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

[TheBlueVue 177]

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/healt...l-january-2014/

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

Well good for you. You found one. That took a minute didn't it? You love to call me a liar but if I actually needed a favorable credibility rating from you, I'd be in deep caca. I can afford to do whatever I want to do and thats a fact which precludes a need for your approval of anything. It is what it is.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"(**notice I said better, not perfect)".

Better than what and at what cost?

Isn't it the least bit fascinating to anyone that the most popular provision of this law is the pre-existing conditions cannot be denied?

Well, that's not insurance, that's welfare and reflects on the mindset of most Americans. If you consider the definition of the word "insurance" and understand terms like "risk pool" you cannot call agreeing to cover people with pre-existings conditions as insurance.

The healthcare system is already worse off. Networks have shrunk because a lot of doctors and hospitals have opted out. I don't see have things can improve when the healthcare options are shrinking and costs are going up.

[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/healt...l-january-2014/

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

Well good for you. You found one. That took a minute didn't it? You love to call me a liar but if I actually needed a favorable credibility rating from you, I'd be in deep caca. I can afford to do whatever I want to do and thats a fact which precludes a need for your approval of anything. It is what it is.

I didn't have to "find" it. It has been out there. I certainly didn't have to distort it. You have no objectivity which is fine but, you shouldn't take your lack of crediblity so lightly. That is the problem with becoming too partisan. Once you give up the ability to think critically, you lose objectivity and, you cannot seperate the rhetoric from the truth. You begin to believe the BS rhetoric is the truth. You are lost.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"(**notice I said better, not perfect)".

Better than what and at what cost?

Isn't it the least bit fascinating to anyone that the most popular provision of this law is the pre-existing conditions cannot be denied?

Well, that's not insurance, that's welfare and reflects on the mindset of most Americans. If you consider the definition of the word "insurance" and understand terms like "risk pool" you cannot call agreeing to cover people with pre-existings conditions as insurance.

The healthcare system is already worse off. Networks have shrunk because a lot of doctors and hospitals have opted out. I don't see have things can improve when the healthcare options are shrinking and costs are going up.

Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?

How about some sort of references for your last paragraph. I don't think we can just "take your word for it". By how much have the networks decreased? Are fewer people being treated? How much are prices going up relative to prior years. Stop trying to pass off rhetoric as absolute fact. Again, stop lying.

[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.

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).

The 7M signed up.

How many havent paid?

How many from lost coverage?

How many actually had NO Insurance before?

We dont know and likely wont know for some time.

Either way, the ACA Law stands and it must be fixed.

We really do not know the whole story here if the delays had not kicked in. More insurance losers...means more enrollees.

Would there be more poison out for Dems in November?

Anyone got a solid number from the total with medicaid add-ons, etc?

[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?

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.

LOL. Let me get this straight. You honestly would argue that insurance companies can be forced to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions(which isn't insurance- that is welfare) and costs wont go up? Look at this way. The segment of the population with the most pent up demand for healthcare is who? Im betting it is the folks who have pre-existing conditions who need help paying for there illnesses.. Im also betting you'll call me liar for posting that. Its funny who you call my opinions lies.

We'll watch this and Im sure you'll remember this thread. It seems you've memory banked everything I have ever posted. I almost feel like I should be paying you rent for the space I occupy in your head but, I digress. In any event, we'll see who is right going forward. Costs cannot remain static under these parameters.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"(**notice I said better, not perfect)".

Better than what and at what cost?

Isn't it the least bit fascinating to anyone that the most popular provision of this law is the pre-existing conditions cannot be denied?

Well, that's not insurance, that's welfare and reflects on the mindset of most Americans. If you consider the definition of the word "insurance" and understand terms like "risk pool" you cannot call agreeing to cover people with pre-existings conditions as insurance.

The healthcare system is already worse off. Networks have shrunk because a lot of doctors and hospitals have opted out. I don't see have things can improve when the healthcare options are shrinking and costs are going up.

Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?

How about some sort of references for your last paragraph. I don't think we can just "take your word for it". By how much have the networks decreased? Are fewer people being treated? How much are prices going up relative to prior years. Stop trying to pass off rhetoric as absolute fact. Again, stop lying.

Dont take my word for it better yet since my posts create major problems for you why dont you stop reading them? Here ya go

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/aca-affordable-care-act-access-health-insurance-doctors-244415971.html

These were the 1st 2 I saw and there are many articles about both but, of course, you already knew that...didn't you

[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.

LOL. Let me get this straight. You honestly would argue that insurance companies can be forced to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions(which isn't insurance- that is welfare) and costs wont go up? Look at this way. The segment of the population with the most pent up demand for healthcare is who? Im betting it is the folks who have pre-existing conditions who need help paying for there illnesses.. Im also betting you'll call me liar for posting that. Its funny who you call my opinions lies.

We'll watch this and Im sure you'll remember this thread. It seems you've memory banked everything I have ever posted. I almost feel like I should be paying you rent for the space I occupy in your head but, I digress. In any event, we'll see who is right going forward. Costs cannot remain static under these parameters.

I did not say that. Again you are attempting to distort the truth. You have no shame. You are an unabashed liar.

Healthcare costs have never been static (at least not in my lifetime). Yet again, another of your attempts to distort the truth.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?"

Sure it has when purchased in advance. Maybe I can help you understand insurance. If I bought a house cash, by law, I don't have to have homeowners insurance. Say one day I was coming home and I saw smoke coming from my neighbor and suddenly realized, its my house and I don't have homeowners insurance. So, I call the insurance aganecy and ask the agent to cover my house which is currently enveloped in flames? What kind of reaction ya think I'd get? That would not be insurance. That would be an agent saying to me...OK we'll pay for that for you. Most reasonable people, which obviously does not include you, can see the difference

Agreeing to cover patients with pre-existing illnesses is not insurance - it is a welfare entitlement. There is no risk in covering pre-existing illness. That is a cost factor that has to be built into the system. Watch what happens to rates next year....your cue to call me a liar.

[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?

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.

LOL. Let me get this straight. You honestly would argue that insurance companies can be forced to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions(which isn't insurance- that is welfare) and costs wont go up? Look at this way. The segment of the population with the most pent up demand for healthcare is who? Im betting it is the folks who have pre-existing conditions who need help paying for there illnesses.. Im also betting you'll call me liar for posting that. Its funny who you call my opinions lies.

We'll watch this and Im sure you'll remember this thread. It seems you've memory banked everything I have ever posted. I almost feel like I should be paying you rent for the space I occupy in your head but, I digress. In any event, we'll see who is right going forward. Costs cannot remain static under these parameters.

I did not say that. Again you are attempting to distort the truth. You have no shame. You are an unabashed liar.

Healthcare costs have never been static (at least not in my lifetime). Yet again, another of your attempts to distort the truth.

Did not say what? I hve no idea what you're talking about. We'll see and, Im betting I am closer to the truth than you are. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing without even considering that there will more than likely be more sign ups of people with pre-exisiting conditions, simply because they have nothing now, than healthy folks who either dont feel they need it or are unwilling to pay for it. You going to ask me for a link on that too?

[AUisAll 2]

"Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?"

Sure it has when purchased in advance. Maybe I can help you understand insurance. If I bought a house cash, by law, I don't have to have homeowners insurance. Say one day I was coming home and I saw smoke coming from my neighbor and suddenly realized, its my house and I don't have homeowners insurance. So, I call the insurance aganecy and ask the agent to cover my house which is currently enveloped in flames? What kind of reaction ya think I'd get? That would not be insurance. That would be an agent saying to me...OK we'll pay for that for you. Most reasonable people, which obviously does not include you, can see the difference

Agreeing to cover patients with pre-existing illnesses is not insurance - it is a welfare entitlement. There is no risk in covering pre-existing illness. That is a cost factor that has to be built into the system. Watch what happens to rates next year....your cue to call me a liar.

