Affordable Care Act Timeline, or...

They used to be able to count on it, because employers had to compete for workers. Then they realized that it's cheaper to use hundreds of thousands of illegal Guatemalans.

Walmart, that bastion of Good Ol' American Values like:

• outsourcing
• tax evasion
• employee exploitation
• purveying cheap Chinese imports instead of American goods
  
• and bone-deep greed

Trust you to defend them.

You mean 2010 when the ACA was signed into law?

Exactly. And timed the announcement for the midterms.

"Look what the Mean Ol' Gubmint Made Us Do!"

Please feel free to defend Walmart, for all of the reasons in Post #1502.

The good news is that these employees will find coverage using the ACA website that should be comparable in cost and they won't be job locked to Walmart to keep insurance.

The bad news is that the rest of us are paying for it. So while health insurance may be affordable, I'll declare this a victory when health costs are affordable. I just know that for 2015 my rates went up and the benefits I received went down.

Single-payer would have solved that. The ACA has always been a compromise, but it's a beginning. Next step: Bust up the insurer/pharma/over-billing physician circle jerk.

Yeah, with single payer all the health care costs are billed to the Welsh, not the US taxpayer.

Your understanding of the issue is astounding. You should talk to Federal Farmer about canoes.

Twitchy had fun with Vox's take that it's good news the Walmart workers lost their coverage. link.

Interestingly, in states that didn't set up their own exchanges the fired workers won't be eligible for federal subsidies because the law, so instead of having their employer pick up most of the tab on their health insurance, they'll have to pay out of pocket even if they get on the federal exchange, whose rates will keep going up because Democrats can't do math - or much of anything else that requires hard thinking.

What's a person to do? Vote for the people who will actually set up a state exchange rather than stamping their feet in protest.

More say O-Care has hurt families than helped
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/220107-more-say-obamacare-has-hurt-families-than-helped

Misleading headline is misleading. A chart from the article you posted:

Here's the two common responses I get from you; "misleading headline is misleading" and "someone still doesn't know how insurance works". While those responses may sound funny to you, but they are not, they are feeble attempts to wave off the mounting evidence that this law you love so much is shit. You come in here providing article after article relentlessly attempting to show us how great the law is. From God to Obama's (huge) ears, right. There's nothing, I repeat nothing wrong with the law. Week after week, day after day, you feed us this crap. And as promised, every time you do this, I find an article that dismantles this law. They prove time after time just how shitty the law is. Just face it, your precious law was written by hobbyists, big pharm, insurance companies. It forces hard working tax payers to subsidize others who can't accept the concept of personal responsibility. It adds another layer of crap to the already weighed down federal bureaucracy and another tax to a population that is already being taxed to death. All of that is without the law being fully implemented. The evidence keeps piling up and you and your fellow libtards purposely ignore that evidence for what, just so you can praise Obama? Because it's his only achievement, you can't admit that your beloved leader is a complete failure. You'd rather win politically rather than admit that yet another government, one size fits all approach, didn't work once again. If Obamacare doesn't work then the people will not fall for socialized medicine, right? Libtards will lose credibility and they won't be able to implement their socialist agenda. So, instead you just ignore the facts, "nothing to see here folk" and respond with BS comments that mean nothing like the ones I mentioned. Guess what, the headline is not misleading and I do know how insurance works. Your responses are so ridiculous and meaningless, so just absolutely retarded that I don't even have to put you on ignore, my brain just can't take the amount of fail you espouse that I just automatically scroll past a large majority of your posts. You just keep ignoring the fact as the law crumbles in your face. I can't wait for the day it all blows up entirely and I'm sure when it does, you'll still sit here and tell us how great Obamacare was and how Obama healed the sick with just a touch and when he left the White House he ascended to heaven. The whole thing is just pathetic, but you keep up the

Yes, but FF lumps "had no effect" in with "hurt" and you do the opposite.

Right, it has nothing to do with the fact that the old system was absolute shit and allowed insurance companies to screw people over left and right, and that the ACA did away with the abuses and is the only serious attempt to actually DO something about the problem that anyone has come up with.

So you were against single-payer before you were for it. You've made that quite clear numerous times.

You're in the "Had no effect column." Time for you to go back to the riverbank and wait for canoers.

I've posted the chart without comment.

And that's the shit I'm talking about. None of that addressed anything I said. You've now made my ignore list. It's pointless to discuss anything with you.

Your objections to something that has no material impact on your life for reasons that really come down to :tantrum: have been addressed over and over and over again by numerous posters in this thread and elsewhere, along with reams of factual information about how this is:

• giving millions more Americans access to healthcare
• lowering hospital costs
• lowering non-emergent ER visits
• having a positive impact on the economy as a whole

and your only response is "I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!"

Good. That should eliminate some of the clutter in this thread.

You'll never know if you don't try.

@Federal Farmer:

That post ending with your fingers in your ears was tldr.

But I read the first few sentences, and I agree, you do not understand how healthcare works, and you do post headlines without recognizing what the article actually covers. Very often the headline is, in fact, misleading. So maybe we can add poor reading comprehension to your list of issues.

You can re-read that post, it applies to you as well.

So, what do you suggest as a response to misleading links? I can only think of two conclusions: 1) you didn't understand; 2) you are purposefully trying to mislead. Neither speaks well for you.

They aren't misleading, you just choose to ignore them because it sheds light on the pile of shit that Obamacare is and exposes it. That's why your comments and garamet's are the same repetitive bullshit. You'd rather make claims you can't back up about Obamacare and how great it is than admit that there's anything wrong with it. You are like Obama himself, you've already been convinced of the lie, so you have to keep beating us over the head with it in hopes that we continue to fall for it. You have to keep up the lie so you double down on it even in the face of mounting evidence that you are wrong.

I'm often critical of the ACA, so your claim is utter bullshit. I am, however, even more critical of half assed reasoning and propaganda.

Here we go again:

The Real Numbers on "The Obamacare Effect" Are in - Now Let the Crow Eating Begin


How many more sources would you like? Again.

@Federal Farmer, I can't thank you enough for your help in showcasing the benefits of the ACA.

You Moron!

Now, now, go easy on him. Think of how much fun it will be to revisit this thread in six months or a year.

How long do you think it will take him to claim he was always for it? He just didn't think Obama deserved any credit for it.

Obamacare Will Increase Deficit Over Next Decade
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obamacare-will-increase-deficit-over-next-decade/

The next decade? Oh, you poor child...

Poor FF, can't tell when he's looking at partisanship. The CBO (as mentioned in the article), projects a deficit reduction over the next decade due to ACA implementation. The CBO, by the way, is non-partisan. Surprisingly (not), Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee came up with the bigger deficit idea. So, partisan staffers with a political reason for casting doubt came up with something based on fantasy assumptions (dig in to their process, it requires 2008-09 style employment disruption). Partisan propaganda is partisan propaganda. I'll stick with the CBO estimates.

Now let's all sit back and watch Federal Farmer misunderstand the chart. I'll get the popcorn...