Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!

Obama Claims 7.1 Million Signed Up

Date posted - April 1, 2014

The Obama administration has claimed 7.1 million people have signed up for Obamacare, yet a study by the Rand Corporation shows that only 858,000 previously uninsured have signed up and paid any premiums.


“A triumphant President Barack Obama declared his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America’s health care system ‘a lot better.’ But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged Rose Garden appearance is a more unsettling reality.


Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.


Others were already insured, including millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn’t meet Obamacare’s strict minimum requirements.


Still, he claimed that ‘millions of people who have health insurance would not have it’ without his insurance law.’


The president took no questions, from reporters, but celebrated the end of a rocky six-month open-enrollment period by taking pot shots at Republicans who have opposed the law from the beginning as a government-run seizure of one-seventh of the U.S. economy.”


It looks like a complete “Fail” to me, with nothing but political spin coming from the White House.


Free Man

Print Friendly

33 Responses to “Obama Claims 7.1 Million Signed Up”

  1. peter lemonjello says:

    if obama is so proud of his signature law why wait till after the november elections before most of it goes into effect?

  2. Lee Ann says:

    Just as most insurance companies do yearly, there must be an open enrollment period, where people can change their benefits, add or subtract family members, etc. Usually this is in November and December, ready for the new year. That’s one of the reasons the ACA will be active at the end of the year.

    They added children with no pre existing conditions and young adults added to their parent’s insurance right away. However the other parts of the ACA are to be added slower, one at a time. Because nobody wants to have everything start all at once and everything needs tweaking. They got a lot of people (7.1 MILLION) now, and then will open the open enrollment period at the end of the year, just like most ins. companies.

    I had originally wanted medicare for all. But that would have also been a slow and gradual law. Because we just can’t take all of these people and put them on all at once. If something needs tweaking, they don’t want 50 problems at once. So medicare for all would have then added all the 50 year olds, then added the 40 year olds, on down, so the system wasn’t overwhelmed.

    It’ll be allright, you’ll see. People were very upset when social security was started too. It will work out.

    • Aphrillis Follis says:

      I think Lee Ann has this one right. Everything will be Okee Dokey.

    • Doug says:

      I counted on you featuring the spin zone.

      Even with the extensions, you can still request an extension. You might have been waiting in line…since 2013.

      Even though the numbers are fuzzy, it’s no surprise that they eventually got there. Since there isn’t much choice after millions of policies were cancelled. And you are threatened with loss of income if you don’t sign up.

      So ya, they got their number. Passed under dubious circumstances, advertised under dubious claims, and yet to be seen, the real dubious numbers. Won’t be a shocker when they turn out to be lies too. It’s the “in” thing to do now.

      “What difference does it make.”

      • Jon says:

        Let’s not be so blind as to utterly fail to comprehend the dubious claims and criticisms offered by the right, the constant fear-mongering and the advocacy of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the law. Take some responsibility for the irresponsible vile rhetoric of lies on the right, and maybe we can talk about some of the problems with the law. Your assumptions are skewed and biased to the point where we don’t know where truth lies. That is the key problem. Both sides have promoted pictures of the law and what it does that are suspect, but it is really the right who have been the most egregious in these efforts. The “millions of cancelled policies” are due to the fact that those plans that they were happy with do not mit the minimum requirements of the law. They had to enroll in new plans that met the requirements of the law, nothing less and nothing more. That is one example of distortion coming forward. Now, I agree that the 7.1 million number is a rosy-colored glasses kind of outlook and we don’t have enough specifics to really evaluate it. However, that is not an excuse to simply accept the talking points, particularly when the data has actually not been reviewed at this point.

        • Free Man says:

          If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.

          If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, PERIOD.

          Obamacare will lower premiums by $2,5000.

          Yeah, sure. It’s for the most part coming from the right.

          6 million people lost their health care plan they liked, because of Obamacare.

          Three Quarters of those who lost the plans they liked and were promised they could keep them who signed up for Obamacare now have higher premiums than before. Who could have seen that coming, what with males now needing Ob/Gyn coverage, mandatory substance abuse coverage for all, the “Slacker Mandate” to keep little children covered on Mommy and Daddy’s plan until they are 26 and all the other mandated coverage that not all need. Not to mention higher deductibles and co-pays for most.

          Obamacare also took away the option of affordable catastrophic plans for those who can afford the routine visits and small medical needs out of pocket because those plans now must include the mandated coverage. These are the bulk of the plans that were cancelled because they did not meet the new Obamacare minimum mandates. How you can casually dismiss these 6 million losses by saying they were cancelled because they did not meet the minimums of the law “Nothing less, and nothing more” is very telling.

