It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
tinner07
So almost 4 years, untold millions of dollars putting this all together, time spent with like 50 votes to try to repeal it all so that 7 million people can get health care insurance?
Surely some people got into the expanded medicaid programs? or signed up on state exchanges so are not included in that 7 million.
I think the real statistic would be along the lines of how many people did not have any health care coverage before this went into effect vs. how many do not today.
butcherguy
LDragonFire
Here is the link to the RAND Corporation let me know if you find it??
RAND Corp....
So you are denying that it exists because the LA Times is sitting on the story?
Do you believe that the other outlets that are quoting from it are all lying?
And you accuse me of zealotry?
BTW.... Where are the figures from the Obama Administration regarding how many have paid, if they were previously insured or not.... etc?
The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”
The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reported that 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
LDragonFire
reply to post by seeker1963
You didn't add this from your link:
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
butcherguy
LDragonFire
reply to post by seeker1963
You didn't add this from your link:
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
All we need if for the transparent Obama Administration to supply all the numbers and then we can see for ourselves. They haven't yet.
If they don't have the numbers to give us... which has been the excuse that they have used so far, they are grossly inept and we should all be ashamed that they are handling the affairs of our government.
LDragonFire
reply to post by seeker1963
You didn't add this from your link:
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
Obama has been touting the 7+ million number.
beezzer
butcherguy
LDragonFire
reply to post by seeker1963
You didn't add this from your link:
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
All we need if for the transparent Obama Administration to supply all the numbers and then we can see for ourselves. They haven't yet.
If they don't have the numbers to give us... which has been the excuse that they have used so far, they are grossly inept and we should all be ashamed that they are handling the affairs of our government.
Oh please, spare us the daily drama routine.
Do you or Butcherguy have access to the analytics?
Do you know how long it takes to sift through all the data from over 50 websites?
The vague nature of the current big picture is not due to incompetence, it is natural given the scoop of this endeavor, Republican or Democrat.
spurgeonatorsrevenge
beezzer
butcherguy
LDragonFire
reply to post by seeker1963
You didn't add this from your link:
Two caveats. First, we know little about RAND’s survey methodology at this time; we’ll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we don’t know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.
All we need if for the transparent Obama Administration to supply all the numbers and then we can see for ourselves. They haven't yet.
If they don't have the numbers to give us... which has been the excuse that they have used so far, they are grossly inept and we should all be ashamed that they are handling the affairs of our government.
Oh please, spare us the daily drama routine.
Do you or Butcherguy have access to the analytics?
Do you know how long it takes to sift through all the data from over 50 websites?
The vague nature of the current big picture is not due to incompetence, it is natural given the scoop of this endeavor, Republican or Democrat.
I already asked another Obamaphile/Obamapologist... whatever, why can't we just get the real numbers from the Obama Administration? Those transparent bastards are the ones that have the access to the numbers.... OR SHOULD HAVE IT.... if they don't, which they have previously told Congress.... they are totally inept.