So, how's that repeal effort working out for you, Republicans?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

For all the "so what-ers" ... remember, you are also the same people who said this would never work and no one would ever enroll into the exchanges. 7 Million enrollees in year one, all this despite a disastrous roll out, all but ensures the marketplace pools are not only here to stay but that they are going to work. Can you imagine the headlines / what would have happened if these numbers were much much less?

Here's a prediction: If the ACA is running relatively smoothly and costs are under control -- as I believe they will be -- by the time President Obama leaves office, he'll get wide spread credit for courage and innovation. ... As he should. And like it (now) or not, what's been accomplished will end up on the right side of American history.

The law is NOT working. The president himself has made sure that it isn't to work by delaying it's full implementation over 35 different times. Once the law is fully implemented the American public is going to be hit with sticker shock, unfortunately that full implementation won't occur until after the 2014/2016 elections and a few portions won't take effect until several years after Obama has left office. The ACA will go down in history as THE worst law ever crammed down the throats of Americans.

That 7 million number you quote is pure fiction. 6.3 million lost their insurance ( I am one of those individuals who was forced off of an excellent BCBS plan thereby causing my premium to rise 68% and deductible by 33%......and everyone in my family is in excellent health) and had to take out new policies forced on them BY LAW, causing many who can't afford the insurance to be in a critical dilemma (one former employee of mine and a close friend of mine who both have life threatening health issues are in this quandary). The McKinsey and Rand reports show that the net effect of covering new subscribers is somewhere between 14% and 25% of that "7 million" figure which at best means 1.75 million new people have been covered.

Obamacare is a job killer and an onerous tax burden, but keep on with your faith in the Obama propaganda. It's the best smoke and mirrors magic show I've ever seen. Beats the Vegas shows for sure.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

If we want to quit skewing the uninsured numbers, shouldn't we note a big chunk of that population is due in part to the refusal of many Republican-led states to accept the ACA's Medicaid expansion? Not to mention, the result of the conservative misinformation campaign about mythical "death panels" and a bogus "government takeover of health care" that left millions more Americans fearful and confused—the uninsured most of all—about Obamacare?

Honestly, as we're seeing with all the "yeah but" responses today ... haven't Republicans always feared more Obamacare's success than it's failure?

Over time, Americans will know who to blame for trying to deny them health care and who to credit for making reform possible.

Red states refuse the Medicaid expansion because they will be left holding the bag when the bill hits. The blue states are in for a shock when their taxes will have to increase to pay for their increased Medicaid costs.

"Americans will know who to blame for trying to deny them health care".........your statement is a f***ing LIE. No one is trying to deny people health care. This what your Democrat leadership keeps saying and YOU repeat that LIE.

[TheBlueVue 177]

If we want to quit skewing the uninsured numbers, shouldn't we note a big chunk of that population is due in part to the refusal of many Republican-led states to accept the ACA's Medicaid expansion? Not to mention, the result of the conservative misinformation campaign about mythical "death panels" and a bogus "government takeover of health care" that left millions more Americans fearful and confused—the uninsured most of all—about Obamacare?

Honestly, as we're seeing with all the "yeah but" responses today ... haven't Republicans always feared more Obamacare's success than it's failure?

Over time, Americans will know who to blame for trying to deny them health care and who to credit for making reform possible.

LOL. I dont think Ive ever seen someone so indoctrinated they cant see the forest for the trees. Clearly, they exist. Republicans DO NOT FEAR this law. They are running against it because they hear their constituents who are passionately against it.

There are no "yeah, but" responses, only responses based n reality and not lalaland. Here's another fact. This law was passed on the back of Obamas lies. It never would have passed if 6.2 million peope knew what was going to happen to their health insurance. "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. Nobody is going to take that away from you and the average family is going to save $2500 per year."

This law will fail. Its based on false premises. Give it time. I see no reason for celebration anyway. I mean it isn't exactly a phenomenal outcome when the govt spends $684 million selling it, mandated it by law and will fine citizens who dont buy it. Given that reality 7.1 million seems like an awfully low number especially when you take stock of the fact that 6.2 million folks had their policies cancelled prior to the rollout.

O-Care was passed to insure the uninsured and the CBO reports that after full implementation 31 million will STILL BE UNINSURED and you're celebrating a victory like YOU have actually won something. What a joke!

[icanthearyou 4,463]

One Republican likes ACA.

While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.

Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”

“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.

Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.

So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.

Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”

He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.

“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”

Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.

“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.

However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.

“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.

Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.

“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.

Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.

In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.

“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”

Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.

Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.

When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”

Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

One Republican likes ACA.

Yet no Republican in Congress voted for this fiasco.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

One Republican likes ACA.

Yet no Republican in Congress voted for this fiasco.

Politics or practicality?

[TheBlueVue 177]

One Republican likes ACA.

While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.

Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”

“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.

Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.

So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.

Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”

He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.

“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”

Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.

“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.

However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.

“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.

Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.

“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.

Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.

In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.

“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”

Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.

Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.

When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”

Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.

Well there ya go........There's one. Republicans are representing their constituents. They are hearing from them daily.They do not like it. At the bottom of their disdain is, it comes at a more expensive price, for less coverage because of significantly higher deductibles and it creates shrinking networks of doctors thus limiting the insureds healthcare options. How many constituents does Mr Sullivan represent?

ICHY prefers to paint this as strictly a political move on the part of republicans altogether discounting the millions of people those republicans represent who are not lovin this law. I think, in a constitutional republic that's the way the system is supposed to work.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

One Republican likes ACA.

While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.

Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”

“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.

Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.

So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.

Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”

He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.

“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”

Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.

“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.

However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.

“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.

Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.

“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.

Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.

In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.

“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”

Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.

Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.

When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”

Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.

Well there ya go........There's one. Republicans are representing their constituents. They are hearing from them daily.They do not like it. At the bottom of their disdain is, it comes at a more expensive price, for less coverage because of significantly higher deductibles and it creates shrinking networks of doctors thus limiting the insureds healthcare options. How many constituents does Mr Sullivan represent?

ICHY prefers to paint this as strictly a political move on the part of republicans altogether discounting the millions of people those republicans represent who are not lovin this law. I think, in a constitutional republic that's the way the system is supposed to work.

Are they? Polls show most Americans do not want a repeal but rather more refinements. Maybe they are primarily representing the political tactics and interests of the party?

[TheBlueVue 177]

One Republican likes ACA.

While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.

Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”

“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.

Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.

So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.

Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”

He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.

“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”

Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.

“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.

However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.

“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.

Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.

“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.

Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.

In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.

“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”

Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.

Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.

When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”

Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.

Well there ya go........There's one. Republicans are representing their constituents. They are hearing from them daily.They do not like it. At the bottom of their disdain is, it comes at a more expensive price, for less coverage because of significantly higher deductibles and it creates shrinking networks of doctors thus limiting the insureds healthcare options. How many constituents does Mr Sullivan represent?

ICHY prefers to paint this as strictly a political move on the part of republicans altogether discounting the millions of people those republicans represent who are not lovin this law. I think, in a constitutional republic that's the way the system is supposed to work.

Are they? Polls show most Americans do not want a repeal but rather a more refinements. Maybe they are primarily representing the political tactics and interests of the party?

link those polls would ya? Are those polls like the ones showing that liberal groups were also targeted by the IRS? Nobody knows of a single liberal group that didn't get their requested exemption.

I wouls lke to see the response to a poll that asks. Do you support passing legislation by lying to the American people?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

[AUUSN 823]

The Obamacare open-enrollment season (supposedly) closed yesterday, so it is good time to step back and assess where things stand with the law and its first-year implementation.

Interestingly, Obamacare remains something of a Rorschach test for journalists and health-policy analysts. Looking at the same set of facts, two observers can reach very different conclusions.

For instance, Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times writes that Obamacare “has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century.”

