health insurance because ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #13
I'm ProSense Jan 2012 #14
By acting as if this law has done something good for the many of us without insurance. ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #16
It ProSense Jan 2012 #19
It definitely has not. Saying it is so does not make it so. It could have done actual ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #21
But ProSense Jan 2012 #22
It is being lauded as something it is not. It has created worse conditions ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #29
Something won't zipplewrath Jan 2012 #18
That's ProSense Jan 2012 #20
Exchanges won't affect most folks zipplewrath Jan 2012 #25
Neither ProSense Jan 2012 #26
Vermont didn't need the HCR to get to this point zipplewrath Jan 2012 #27
Vermont ProSense Jan 2012 #28
So you're suggesting zipplewrath Jan 2012 #30
HCR did create a new "right"--the "right" for Insurance Multinationals to profit from each and every Romulox Jan 2012 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Richard Kirsch: How Many ...»Reply #11