It should have been better and would have been more dramatic if not for all the lies and fearmongering.
It should have been better and would have been more dramatic if not for all the lies and fearmongering.
Sigh. You cant blame the right for the failure to sign up people outside of Medcaid. Thats just political BS with no empirical back up
Sigh. You cant blame the right for the failure to sign up people outside of Medcaid. Thats just political BS with no empirical back up.
Perhaps, and this is a stretch for some, the rules/regs of the law, coupled with a horrible roll out and the net costs, are the cause of low enrollments. This is a horribly complicated law whose roll out wasn't just glitched (good reading on this thread from early October).
I talk to people every day on this and I rarely hear of any political blow back...There's just utter confusion as a result of such a bad implementation. Plus, its really complicated. So even if it was flawlessly done, its still super hard to explain.
Example: Explaining the 2 types of subsidies to anyone is a daunting task...
You can blame the right for not expanding Medicare and setting up their own exchanges at the state level, absolutely.
You can absolutely blame the right for not expanding Medicaid in many of the least insured states. This alone would drop the percentage of the uncovered by much more that it has been.
Add to this the intentional misinformation in those states and others that have pulled the numbers down and put people at risk.
As to people outside of Medicaid, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent lying to the American public have absolutely kept numbers down.
States not setting up their own exchanges have kept the numbers down.
Statements like this one are why I call you a shill.
I assume you mean Medicaid
You can blame the right for not expanding Medicare and setting up their own exchanges at the state level, absolutely.
Geez, guys, CH specifically excepted Medicaid in his post. Chill out with the personal attacks.
I think the low numbers can be blamed on both the administration's totally botched rollout and lack of communications in the years leading up to the rollout, plus the disinformation campaign waged by the right that filled the vacuum left by the administration from 2009-2013. Anybody who says it was all one or all the other is not being honest, and there is no real way to assign x% blame to either. Probably varies by state and demographic.
Um, thats what I said. But lets also talk about the lawmakers who passed a law that says if states didn't expand Medicaid, subsidies would go from 133% of FPL to 100%. Why did they stop there? Why not drop it lower. Ive talked to dozens of people who make a few bucks under 100% of FPL who are SOL and as Ive said, thats not right. 80% of it falls on the states but 20% falls on a horribly written law.
Sure, but lets look at the individual mandate. 1% of income (with caps) or $95. A person making 50k who isn't APTC eligible can be $500 OR buy a plan for $3600+. At some point its just rational economics.
Oh sure, no question the design decisions are a major issue too. I thought people were arguing about communications so that's what I addressed. Didn't mean to imply that was the exclusive cause of life enrollment, my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.
My big concern all along was that subsidies would be much higher than expected. I wonder how low enrollment will impact subsidy numbers.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk