with some interesting quotes from business execs.
Obamacare’s not so bad after all, business leaders
Obamacare’s not so bad after all, business leaders
Interesting business journal article on the ACA
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
ANY business owner that can off-load a huge cost to the government would be 'happy'....with the plan, in the first few years. Just let the reality set in for his employees who get the subsidy if / when the business ends its plan, and then the 'reality' of life after year 2-3 kicks in and they realize they are completely screwed by premiums doubling or more, for any plan, and tripling if they want a PPO versus an HMO, and deductibles and copays do the same or more as far as increases go....and they CANNONT see 'their' doctor if they are in an HMO,....unless they want to pay for said doctor at 100% full sticker price.
As I've said on here before, the main benefits of the ACA are that people with pre-existing conditions now are treated the same as others....like shit, which is actually an improvement. However they could have accomplished this by simply dis-allowing insurance companies from asking health-related questions, forcing all to have one blended rate that the insurance company determines, and letting them compete across state lines.
However, the eliminates, largely, the ease with which the politicians can keep their sticky fingers in it to take advantage of kickbacks, influence, corruption, etc..,.....
As I've said on here before, the main benefits of the ACA are that people with pre-existing conditions now are treated the same as others....like shit, which is actually an improvement. However they could have accomplished this by simply dis-allowing insurance companies from asking health-related questions, forcing all to have one blended rate that the insurance company determines, and letting them compete across state lines.
However, the eliminates, largely, the ease with which the politicians can keep their sticky fingers in it to take advantage of kickbacks, influence, corruption, etc..,.....
Re: it's working
Please explain to me what my 'mindset' is, since you obviously think you know much more about it than me.
Further, what is your definition of 'it's working', other than 'the uninsured are way down'. It was never said the economy would 'esplode' in the first year or two, or three, 'because of the ACA'. Rather, the LONG TERM prognosis for it is that it is largely un-funded past year 3, when the full costs really start to manifest themselves.
Obama PROMISED us that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan' AND 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor'. These are flat-out bold face lies.
The average premium + deductible has risen from year 1 to year 2 approximately 100-250%, and that is from first hand experience ( I am licensed and certified to sell on and off the exchange), and of the 100+ families and individuals I signed up in year one, that is the average cost share they have experienced from Year 1 to Year 2, and that is a large cross-section of the socio-economic scale / subsidy or not, on exchange or off. Simply put, NO ONE is happy about it.
Additionally, most now have an HMO, versus a PPO, further pissing off people.
Please explain to me what my 'mindset' is, since you obviously think you know much more about it than me.
Further, what is your definition of 'it's working', other than 'the uninsured are way down'. It was never said the economy would 'esplode' in the first year or two, or three, 'because of the ACA'. Rather, the LONG TERM prognosis for it is that it is largely un-funded past year 3, when the full costs really start to manifest themselves.
Obama PROMISED us that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan' AND 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor'. These are flat-out bold face lies.
The average premium + deductible has risen from year 1 to year 2 approximately 100-250%, and that is from first hand experience ( I am licensed and certified to sell on and off the exchange), and of the 100+ families and individuals I signed up in year one, that is the average cost share they have experienced from Year 1 to Year 2, and that is a large cross-section of the socio-economic scale / subsidy or not, on exchange or off. Simply put, NO ONE is happy about it.
Additionally, most now have an HMO, versus a PPO, further pissing off people.
Re: it's working
Well-
-Could people keep their plan? no
-Could people keep their doctor? no
-Did premiums go down? no
-According to some, 4.7 million "newly" insured under ACA numbers were people that had their plans cancelled. So the ACA takes credit for them getting insurance?
-Did ACA control health care costs or is it the economy? Tough to say.
Long way to go before this is all figured out if it is actually working. The top four questions clearly show that the ACA has an uphill battle to win, it is already starting way behind. The answer to those four questions is no and unfortunately they were all but promised as benefits of the bill.
As for the ACA controlling costs or is it the economy-time will tell.