Great effort trying to converse with one of them but it's most often useless. They voted for a man twice who never had a real job and spent millions hiding his past. Not to mention they support him despite the fact that he is a proven habitual liar.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"(**notice I said better, not perfect)".

Better than what and at what cost?

Isn't it the least bit fascinating to anyone that the most popular provision of this law is the pre-existing conditions cannot be denied?

Well, that's not insurance, that's welfare and reflects on the mindset of most Americans. If you consider the definition of the word "insurance" and understand terms like "risk pool" you cannot call agreeing to cover people with pre-existings conditions as insurance.

The healthcare system is already worse off. Networks have shrunk because a lot of doctors and hospitals have opted out. I don't see have things can improve when the healthcare options are shrinking and costs are going up.

Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?

How about some sort of references for your last paragraph. I don't think we can just "take your word for it". By how much have the networks decreased? Are fewer people being treated? How much are prices going up relative to prior years. Stop trying to pass off rhetoric as absolute fact. Again, stop lying.

Dont take my word for it better yet since my posts create major problems for you why dont you stop reading them? Here ya go

http://health.usnews...ut-of-obamacare

http://www.nbcconnec...-244415971.html

These were the 1st 2 I saw and there are many articles about both but, of course, you already knew that...didn't you

Did you actually read either article? People still have to make decisions about the level of insurance they need vs. the amount (and quality) of care they can afford. Perhaps you are in favor of socialized medicine? Those stories are not representative of declining access. They are representative of providers desire to cater to only those who have premium insurance. If you want a private room at the best hospital, you are going to need a gold plan.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"Hasn't that alway been a part of the insurance model? The healthy help pay the costs of treating the sick?"

Sure it has when purchased in advance. Maybe I can help you understand insurance. If I bought a house cash, by law, I don't have to have homeowners insurance. Say one day I was coming home and I saw smoke coming from my neighbor and suddenly realized, its my house and I don't have homeowners insurance. So, I call the insurance aganecy and ask the agent to cover my house which is currently enveloped in flames? What kind of reaction ya think I'd get? That would not be insurance. That would be an agent saying to me...OK we'll pay for that for you. Most reasonable people, which obviously does not include you, can see the difference

Agreeing to cover patients with pre-existing illnesses is not insurance - it is a welfare entitlement. There is no risk in covering pre-existing illness. That is a cost factor that has to be built into the system. Watch what happens to rates next year....your cue to call me a liar.

How about this then. Your house is on fire and you call your agent. He immediately cancels you policy and informs other insurers that you are high risk. No insurance for you again ever.

It's no less ridiculous than your analogy. Why don't we stick to factual and material arguments.

[AFTiger 282]

Today is March 31, 2014: in theory, the last day you can sign up for coverage under the subsidized Obamacare insurance exchanges. If you’ve been a regular reader of this space, you know that the numbers routinely paraded by the Obama administration regarding Obamacare website sign-ups don’t tell us much about the actual number of uninsured individuals who have gained coverage. A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured.

More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/31/rand-only-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/

[RunInRed 16,420]

This.

What's absolutely 100 percent certain, after all the uncertainties and questions about how to count is this: A whole hell of a lot of people who did not have affordable health care have it now. Any discussion about uninsured Americans starts in a completely different place—a better place—than it did when Barack Obama became president ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/02/1289089/-The-Obamacare-counting-doesn-t-end-at-7-million

[TheBlueVue 177]

This topic provides an interesting contrast in the difference of views about this law. The democrats are all rainbows and unicorns over it and the republicans still have a skeptical view of the governments role in the individual's healthcare.

