Do you think the 10M who are newly insured due to the ACA consider it a success?
Can you give me a link to this number and what it's comprised of? Sorry...it's sorta required given your track record around here. I suspect that number has both folks who have been without insurance as well as those who were forced off of plans they liked and onto the exchanges. So for the first group, yeah they'd consider it a success. For the latter, they probably aren't very fond of it...at least not enough to consider it success.
10.3M according to this
study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Again, mind boggling that you have 800+ posts in this thread and don't know the basic numbers.
From that link - "The pattern of coverage gains was consistent with the effects of the ACA, with
major gains for persons likely to be eligible for expanded Medicaid on the basis of their income and state of residence but smaller and nonsignificant changes for low-income adults in states without Medicaid expansion.
Coverage gains were significant both in states with Medicaid expansion and in those without Medicaid expansion for persons with incomes between 139% and 400% of the federal poverty level, which is consistent with tax subsidies under the ACA for private insurance in this income range, regardless of state decisions regarding Medicaid expansion."
So while the number
may be 10.3M (before any cancellations during 2014 due to legal status or non-payment of premiums), it doesn't tell us how many of those were from Medicaid expansion (other people's money) or from those between 139-400% of the NPL receiving subsidies (other people's money) aside from simply saying "major gains" and "gains were significant." So of course you're going to get a whole lot of "newly insured" when a significant number of them aren't paying for it themselves. Nothing like a free lunch, huh?
If you look at
this, which is a chart from your link, you'll see that really the ACA has had no real net effect on the rate of uninsured for those over 400% of the NPL (in terms of the number of people as this group was extremely likely to have coverage already). The ACA, though did have a drastic effect on those under 400% of the NPL (due to other people's money). What's really crazy is that even before the ACA, the nationwide uninsured rate among folks over 400% of the NPL was
under 2%. Hasn't BFS been telling us for months that over half of the US population has a pre-exisiting condition and wouldn't be able to get coverage? The poorer you are/were, the more likely you were to go without coverage (much more likely because of price,
not because of pre-ex). This just proves most conservatives point of view that this is just a transfer of wealth. If the old system really was broken, you'd see a higher uninsured rate among people over 400% of the NPL. People weren't being denied coverage, they just couldn't afford it.