Well-
-Could people keep their plan? no
-Could people keep their doctor? no
-Did premiums go down? no
-According to some, 4.7 million "newly" insured under ACA numbers were people that had their plans cancelled. So the ACA takes credit for them getting insurance?
-Did ACA control health care costs or is it the economy? Tough to say.
Long way to go before this is all figured out if it is actually working. The top four questions clearly show that the ACA has an uphill battle to win, it is already starting way behind. The answer to those four questions is no and unfortunately they were all but promised as benefits of the bill.
As for the ACA controlling costs or is it the economy-time will tell.
lol
it absolutely was said that the economy would blow up because of the ACA. No one said "first two years will be great, but boy that third year..."
And yes, plenty of people are "happy" about the ACA.
Ah yes the old Obama promised us thing.
Yep, it was designed to insure folks who were without insurance, and that's worked really well.
When year 3 comes, and nothing is changed, I'm sure you'll state that year 4 is really when it's all going to blow up.
it absolutely was said that the economy would blow up because of the ACA. No one said "first two years will be great, but boy that third year..."
And yes, plenty of people are "happy" about the ACA.
Ah yes the old Obama promised us thing.
Yep, it was designed to insure folks who were without insurance, and that's worked really well.
When year 3 comes, and nothing is changed, I'm sure you'll state that year 4 is really when it's all going to blow up.
most people
kept their plan and doctor, not every single person no. So what?
Premiums went down for some yes. The rate of healthcare costs have significantly slowed for a lot more. No one said everyone would see their premiums go down and there is no plan in existence that would have made healthcare costs actually revert for everyone across the board.
Slowing healthcare costs are actually part of the reason why the economy has improved.
So it's "the economy?" OK, the claims were that the ACA would destroy the economy.
kept their plan and doctor, not every single person no. So what?
Premiums went down for some yes. The rate of healthcare costs have significantly slowed for a lot more. No one said everyone would see their premiums go down and there is no plan in existence that would have made healthcare costs actually revert for everyone across the board.
Slowing healthcare costs are actually part of the reason why the economy has improved.
So it's "the economy?" OK, the claims were that the ACA would destroy the economy.
Re: most people
Not this again. So you blow up the existing, albeit imperfect health system where 85% of the people have coverage (and most of them like what they have) so that the remaining 15% can get coverage, a number of whom don't want it?
People keep touting the 8-9 million who have signed up under Obamacare, yet around half of these people went into Medicare.
What about the remaining millions and millions of people who still don't have coverage? You've made many of the people who had coverage they liked get High Deductible plans with higher premiums and WORSE coverage than before. The people who wrote the ACA decided that people like me had plans that were "too good", so they unilaterally decided that I should get worse coverage and still pay as much or more than I was paying before. Obamacare sucks and is simply a "Robin Hood" scheme.
Years from now, people will look back on this Obama-nation and realize just how much fraud and deception was perpetrated on the American people with the ACA.
Not this again. So you blow up the existing, albeit imperfect health system where 85% of the people have coverage (and most of them like what they have) so that the remaining 15% can get coverage, a number of whom don't want it?
People keep touting the 8-9 million who have signed up under Obamacare, yet around half of these people went into Medicare.
What about the remaining millions and millions of people who still don't have coverage? You've made many of the people who had coverage they liked get High Deductible plans with higher premiums and WORSE coverage than before. The people who wrote the ACA decided that people like me had plans that were "too good", so they unilaterally decided that I should get worse coverage and still pay as much or more than I was paying before. Obamacare sucks and is simply a "Robin Hood" scheme.
Years from now, people will look back on this Obama-nation and realize just how much fraud and deception was perpetrated on the American people with the ACA.
Control, control, control
It was never about better health care. It was always about increasing the left's control over other people's lives. In this case it just happened to be health care and, as usual, money.
Years from now, people will look back on this Obama-nation and realize just how much fraud and deception was perpetrated on the American people with the ACA.
How long will it take for the American people to realize what the left is truly about?
Of course, if they do realize the fraud and deception used to perpetrate Obamacare on them they won't speak up about it. They'll be too afraid to be called selfish and cruel. Or "racist".