What is certain is, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, the dems are celebrating and are not about to stop. They are convinced this is a great thing. Personally, I believe the celebration has begun a bit too soon. I definitely do not believe 7.1 million have paid and that they were all uninsured

The law was sold by lying to the American people. Apparently, a lot of folks here think the end justifies the means and since they believe this is a great thing their celebration signals that they co-sign the president's willful lying to get it passed. Its a sad day when the public's trust has been so obviously abused in such a self serving politically expedient fashion.

[AUUSN 823]

[Tigermike 3,031]

This.

What's absolutely 100 percent certain, after all the uncertainties and questions about how to count is this: A whole hell of a lot of people who did not have affordable health care have it now. Any discussion about uninsured Americans starts in a completely different place—a better place—than it did when Barack Obama became president ...

http://www.dailykos....nd-at-7-million

NO it's not 100% certain.

As of yesterday, based upon the limited data the Obama administration has reluctantly released, only 1.7% of the previously uninsured have enrolled in Obamacare.

If the uninsured aren’t enrolling in Obamacare, who is? It seems that new enrollees consist primarily of (a) those who were insured but wanted subsidies and ( a ) those who lost pre-existing coverage because of Obamacare. Moreover, analyzing enrollment data, it appears that the new enrollees are weighted heavily in favor of those requiring subsidies, as opposed to those paying full fare and funding the subsidies. Even math-illiterates (i.e., the Democrat party and its MSM mouthpieces) will eventually figure out that this is unsustainable.

The statements I made above are data-based, although the administration’s death grip on actual numbers leaves one unsure even about the accuracy of that information. Now let me throw in some anecdotal information. I know that anecdote is not data but, to the extent this anecdote tracks the available data, it’s worth noting.

I have mentioned before that I have a friend who has pursued a very different life path from mine. We both come from extremely middle class backgrounds, but while I was able to stay economically middle class, my friend made life decisions that saw her sink lower and lower economically. She now lives in a community where, as she jokes, she and her husband are the only ones she knows who don’t have a parole officer. (A fact that relates in part to substance abuse problems rife in her community and in part to draconian prosecutorial abuse.)

What distinguishes my friend from her neighbors, aside from her lack of a criminal record, is her middle class values. She may not live the middle class life, but she still follows middle class rules, one of which is her belief that you pay your bills and you carry health insurance. Unfortunately for her, she reached a point a few years ago at which she could no longer pay health insurance bills. Quite reluctantly, she let her insurance lapse.

My friend was therefore delighted when Obamacare finally went into effect. Because her state’s exchange was dysfunctional, she had to sign up the old-fashioned way (by mail), but sign-up she did. Moreover, given her dire finances, she qualified for a subsidy. I don’t have the details, but I believe she pays $50 a month for a Gold plan. The moment her plan vested, my friend went on an orgy of doctor’s visits to catch up on all the health care (mostly standard tests and procedures) that she missed in the last few years. While I disapprove of Obamacare, she’s my friend and I’m happy for her. At least someone’s benefiting from the law.

I was speaking to my friend just yesterday about her healthcare and she offered a very interesting observation: She and her husband, the only middle class people in a sea of poverty, are the only people she knows, amongst both friends and acquaintances, who have signed up for Obamacare. The others have no interest in getting health insurance. Even with a subsidy, they don’t want to pay a monthly bill for health insurance. Even a subsidized rate is too onerous when they can get all the free health care they need just by showing up at the local emergency room. Additionally, the ER docs are usually better than any doc who’s willing to belong to whatever plan they can afford. Nor are these people worried about the penalties for refusing to buy Obamacare, since none of them pay taxes.

Not only are the people in my friend’s world refusing to buy Obamacare, they resent it. According to my friend, someone she knows abruptly announced that she’s getting involved in local politics, something she’s never done before. Until recently, this gal was one of those people who just floated along, getting by. Now, though, she’s fired up.

The reason for the sudden passion is unexpected: She’s deeply offended by a law that forces people to buy a product they don’t need — never mind that she might benefit from the product, that she would pay far below market value for the product, or that she’s too poor to be penalized for ignoring this government diktat. The mere fact that the diktat exists runs counter to her notion of individual liberty. Her view of government is that, while it’s fine if it hands out welfare checks and food stamps, it goes beyond the pale when the government uses its power and wealth to coerce activity.

link

It seems that even with generous subsidies, Obamacare is too much for a lot of people to whom every single dollar counts, and who know that they can get absolutely free care in the hospital emergency rooms.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

That is still 826,200 people who now have health insurance. It is a step.

[Tigermike 3,031]

As I said in this thread earlier, the numbers will change over the next couple of weeks. They may be better or they may look worse.

OBAMACARE REAL ENROLLMENT: JUST 1.7% OF UNINSURED COVERED

By WYNTON HALL

Obamacare, the plan purportedly created to provide health coverage for the uninsured, has enrolled just 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured.

News of the disastrous numbers comes as nervous Democrats and President Barack Obama, ahead of the November midterm elections, did their best on Monday's enrollment deadline to put a positive spin on the deeply unpopular Obamacare program. The latest Associated Press poll finds that Obamacare has now hit an all-time low approval rating of just 26 percent.

The White House now claims an Obamacare enrollment figure of six million people. However, according to The New York Times, at least 20% of those never paid their premiums to activate coverage, leaving them uninsured. That drops the number down to 4.8 million.

Next, as Washington Post columnist Ed Rogers notes, "the official HHS numbers still include duplicate enrollments." No one knows how many duplicate enrollments are in the stack; the White House refuses to say. However, given the disastrous Obamacare website failures, it is reasonable to imagine that the pile is riddled with numerous "false start" applications.

That leaves the most important question: How many people are gaining insurance who were previously uninsured? After all, that was the stated reason for Obamacare in the first place. McKinsey & Co. says that only 27% of those who have picked a plan through Obamacare were previously uninsured.

link

[cptau 169]

Paying several hundred dollars a month for a low benefit health insurance policy that is only accepted by a subset of doctors and at selected hospitals and only provides payments if you go over the $6,000 or $8,000 deductible is not really affordable.

It is really just major medical coverage. Also if you have the misfortune to be ill at the end one year and partially meet the deductible and then cross over into the next year still ill, your deductible count starts again.

[RunInRed 16,420]

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented has proven viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

[autigeremt 6,636]

This.

What's absolutely 100 percent certain, after all the uncertainties and questions about how to count is this: A whole hell of a lot of people who did not have affordable health care have it now. Any discussion about uninsured Americans starts in a completely different place—a better place—than it did when Barack Obama became president ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/02/1289089/-The-Obamacare-counting-doesn-t-end-at-7-million

And a whole hell of a lot of people who had insurance and liked it don't have it anymore. Period.

There's now a path forward for the uninsured ... one that didn't exist before President Obama took office. No one said this law was perfect and that there hasn't been many false-starts and setbacks along the way. But ask yourself this: When's the last time a President, or any elected leader, took a domestic problem this big, this complex, this hard, and addressed it? Again, is the solution perfect? No. But we're clearly moving in the right direction.

So the only thing we're 'celebrating' today is the fact progress is evident ... the solution implemented is viable ... and now, the opportunity to make more progress, exist.

To steal a campaign slogan: Forward.

Sounds typical of a socialist state.

[RunInRed 16,420]

Here's his latest tally:

• Qualified health plans (via exchanges): 7.1 million
  
• Medicaid expansion: 4.7 million
  
• Medicaid "woodworkers": 1.8 million (always eligible but didn't know it until ACA)
  
• Sub-26ers: 2.5-3.1 million
  

That's at least 16 million right there who wouldn't have affordable health insurance if it was up to Republicans (even the woodworkers, since Republicans want to slash Medicaid, too). And that number will keep on growing, as there is no deadline for new Medicaid recipients. Not to mention we'll have a new enrollment period opening up in just six months or so.

[autigeremt 6,636]

Medicaid expansion 4.7... Explain why this happened? More single payer Trojan horses.