Meanwhile, health consultant Howard J. Peterson, writing at the Philadelphia Inquirer news site, says “the first four years of Obamacare has led to solving about 10 percent of the problem of uninsured citizens.” He expects no further improvement in the coming years.

So which is it? Is Obamacare on track to be an historic achievement? Or is it falling well short of the lofty goals set for it by the administration?

The Obamacare exchanges reportedly will have enrolled at least 7 million persons in health insurance plans through the end of March. As the Obama administration predicted, there was a large increase in sign-ups in the final days of the open-enrollment period, pushing the total enrollment numbers up even beyond the 6 million estimate touted by the president just last week.

This is without question good news for the law’s supporters and a significant turnaround since last November. After the first two months of shaky enrollment numbers, I expected the first year sign-up totals to be far short of projections. I was clearly wrong about that.

Administration officials realized when the fiasco was unfolding last fall that nothing mattered in the first year except getting people on the program — and so they did whatever was necessary to HealthCare.gov to make signing up easy. Those fixes are likely to lead to a large percentage of erroneous subsidy payments, as controls and other checks were turned off. That’s clearly a price the administration will gladly pay to get more people onto the program.

Seven million is also an overstatement of true enrollment in the insurance plans. About 20 percent or so of the enrollees have failed, or will fail, to continue payment of their required premiums, according to insurance-industry observers. So 7 million sign-ups translates into a little less than 6 million people who are expected to receive coverage.

And who are these enrollees? Remember, Obamacare forced the cancellation of many millions of insurance plans sold in the individual insurance market. The president later indicated that these plans could be reopened, but only in states with insurance regulators willing to go along with the president’s last minute change of heart. Some number of people with canceled plans likely ended up in the exchanges because they had no other real choice. Thus, several surveys have unsurprisingly shown that a relatively small percentage — perhaps one-third or lower — of the enrollees in the exchanges were previously uninsured. That implies that, so far, enrollment in the exchanges has reduced the ranks of the uninsured by about 2 million people.

It is also clear at this point that there are large state-by-state differences in enrollment experience. In states with activist governments pushing hard for enrollment, such as California and New York, the enrollment numbers are relatively high. But in large parts of the country, the numbers are far lower. For instance, at the end of February, enrollment in the California exchange had reached 2.3 percent of the state population. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, it was just 0.6 percent, and in Oklahoma it was just 0.9 percent. The numbers will obviously go up with March added to the enrollment totals, but the state disparities are unlikely to disappear entirely.

Each state is its own insurance market, whether it uses the federal exchange system or not. These state differences could mean that the Obamacare exchanges are viable in some states and regions of the country, while in other states and regions the numbers remain too low to sustain a stable insurance pool.

The administration also touts the Medicaid expansion as helping to reduce the uninsured. But most of the millions of new sign-ups in Medicaid are by people who were previously eligible for the program anyway. The number of people now on Medicaid who would otherwise have been uninsured is likely around 3 million or so at this point.

The original goals for Obamacare were far more ambitious. At the time of enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Obamacare would lower the ranks of the uninsured by 19 million in 2014. Even as recently as last May, CBO estimated the reduction in the uninsured would be 14 million this year.

Moreover, for every newly insured American, there are several others who are now getting far worse health coverage than they had last year. Their premiums have gone up. They are facing much higher deductibles. And they are being forced to pay for mandated benefits that they would rather not have. This is the reason that Obamacare’s poll numbers continue to sink, and are unlikely to be buoyed by encouraging enrollment numbers.

At its heart, Obamacare was a large-scale redistribution program. It provides large new subsidies to lower-income households and to those with previously expensive insurance due to risk rating of their premiums. These subsidies are paid for by raising premiums on many millions of previously insured households, raising taxes significantly, and cutting Medicare.

The end result will be a reduction in the uninsured of some magnitude, that’s for sure. But it was never going to be hard to reduce the uninsured if that was all that concerned policymakers. Massive public subsidies and expansion of free public-insurance programs can expand insurance enrollment, so long as others were willing to pay for it.