It was never about better health care. It was always about increasing the left's control over other people's lives. In this case it just happened to be health care and, as usual, money.
Years from now, people will look back on this Obama-nation and realize just how much fraud and deception was perpetrated on the American people with the ACA.
How long will it take for the American people to realize what the left is truly about?
Of course, if they do realize the fraud and deception used to perpetrate Obamacare on them they won't speak up about it. They'll be too afraid to be called selfish and cruel. Or "racist".
Re: it's working
In any event, for many of us, it's not about it working or not, it's about being diametrically opposed to paying subsidies for other people any more than we already do. Just keeps on growing.
I read every day about dozens of millionaires who are manipulating their annual income from their amassed wealth in order to obtain heavy subsidies via ACA.
The problem with much liberal doctrine is that it works in utopia, but fails when the human factor becomes involved. Communism, for example, and socialism, as another, are wonderful things if they work, but someone's always looking out for number one at the expense of the rule followers. Eventually, that system crumbles under its own bloated weight.
Thanks to the expansion of Medicaid.
In any event, for many of us, it's not about it working or not, it's about being diametrically opposed to paying subsidies for other people any more than we already do. Just keeps on growing.
I read every day about dozens of millionaires who are manipulating their annual income from their amassed wealth in order to obtain heavy subsidies via ACA.
The problem with much liberal doctrine is that it works in utopia, but fails when the human factor becomes involved. Communism, for example, and socialism, as another, are wonderful things if they work, but someone's always looking out for number one at the expense of the rule followers. Eventually, that system crumbles under its own bloated weight.
pick an argument
argument 1: it's only 15% who are uninsured and a lot of them don't want it.
argument 2: what about the people who aren't insured?!
Which is it?
And please tell me what was "blown up?" The vast majority of folks were able to stay on the insurance they had, unless it was crap insurance that didn't cover even minimally.
and who cares if they went into Medicare? Medicare is, wait for it, coverage.
"Years from now"...ok, how many years?
We already have one who says next year it's all going to blow up, so how many years are you predicting? I just want to know so we can revisit this at the appropriate time (where you'll tell me it's just around the corner).
argument 1: it's only 15% who are uninsured and a lot of them don't want it.
argument 2: what about the people who aren't insured?!
Which is it?
And please tell me what was "blown up?" The vast majority of folks were able to stay on the insurance they had, unless it was crap insurance that didn't cover even minimally.
and who cares if they went into Medicare? Medicare is, wait for it, coverage.
"Years from now"...ok, how many years?
We already have one who says next year it's all going to blow up, so how many years are you predicting? I just want to know so we can revisit this at the appropriate time (where you'll tell me it's just around the corner).
the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid
was always part of the plan. so not sure your point.
So you (and I and we collectively) weren't paying for others before? For emergency room visits? And in other ways?
Liberal doctrine? A plan that basically funnels clients to insurance companies ain't "liberal doctrine."
Liberal doctrine would be something quite different. this is conservative doctrine, started by the Heritage Foundation, and implemented by a conservative Republican governor, and if you want to go back a bit is similar to what was proposed by the republicans as an alternative to Hillarycare.
was always part of the plan. so not sure your point.
So you (and I and we collectively) weren't paying for others before? For emergency room visits? And in other ways?
Liberal doctrine? A plan that basically funnels clients to insurance companies ain't "liberal doctrine."
Liberal doctrine would be something quite different. this is conservative doctrine, started by the Heritage Foundation, and implemented by a conservative Republican governor, and if you want to go back a bit is similar to what was proposed by the republicans as an alternative to Hillarycare.
Re: the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid
In this regard we were. Now other people in the marketplace are paying a lot more to subsidize the lower income folks in the same marketplace. In that regard, I personally don't give two shits because I (1) have very good coverage that I don't pay for through ACA; (2) personally pay no state tax so I don't fund medicaid. My wife does, so we fund a little bit of that expansion but not much.
As I've said about a hundred times before, the expansion of the Federal government and its involvement and influence in yet another market is what I'm opposed to. keswci pointed out, rightly, that the big evil insurance companies are really the big winners here, which is the irony of this whole stupid law as you point out.