        • Doug says:

          Nice partisan diatribe Jon. Forget much we are talking about the 2014 lie of the year? Rammed through the Senate on a rewritten House bill for veterans. Not one US Representative was given a voice in voting for the bill, and not one Republican Senator voted for it. Nothing false about that. Look it up.

          The right who have been the most egregious? I don’t know about you, but in my world, period means final. And so far, not much of what Obama said is final. The man campaigned on a litany of lies.

          The millions of cancelled policies were planned for, because that’s the only way this Madoff scheme works. So first it was planned, then repeatedly lied about through the election cycle, and then executed. With all of the executive tweaks for maximum vote purchases in the midterm elections.

          “They had to enroll in new plans that met the requirements of the law, nothing less and nothing more.” When did it become the government’s job, to evaluate and overrule individual choices of healthcare plans? I don’t need talking points to tell me that is government overreach at it’s utmost.

    • dsa says:

      Do you mean the social security that’s in the red? That a lot of us are upset about?

      • Free Man says:

        “These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. …They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.”

        “Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the Trust Fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2033. At that point, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax—but that revenue will not be sufficient to pay all promised benefits. Overall, Social Security faces unfunded liabilities of $23.1 trillion ($25.7 trillion if the cost of redeeming the Trust Fund is included). Clearly, Social Security is not sustainable in its current form. That means that Congress will again be forced to resort to raising taxes and/or cutting benefits in order to enable the program to stumble along.”

        That Social Security sure is solvent and working well.

        • Lee Ann says:

          I’d rather go to a more neutral site instead of the Cato Institute. Social Security is solvent and will be for about 20 more years. We need to reform the system by increasing the level of payroll that SS taxes are paid on.

          • Free Man says:

            “Clearly, Social Security is not sustainable in its current form. That means that Congress will again be forced to resort to raising taxes and/or cutting benefits in order to enable the program to stumble along.”

            The above is from the Cato study, and it says the very same thing you just said in reply to that study. I bet your grandchildren will be more than happy to accept higher taxes and reduced benefits in the future to pay for your Social Security today.

            That’s the thing with Ponzi schemes, after a while those who got in late end up footing the bill for those who got in early.

          • Lee Ann says:

            If we take the cap off of social security taken from paychecks, we would have a solvent SS for over 100 years.

  3. Meets says:

    Lee Ann seriously??

  4. Dan says:

    I am sick and tired of people wanting this country to become a nanny state. America was founded on freedom and the repeal of government intervention; an individual earned a living for his or her family by WORKING hard and receving the benefits of working hard and EARNED WAGES AND BENEFITS. The government stayed out of people’s live for the most part. Now we have people like Lee Ann wanting a socialistic society where the government runs everyone’s lives and makes all our choices for us and has governmental programs that provide access to PRIVLEDGED services. Well, here is a clue, those societies don’t last; they fail, look at history. Have you heard of Greece??? Someone who has a brain can see that government handouts (welfare, disabilty in some cases, food stamps, unemployment, governmental run health care etc) don’t help people in society they enable them to do nothing over long periods of time in which they become a burden on society. In the case of our country, 53% of people that actually pay federal income taxes have to support these inefficent, money draining programs. I have a solution of someone who wants health benefits, decent pay, and a feeling of not being a drain on society that has little funds for education. Use access to FREE public schools k to 12, go to an in state community college for a few years, that does not cost that much money (NCC is example), use the community college’s programs that allows you to progress to the workforce or further education at a 4 year school. Graducate from one of above institutions (1, 2 or 4 year degree) with a skill, and get a job wherever that might be (they do exist espcially in the midwest, look at the want ads) that offers decent pay and maybe even a benefits package. Work your way up in that company with hard work and reletivly speaking you should be able to exist and support yourself and your family. The above statement works well for people with work ethic but NOT for those who are lazy. IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBLITY OF HARD WORKING AMERICANS TO COVER FOR LAZY PEOPLE, AND THE HEALTH CARE LAW AND ITS SUPPORTERS ALLOW LAZY PEOPLE ACCESS TO THINGS THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TOO AS THOSE WHO WORK HARD AND MAKE SACRIFICES FOR. THEY ALSO SPIT IN THE FACE OF WHAT AMERICA’S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES WERE AND STILL SHOULD BE.