But that wasn’t what was promised. Americans were told that reform would lower costs for everyone, and that no one would lose the policies they previously held and liked. People are dissatisfied with Obamacare because they’ve realized the law will never deliver on these promises. Indeed, just yesterday it was announced that health-care costs rose at the fastest pace in a decade in the last three months of 2013. Most Americans are seeing no benefit whatsoever from Obamacare, and in fact are paying much more than they ever have before.

In its first year, Obamacare did not completely collapse from lack of support or interest. That’s true. But that’s not the same thing as saying the law is out of the political woods and on track to be broadly accepted by the American people. Far from it.

— James C. Capretta is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374728/aca-still-falling-short-james-c-capretta/page/0/1

[Elephant Tipper 430]

One Republican likes ACA.

Yet no Republican in Congress voted for this fiasco.

Politics or practicality?

You should ask your question of the Democrats whose states benefitted financially for their votes, a' la Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid and numerous other kickbacks.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

If we want to quit skewing the uninsured numbers, shouldn't we

If you SINCERELY "want to quit skewing the numbers", the key word is "sincerely", then have the Obama administration release the ACA enrollment profiles, AND subtract those thrown off their policies from the enrollment number (that figure will be a net negative).

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

That poll has nothing to do with the number of Americans that are in favor of repeal vs. those in favor of refining ACA.

[DKW 86 7,425]

_{In total:}

_{We were told we need to insure 47M Americans that did not have insurance.}

_{We signed up 7M, 7m < 47M}

_{Most were either Students under 26 or Medicare add-ons.}

_{Does not include Students under 26 or Medicare add-ons.}

_{There were not enough young signing up.}

_{We do not know how many actually paid.}

_{Having said ALL THAT: Obamacare is here for good. Need to understand that.}

_{The first person to own the fix for Obamcare will be the most popular person in Congress for many years.}

_{Grow up and move along.}

[icanthearyou 4,463]

One Republican likes ACA.

Yet no Republican in Congress voted for this fiasco.

Politics or practicality?

You should ask your question of the Democrats whose states benefitted financially for their votes, a' la Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid and numerous other kickbacks.

The answer to that question is obvious. Now, how about the Republicans?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

_{In total:}

_{We were told we need to insure 47M Americans that did not have insurance.}

_{We signed up 7M, 7m < 47M}

_{Most were either Students under 26 or Medicare add-ons.}

_{There were not enough young signing up.}

_{We do not know how many actually paid.}

_{Having said ALL THAT: Obamacare is here for good. Need to understand that.}

_{The first person to own the fix for Oabamcare will be the most popular person in Congress for many years.}

_{Grow up and move along.}

I don't believe those who are under 26 and allowed to stay on their parents insurance or those who were picked up via expanded medicaid are counted in the 7.1 million. They would have to be added.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

That poll has nothing to do with the number of Americans that are in favor of repeal vs. those in favor of refining ACA.

What it does show is less than 50% of Americans favor the law. You said "most polls show most Americans" favor the law and have yet to produce one piece of evidence to back that statement up. I think its pretty big leap you made but you'd rather parse words, showing your true colors, than just admit you cant back up your statement.

[DKW 86 7,425]

_{In total:}

_{We were told we need to insure 47M Americans that did not have insurance.}

_{We signed up 7M, 7m < 47M}

_{Most were either Students under 26 or Medicare add-ons.}

_{There were not enough young signing up.}

_{We do not know how many actually paid.}

_{Having said ALL THAT: Obamacare is here for good. Need to understand that.}

_{The first person to own the fix for Oabamcare will be the most popular person in Congress for many years.}

_{Grow up and move along.}

I don't believe those who are under 26 and allowed to stay on their parents insurance or those who were picked up via expanded medicaid are counted in the 7.1 million. They would have to be added.

And you would be correct, i just realized i totally misread an article.

The number only includes those signed up, but it still, accurately does not exclude those that have not paid.

Sebelius and others are reporting Insurers sighting 80-90% numbers.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

That poll has nothing to do with the number of Americans that are in favor of repeal vs. those in favor of refining ACA.

What it does show is less than 50% of Americans favor the law. You said "most polls show most Americans" favor the law and have yet to produce one piece of evidence to back that statement up. I think its pretty big leap you made but you'd rather parse words, showing your true colors, than just admit you cant back up your statement.

Why do you have such a difficult time being truthful? That is not at all what I said. This is what I said: Polls show most Americans do not want a repeal but rather more refinements.

Do you understand?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I'll make this easy for you Blue. Here are the polling numbers you requested and conveniently, your numbers right before them.

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-january-2014/

Now stop lying. From a crediblity standpoint, you can't afford to lie anymore.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

That poll has nothing to do with the number of Americans that are in favor of repeal vs. those in favor of refining ACA.

What it does show is less than 50% of Americans favor the law. You said "most polls show most Americans" favor the law and have yet to produce one piece of evidence to back that statement up. I think its pretty big leap you made but you'd rather parse words, showing your true colors, than just admit you cant back up your statement.

Why do you have such a difficult time being truthful? That is not at all what I said. This is what I said: Polls show most Americans do not want a repeal but rather more refinements.

Do you understand?

Sure.Have you found one to post here yet?

The problem I have is why should I believe anything coming from this administration? They have establsihed themselves as people who will knowingly lie for political purposes. The list of those lies are well known.

In the midst of all this "celebration", I cant wait to hear form all those who are getting their insurance through their employers, when they either have to start paying for it or have to pay significantly higher premiums for their coverage. Insurance executives all agree, the price will go up sharply next year.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Heres one poll from the most liberal network in America......"Most Americans" you say?

http://www.msnbc.com...ead-above-water

I suppose only a liberal could claim that less than 50% is indeed "most Americans" and it only took $684 million tax payer dollars to get to that point.

That poll has nothing to do with the number of Americans that are in favor of repeal vs. those in favor of refining ACA.

What it does show is less than 50% of Americans favor the law. You said "most polls show most Americans" favor the law and have yet to produce one piece of evidence to back that statement up. I think its pretty big leap you made but you'd rather parse words, showing your true colors, than just admit you cant back up your statement.

Why do you have such a difficult time being truthful? That is not at all what I said. This is what I said: Polls show most Americans do not want a repeal but rather more refinements.

Do you understand?

Sure.Have you found one to post here yet?

Look back one post.

The problem I have is why should I believe anything coming from this administration? They have establsihed themselves as people who will knowingly lie for political purposes. The list of those lies are well known.

They don't lie as much as you do.

In the midst of all this "celebration", I cant wait to hear form all those who are getting their insurance through their employers, when they either have to start paying for it or have to pay significantly higher premiums for their coverage. Insurance executives all agree, the price will go up sharply next year.

Insurance executive always want them to go up. I think we need another source for that claim.

[channonc 466]

_{In total:}

_{We were told we need to insure 47M Americans that did not have insurance.}

_{We signed up 7M, 7m < 47M}

_{Most were either Students under 26 or Medicare add-ons.}

_{There were not enough young signing up.}

_{We do not know how many actually paid.}

_{Having said ALL THAT: Obamacare is here for good. Need to understand that.}

_{The first person to own the fix for Oabamcare will be the most popular person in Congress for many years.}

_{Grow up and move along.}

I don't believe those who are under 26 and allowed to stay on their parents insurance or those who were picked up via expanded medicaid are counted in the 7.1 million. They would have to be added.

Expanded medicaid was supposed to be mandatory. So under the intent of the law, we would be much closer to that 47 million number. With medicaid expansion being ruled as optional, now you have a hole. So question is, now how do we fill that hole.

There will be refinements on the law, I have no doubt. And as we move forward in the future, more refinements will have to be made. I think in the long run, the kinks will work out and our healthcare system will be better (**notice I said better, not perfect).

[AUisAll 2]

Only in Liberal/Democrat lala land can made up BS be called a success and the minions celebrate. Sad state of affairs in America!