Conservative doctrine? That's a real reach.
Besides, it is still too early to declare victory here. The major provisions are now in effect, but this is the first year for tax penalties and the first year for the business rules. And yes, plenty of employers are limiting hours of employees to avoid having to provide healthcare. YMCA of San Diego, for example.
In this regard we were. Now other people in the marketplace are paying a lot more to subsidize the lower income folks in the same marketplace. In that regard, I personally don't give two shits because I (1) have very good coverage that I don't pay for through ACA; (2) personally pay no state tax so I don't fund medicaid. My wife does, so we fund a little bit of that expansion but not much.
As I've said about a hundred times before, the expansion of the Federal government and its involvement and influence in yet another market is what I'm opposed to. keswci pointed out, rightly, that the big evil insurance companies are really the big winners here, which is the irony of this whole stupid law as you point out.
Conservative doctrine? That's a real reach.
Besides, it is still too early to declare victory here. The major provisions are now in effect, but this is the first year for tax penalties and the first year for the business rules. And yes, plenty of employers are limiting hours of employees to avoid having to provide healthcare. YMCA of San Diego, for example.
show me evidence
that "plenty" of employers are limiting hours. What's plenty mean? What percentage?
Yes, conservative doctrine. This plan sprung in the minds of a conservative think tank, was implemented by a republican governor, and resembles the 1994 counter to Hillarycare by republicans.
Liberal doctrine would have been a public option, or medicare for all. This isn't remotely that.
As for declaring victory...costs are slowed significantly, and a ton of people have health insurance that didn't before, that was the goal/intent of the ACA. The only real concerns were that people wouldn't sign up, or that costs would continue to skyrocket, neither have happened, or that businesses wouldn't get on board...but none of that has happened.
that "plenty" of employers are limiting hours. What's plenty mean? What percentage?
Yes, conservative doctrine. This plan sprung in the minds of a conservative think tank, was implemented by a republican governor, and resembles the 1994 counter to Hillarycare by republicans.
Liberal doctrine would have been a public option, or medicare for all. This isn't remotely that.
As for declaring victory...costs are slowed significantly, and a ton of people have health insurance that didn't before, that was the goal/intent of the ACA. The only real concerns were that people wouldn't sign up, or that costs would continue to skyrocket, neither have happened, or that businesses wouldn't get on board...but none of that has happened.
Re: show me evidence
Çosts are still going up pretty quickly. I don't have percentages. 100% of the employers in my family report this to be the case.
Çosts are still going up pretty quickly. I don't have percentages. 100% of the employers in my family report this to be the case.
Re: most people
Well, I think it was obamacarefacts.org or .com, hardly a negative site for the President stated that 4.7 million people did not keep their plans, more plans will be cancelled in 2017, people could not keep their doctor, and that 4.7 million is used in the number of new ACA enrollees and the reply is so what?
I would say that was all promised by the President. He sold a lie. That right there says a lot that the response is so what.
While I agree that there is no plan that would have lowered costs for everyone(Isaid that in 08-09 by the way before the law was passed) that was not what was sold. I seem to remember saving of $2500 being preached a lot.
Some say ACA slowed health costs, others say it is the economy that did it. Like I said, time will tell before it is determined if this was good or bad for the USA-my point is right now it is starting way behind due to reasons in top paragraph. It will be interesting to see what happens this spring with te Supreme Court case as well. This law may never get the time.
Well, I think it was obamacarefacts.org or .com, hardly a negative site for the President stated that 4.7 million people did not keep their plans, more plans will be cancelled in 2017, people could not keep their doctor, and that 4.7 million is used in the number of new ACA enrollees and the reply is so what?
I would say that was all promised by the President. He sold a lie. That right there says a lot that the response is so what.
While I agree that there is no plan that would have lowered costs for everyone(Isaid that in 08-09 by the way before the law was passed) that was not what was sold. I seem to remember saving of $2500 being preached a lot.
