Medicaid increases by 10 million since ObamaCare rollout

Look everyone. Dutch came to the table with substance!
Good for you Dutch.

You did note in the the article you posted that this is a 17% increase in enrollment as compared to enrollment prior to the ACA, right?
Which of course means the ACA is responsible for 1.65 million new medicare enrollees.
Which of course I pointed out in my first post in this thread.
But it doesn't matter.

Because DUTCH came to the thread with substance!

So Dutch established the ACA is directly responsible for adding 1.65 million new enrollees to Medicare.
Thank you Dutch! Nice job!

You see the consumer reports graphs yet?

max

 

I know what I did. I exposed you. Textbook.

 

I would never give up on you Dutch.

The 10 million on medicaid due to the ACA is rhetoric, not reality.
Basing your math on it screws you up.

max

- - - Updated - - -

ahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahhaha
Looking to get stuff deleted I see again Publican.
Ciao babe.

max

 

What was deleted flop-flopper?

 

Coming from Liberal mouthpiece PMSNBC, you're most definitely correct on that. Still waiting from you to splain how 15 million new insured minus 10 million new Medicaid subscribers which includes 8 million new Obamacare insured minus 6 million these who lost their insurance to Obamacare minus 3 million these employer based policies just invalidated by Obama makes success

 

And he isn't about to either.

 

The part of the post that explains why I do support the ACA, liar. In the english language the thought structure is known as an introductory prepositional phrase. I get that your not very good with politics. Didn't realize we have to teach you english, too.
max

 

Oh, so NOW you're back to supporting it...............after you said you don't. Flip..............flop.

 

I can teach math too.
15 million -- Gallup (numbers through Q1 2014)
minus 1.65 million -- the number you provided for Medicaid increase due to ACA
minus 6 million
minus 7.1 million ( this is the figure from the whitehouse in April 2014, that matches the end date of the gallop poll. The number is higher now, as would be the new data from Gallop)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014...private-health-coverage-under-affordable-care

equals .25 million (population growth)
Anything else I can school you on?

max

 

See what I mean?
max

 

Yes. You flip then flop.

 

Actually he supplied the link that undermined the title of the thread.
max

 

What we are witnessing in this thread is proof that the far right is conditioned to hate Obama and thus his policy called the ACA.
This thread demonstrates how many on the far right literally have no clue what the ACA is or why it was even implemented.
It demonstrates quite clearly the lengths some will go to to distort reality to match their hatred and/or stroke their own egos.
It also illustrates that math and english skills are not well developed in a few who choose to attempt to justify their blind ideology.


max

 

Introductory prepositional phrases are not that complex, liar.
They are a simple phrase, separated by comma, that contain a preposition.
A preposition is a word which precedes a noun (or a pronoun) to show the noun's (or the pronoun's) relationship to another word in the sentence.

Like this...

I don't support the ACA because of this, I support the ACA because of this.

In order for writing to be less pedantic, one often does not repeat the preposition after the comma.
He assumes the intellect of the reader means said reader has enough information after the comma to comprehend, and has the intellect to weigh all of the preceding evidence for the writer's beliefs by comprehending all of the other posts from the writer in a thread like this.

Clearly assuming intellect is wrong in your case.

max

 

No need to call names. You contradicted yourself and I pointed it out. Consistency seems to be a problem for you as does facing your failings.

 

The failing (actually a coverup for your lie) is yours. It's been very clear throughout the entirety of this thread that I support the ACA for macro economics reasons.
You have, once again, been called out on your dishonesty.
Deal with it.
Or don't.
max

 

I posted your quote, you deal with it. You flip-flopped.

 

Would Infrastructure, in the form of a national, research hospital system with a campus in every State of the Union and the federal districts be better for lowering our health care costs.

Such an organ of government could simply be tasked with obtaining Perfect Knowledge of any Thing that may lower our health care costs such that, the best Things in life may be "free", eventually.

In the mean time, it could solve more immediate exigencies through that form of more Standard-ized research data available and more resources to work with in achieving that End. It seems like something that may be beneficial for those for whom merely solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, may not be enough.

 

You edited my post in a lame attempt to pretend I flip flopped.
And you're still here getting beat down for it.
You want to keep trying to deflect, I'll be here.
max

 

Nothing got edited. You said you were for the ACA. Prove me wrong. No need to cry about it. Just put up proof.

 

okay.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=388249&page=53&p=1064582295#post1064582295

That was 25 posts ago.
Try to keep up.
max

 

Wrong link flip-flopper. Here's the quote...............


Dec 23 2014, 01:02 PM
mjz replied to a thread Medicaid increases by 10 million since ObamaCare rollout in Current Events
This is the biggest reason I support the ACA. I tire of paying the freight for those who have no clue what their insurance actually covered Except that you die before you can even come close to paying off a fraction of cancer treatments.

 

The number I provided was 10 mln new Medicaid freeloaders, straight from the Liberal mouthpiece PMSNBC. Here it is again:

Move to Medicaid: Nearly 10M enrolled since Obamacare launch

Everything else in your math is garbage. And I see you did not try to account for 3 million newly invalidated employer based policies

My flight' been called, Ciao... meanwhile, school me some more?

 

Nice try, liar. In every post in this thread I have provided sound, rational, macro-economic reasons why I support the ACA.
You edited a post to suggest that I said I don't support it.
I clearly showed how you edited it.

Twice now.

You can't now come back and argue that I really don't support the ACA and show a post that shows I do to call me a flip flopper.
Well you can, but it's really lame and you will be called out for it.


And now that you acknowledge this is my position (you just posted it above ^^^^^) it completely undermines your earlier contention that I support it because of a collectivism ideal.

Your posting in circles is a really weak attempt to save face

Your working hard to try to distance yourself from your lie.
Problem for you is I have no issue following up and calling you on your BS.

Do you have anything of substance to add or do you still feel the need to cover your lameness?

max

 

Okay, I'll school you some more. You seem to need it. The very post you linked -- YOU LINKED NOT ME -- does not say 10 million new medicaid freeloaders because of the ACA. The link clearly explains that the rise medicaid enrollment after ACA is 17% above the norm.

That equates to just 1.65 million. You completely undermined your own position. And the title of this thread.
The far-right, hater mind apparently only reads headlines.

The Obama Administration does not count the 6 million who had their policies cancelled as "new insured" in their numbers.
And YOU linked the article that gives the data to do the math that proves it.

What does the 3 million that now must get real insurance have to do with Obama administration claims of all the new insurance policies now.
Answer: Nothing. You are deflecting -- again.

Have a nice flight.

max