Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (833912)	2/2/2015 6:52:31 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576097

I'm going to ask you to take a minute and summarize what this graphic shows happening as a result of the ACA. This is from the CBO's recent report and breaks down the effect on the coverage of Americans ujnder the ACA vs. what might have been. I wonder if you can articulate these changes? (Keeping in mind that Medicaids are 100% subsidized and 90% of those in the exchanges are receiving at least SOME subsidy). I would appreciate hearing your conclusions.

To: Alighieri who wrote (833912)	2/3/2015 1:41:35 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576097

Al, On costs, have you seen the most recent CBO projections? The CBO dropped its original forecast of ObamaCare reducing deficits: thefiscaltimes.com But then again, the original "forecast" was never meant to be taken as gospel, yet the Democrats went all over the place shoving it into everyone's faces. I remember you were doing the same, claiming that the "non-partisan" CBO's figures cannot be challenged. Since then, there have been so many changes to the law coming from all sides including the White House (so you can't blame this one on those oh-so-evil Republicans) that the original projections cannot be relied upon. Even the latest update from April 2014 can't be taken seriously because they still make the same assumptions that are already being tossed out the window. In short, it's a Gruber effect. Make wild ass claims based on projections that have little chance of holding, then deny any responsibility when those claims don't turn out to be true. It's intentionally misleading the public. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (833912)	2/9/2015 1:54:18 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	3 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 i-node PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576097

Al, you may be interested in this article. If you have the time, read it in its entirety before reading my comments below: Obamacare: Medi-Cal a waiting game for many low-income Californians First of all, I'm surprised that the number of Californians on Medi-Cal is projected to be 12.2M by the middle of next year. That's almost a third of Californians. Secondly, neither the state nor the federal government accounted for the lack of primary care physicians (PCP) that would inevitably happen as a result of Medi-Cal enrollees drastically increasing. Most government officials are expressing a "wait and see" attitude, which to me is putting their heads in the sand. Third, the number of emergency room visits went up by a lot thanks to ObamaCare. This is directly attributed to the shortage in PCPs, but it also contradicts the whole "emergency room care" myth that liberals pushed when claiming that ObamaCare would save costs. Finally, the reaction from that one 48-year-old near the end of the article is exactly the reaction liberals are hoping for. "Sure, wait times are long, but it's better than having no insurance." Yes, but it's far from the promised land that universal health care advocates are portraying. Tenchusatsu