ST Alpha - "Again I would note that the number would be significantly higher if conservative states were more interested in insuring people than undermining the " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

In response to "B2 pmb: Yes, I was looking for it. Thanks." by Strongbad

Again I would note that the number would be significantly higher if conservative states were more interested in insuring people than undermining the

Posted by pmb (aka pmb) Mar 31 '14, 12:41

president. But putting that aside, that is still a large number. No system is going to be perfect (unless you want to go to single payer where everyone is insured). The question is whether you want to do better or do nothing. This is doing better. Significantly better.

Responses:

Yeah, the Supreme Court gave states that out, and tea partiers ran with it. -- nm - Inigo Mar 31, 12:45
I ask this question out of naivete, not out of making a political point - Strongbad Mar 31, 12:45 6
- To get it down to why a person in one of those states would not buy ACA coverage... - Kim Pine Mar 31, 13:04 1
  - (er, Medicaid. Sorry.) -- nm - Kim Pine Mar 31, 13:05
- See mara's post below. And you should read spamlet's post from earlier today. Short answer, the federal government made money available to states to - pmb Mar 31, 12:51 1
  - I'm very interested in seeing five and ten years from now - znufrii Mar 31, 13:04
- Because the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) is what makes expanding Medicaid possible. -- (link) - mara Mar 31, 12:47 1
  - Graci. -- nm - Strongbad Mar 31, 12:49
Word. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25% more people with Healthcare now than would have had it if we kept the status quo. -- nm - Jim Mar 31, 12:42

Post a message top

Again I would note that the number would be significantly higher if conservative states were more interested in insuring people than undermining the

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.