uninsured rate has plummeted since Obamacare kicked in

@airshocker: we're not the only first world nation with freedom, but we are the only one with gun crime rates as high as ours. Clearly we don't need to have high gun crime to also have freedom.

We're one of the only first world nations with the kind of firearm freedoms that we currently have. You're confusing gun crime with gun related deaths. Gun crime is very low in this country. Especially when you see just how many people own firearms. Gun related deaths may not be but that is par for the course. People will always get hurt, one way or the other. I don't see efforts to ban cars or power tools.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my gun rights to do things that have no chance of working.

yes by the government lol, which are paid by taxes

healthcare shouldn't be a choice, that's just stupid.

of course you're americans lol

even if you don't work it's free

then you don't pay taxes, then you get free money.

If you work you pay taxes simple as that.

So if you never work, it's free

low incomes pay less taxes too

your country sucks

So it went from 14.6% at the beginning of the graph in 2009 (way before Obamacare was implemented) and has now "plunged" down to 13.4%. A whole percentage point !!! Sounds about right.

@coasterguy65: it appears to have been on an upward trend until Obamacare kicked in. Went from a recent 18% to 13.4%. I do wonder if the percent was lower in the 90s though.

Has he really? Here is a list of recent fiscal deficits (bear in mind however that the increase in federal debt in any given year is actually more than the deficit):

Obama Deficits FY 2015*: $564 billion FY 2014*: $649 billion FY 2013: $680 billion FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Bush Deficits FY 2009†: $1,413 billion FY 2008: $458 billion FY 2007: $161 billion FY 2006: $248 billion FY 2005: $318 billion

The deficits for FYs 2014 and 2015 are estimated since those years have not yet ended. Also FY 2009 lasted from October 2008 to Sept 30 2009, so it was effected by decisions made by the Obama Administration. That year is a bit of an outlier because the financial collapse and the Obama-Bush "bailouts" (loans really) happened then.

Part of the reason that the deficits were cut later in the Obama Administration is because Republicans controlled Congress and wouldn't let Obama spend as much as he wanted. Obama's recent budget would increase spending by 63%.

I imagine the uninsured rate was probably lower when the economy was better, (mid 1990s) and got worse as the economy got worse (the burst of the dot com bubble, and the recession of 2007-2010 or whatever).

In any case I think we could've lowered that rate with out obamacare, for instance by passing the health-care law that George Bush had proposed in 2007, without many of the negative effects of Obamacare (people losing coverage, the costs to businesses, the individual mandate, IPAB).

That's funny because according to several other sources, Obamacare has caused health insurance premiums to sky rocket in costs and making millions of Americans unable to afford it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/05/15/first-obamacare-premium-notices-for-2015-show-double-digit-increases/

It is also bankrupting at the local level in several states, no longer enrolling new patients because there's simply no money left.

http://www.wzzm13.com/story/news/health/health-care-reform/2014/04/01/aca-insurance-enrollment-whats-next/7156403/

While there are certain aspects of the ACA that I do support such as insurance companies no longer being able to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, the vast majority of the ACA is a complete mess and has broken our already broken healthcare system even more. It needs to be repealed immediately.

I'm agreeing with you, they did work. They worked to make the richest among us richer and to increase the deficit. That was its intended effect. Alan Greenspan even publicly stated to congress while the Bush tax cuts were being debated that the very reason why we needed to pass the tax cuts was to increase the deficit to save the country from out of control surpluses.

But of course you're saying that they worked in terms of improving the economy, and they probably did help make the GDP a bigger number. But you'd have to drink the strongest of koolaid to think that the life of the average person has improved economically after 30 years of neoliberal economic policy. And the Republican party hasn't shifted course one bit, if anything they've become more radical more entrenched in continuing these fiscal policies.

Don't you know?! That's because Obama and his Nazi UN army are murdering the uninsured by firing squad!!

Rich people weren't the only ones who had their taxes reduced during the Bush years though.

Also large surpluses aren't necessarily a good thing, they mean the gov't is taking in more than it needs to. Some surplus is good to store up for future lean years and to pay off debts from other years. But if the gov't is routinely taking in lots more than it spends, then it is being too greedy with the tax rates and can afford to take a little less.