    • Pastafarian says:

      You are anti socialist but you use free public education in your arguement against socialism? That’s like me telling you the dangers of drinking while I have a beer in my hands.

      • John Boy says:

        Well said Dan…and remember Pastafarian, nothing is free!!

        • Pastafarian says:

          You mean money doesn’t magically appear out of no where? By golly, I did not know that! But I wounder where we get the money to pay off large corporations with large tax cuts and provide extreme subsidies to oil companies.

          Let’s stop paying off the wealthy and reroute the money into implementing social programs for families that are way below the poverty level, promote education (free community college), and provide healthcare for everyone. It’s not a matter of money magically showing up, but to actually actually move the money where it’s most needed. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need to help the oil companies. They are doing more than well for themselves. I’m tired of the rich thinking they deserve more money that they did not earn while we have starving children in our own country.
          Crony Capitalism at its finest. Pay off the rich to keep the poor and starving at bay.
          Note, I have no problem with capitalism, but we no longer live in a capitalist country. The rich pay off congressmen to ban the online sales of Tesla Motors. If you ask me, in a capitalist nation, any industry should be able to sell their product any way they want. The Koch Brothers tried (and somewhat accomplished) getting state legislature to fine those who use solar panels and selling energy back to the power company. The rich and the far right don’t believe capitalism. They believe in their own powers.

          • Free Man says:

            Since you mentioned the Koch brothers.

            “More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

            Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.”


      • Anti-Pasto says:

        Pasta boy… that depends, did you purchase that beer with food stamps?

    • Lee Ann says:

      So you are saying that people needing help are all just lazy? Those little kids in school, needing free lunches need to get a job? Like sweeping and washing dishes to pay for a meal? What about the 40% of hard working people that don’t make enough money to feed their family like they need? Let’s just let them develop rickets, scurvy, etc. because they are just lazy takers?

      while I will agree that there are people on entitlements that do not deserve to be on them, who’s the person that decides who “deserves” help? Pontius Pilate and his “thumbs up or thumbs down , or you?

      While I understand your belief that people should work hard, get some training and work your way up the ladder in a job, what about the people that don’t even have the ladder, don’t even have the intelligence to work to get training? They don’t have a car, don’t have the money for the metro in a city, don’t have childcare, don’t have enough food for their kids? No jobs to be found.

      I believe in taking care of the poor, the children and the disabled and the seniors. I am sorry for you that you are hard and bitter and don’t give a care about others. If that makes me a Socialist, so be it.

      An old saying, “when poverty becomes a crime, money becomes a weapon.” Poverty is not a crime. You have no idea of the trials and tribulations some people have. Yet you are throwing them all into the same pot with lazy.

      You must be young. Because when one is young, everything is black and white. Someday you will begin to see gray areas around these issues. Not everything is black and white or simple.

      And I am still trying to figure out how having help for poor people and children is taking away freedoms. They get help, they get freedom to live with food and shelter. That is not taking away someone ‘s freedom.

      You do know, I assume, that the individual mandate for the ACA was originally a Republican idea? The Heritage foundation recommended to the Republican party that an individual mandate would ensure lots of people would get insurance. Once they put the individual mandate into the ACA, the Republicans decided they didn’t like it. SMH

    • Bob says:

      You should be more concerned with the billions of dollars (that’s billion, with a B) that are being syphoned to the wealthiest few in this country. Take the blinders off and pay more attention to that because they are the ones that have all of the economic, political, and social power. The “lazy” who receive benefits are not the problem. Read the facts, educate yourself, and be thankful you don’t have to try to make it work on food stamps. Sheesh!

      Offshore tax havens –

      If you need information, with citations, you can check out this link:

  5. Free Man says:

    Cleveland Clinic CEO: Three-Quarters of Americans Who Signed Up For Obamacare Now Have Higher Premiums.

    • LazloTu says:

      Freeman; I’d say the hyperbole is yours. You’ve cherry-picked citations from the extreme right and have offered nothing of true substance.

      You’ve offered this post as a baited trap for anyone benefitting from the ACA. If you would consider viewing legitimate sources, you would find that the ACA, despite the ultra-conservative …, along with the expected complications of implementing improved health care for “all” has truly given millions of Americans a new opportunity to find some degree of hopefulness.

      I’ve read your posts and other’s disregard for the ‘least among us’. I’m disappointed that this is what ‘we as a community’ appear to have become.
      Perhaps you could rise a bit and do some “fact-checking” if only to consider other views.
      I won’t bother to include any links here; YOU are an adult and able to discern the difference between truth and dishonesty.

      • Free Man says:

        From each according to his abilities; To each according to his needs.

        It did not work in Stalinist Russia, and it will not work here no matter how fair you think it would be.

  6. Dan says:

    Lee Ann
    I believe churches and charities to a much better job helping those in need; they are more effective and efficient. I am a strong believer in helping others through these methods but do not believe the government should be involved because they are too inefficient.

    To answer your question of who decides who gets entitlements? it is a simple answer, those who pay for them, (US taxpayers in the case of the United States)

    You talk about people not having a ladder, intelligence, or means to work… If people are truly disabled, yes they need to be taken care of no question, however for those who are abled bodied, they might need to make some sacrifices to find work (it exists, look at the service industry who constantly is hiring people), they might have to move, might have to do something they don’t want to do temporary until something else comes up, they might have to invent something or have an idea and sell it to someone.

    Another bright idea is before you start a family be secure enough in your skill set and career to be able to afford one. families just don’t start, decision and action have to take place before a family is started. Again, personal responsibility and future planning, terms many like forget about and don’t talk about, are key.

    I agree there are some gray areas in life but many use that as an excuse. Yes, I do see black and white in most areas and it makes sense. If an individual takes care of himself/herself and their family, if it is a good idea to have one; they don’t need the government for basic daily needs because they are not dependent on it. They still will pay income tax for common defense, regulation of interstate trade, and to have a judicial system, but to survive and be a functioning member of society, they don’t need the government. I am not sure why people want the government to help them. It is saying they are incapable of providing for themselves and they are a drain on society. No normal person should want that stigma. Work hard, use charity from a private organization if you need it in temporary times of struggle, and than get back being a productive member of society. 99% of the time this can be the case and for the 1% of the time when someone truly can’t help themselves for the long haul, I bet a charity or church would be more than willing to help out that individual.

    • Just Facts says:

      What in your mind is a productive member of society? Working at a job making less than $8/ hr.? Which in this day and age means you can’t possibly survive. There is a portion of the population, like it or not, in-between those who are truly disabled and those who are able to hold down a good enough job that would enable someone to need no government assistance. Furthermore, one thing many people fail to understand is that there are many people who do not have and do not care to have a relationship with a religious entity. Many people do not have the education, information and sometimes the intelligence to make good choices about family planning. Additionally, there has been significant political push to deny people that fall into these lower income groups access to family planning and birth control. If you want people to get help from an organization to help them make these life choices maybe you need to quit trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood. You can’t have it both ways people.

    • Lee Ann says:

      Dan, in an ideal world, the couple that had 3 children would live happily ever after. How many people get married, have a couple of kids, then the bottom falls out of the economy, their house is foreclosed, the man loses his job. And he walks. People do get divorced, even when everybody is broke.

      I used to live in Ripley NY, a part of the rust belt of Buffalo NY. There are no jobs, there is no money, there is no hope. girls in school have babies in hopes of having someone to love. The young man father hangs around for a place to live (off her welfare), until somebody better comes along. These high school kids know that they will never have a successful job, no money, no car, living in an old beat up trailer on welfare with lots of kids. They don’t know any better, and they are too fearful to move, and they don’t have a car. Imagine “the Grapes of Wrath” in the snow belt. with no car.

      I agree that parents should feed, clothe and support their children. But in the real world, there are a whole bunch of kids that need school lunches and WIC. They say that for ever one dollar you spend on a pre school child, you will save 7.00 in that adult, whether its welfare, prison, etc.

      There are so many people out there that have no education, no hope, no money and somebody giving them a hand up isn’t going to work. And their children need help, even if their parents are there and unable to take good care of their kids.

      I’d love to live in the ideal world. For people to assume that the majority of people receiving assistance really don’t want a job is folly. There was a Walmart Supercenter that advertised for hiring for a new store, they had over 43,000 applications for about 260 jobs. People want jobs. Nobody wants to live on welfare. Nobody wants to work at a minimum wage job, using food stamps and utilities entitlements to get by. Over 40% of our citizens work at a minimum wage job. And the average age is 35. The good paying jobs have gone overseas, and that’s another story. One in four children are food insecure. And the Churches cannot help them all. The Churches have gotten less in donations and they are merely hoping to pay their bills and the pastor’s salary. When the economy affects one part of our society, it affects them all in different ways.

  7. Free Man says:

    Employers say Obamacare will cost them $5,000 more per employee.