Some say ACA slowed health costs, others say it is the economy that did it. Like I said, time will tell before it is determined if this was good or bad for the USA-my point is right now it is starting way behind due to reasons in top paragraph. It will be interesting to see what happens this spring with te Supreme Court case as well. This law may never get the time.
Re: the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid
The ironic part about the ACA is that much of the strategy used to sell it was how evil the insurance companies are and then in reality the bill basically was a poker equivalent of doubling down on insurance companies.
The ironic part about the ACA is that much of the strategy used to sell it was how evil the insurance companies are and then in reality the bill basically was a poker equivalent of doubling down on insurance companies.
Re: show me evidence
Much of the reason that Romney had trouble in the primaries, then did not do well in the general election, was due to him not being conservative/Republican. If this was conservative doctrine there would have been at least a handful of Republicans in Congress that voted for it.
Costs have risen. I think if the economy ever gets back on track we will see a return to the skyrocketing costs. But that is my opinion-time will be the answer on that. At best it is disingenuous to claim many(5 millionish) people in enrolled in the ACA now have health insurance when the reality is it was the ACA that cancelled their plan.
Much of the reason that Romney had trouble in the primaries, then did not do well in the general election, was due to him not being conservative/Republican. If this was conservative doctrine there would have been at least a handful of Republicans in Congress that voted for it.
Costs have risen. I think if the economy ever gets back on track we will see a return to the skyrocketing costs. But that is my opinion-time will be the answer on that. At best it is disingenuous to claim many(5 millionish) people in enrolled in the ACA now have health insurance when the reality is it was the ACA that cancelled their plan.
Re: most people
You can't oversimplify things though.
85% had coverage? Great. How many of those had coverage that literally covered nothing? A lot. So those are the people that end up in the ER. And they aren't going to see a doctor on a regular basis.
So yes, can you dumb things down to make your augment on both sides of this? Yes, but to act like the US health care system was just a-ok and not a problem in sight - is incredibly naive.
And all the hype about the terror of ACA has not come to fruition.
Are there things to fix with it? Sure thing. And they've made some adjustments - on things that both sides have wanted.
I can only imagine now-popular things like social security and medicare starting today. The outrage would be hilarious. But guess what, both are very popular now and had to be tweaked many times once first-implemented.
The best part is that most of the people complaining so much aren't even affected by it. Not 1 thing has changed for me under this new law and a majority of Americans are in the same boat as me.
You can't oversimplify things though.
85% had coverage? Great. How many of those had coverage that literally covered nothing? A lot. So those are the people that end up in the ER. And they aren't going to see a doctor on a regular basis.
So yes, can you dumb things down to make your augment on both sides of this? Yes, but to act like the US health care system was just a-ok and not a problem in sight - is incredibly naive.
And all the hype about the terror of ACA has not come to fruition.
Are there things to fix with it? Sure thing. And they've made some adjustments - on things that both sides have wanted.
I can only imagine now-popular things like social security and medicare starting today. The outrage would be hilarious. But guess what, both are very popular now and had to be tweaked many times once first-implemented.
The best part is that most of the people complaining so much aren't even affected by it. Not 1 thing has changed for me under this new law and a majority of Americans are in the same boat as me.
Re: most people
Obama and his underlings lied through their teeth. They deceived the American people and the American people were left holding the bag (and will be for years to come). Don't even try to argue this - how many videos of Gruber do I have to point to?
I never said the health care system was a-ok. But that doesn't mean you blow the system up where 85% have coverage, many of whom including people like me and lots of people I know, had better coverage than they do now for a lower cost (lower premiums). "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage" was an absolute lie. Nearly everyone I know has been forced off of a so-called "Cadillac plan" and onto a High Deductible plan. The coverage is worse and it costs more. That is a fact.
Adjustments could have been made to the existing health care plans to cover some of things that liberals were so hot for - coverage of pre-existing conditions, coverage of millenials up to age 26, etc. You don't have to blow up the existing system to allow for these changes. Instead a huge tax increase was foisted onto the US taxpayer to allow coverage of maybe 5 million new people. Obama defunded Medicare by $716B, yet more and more people are joining the Medicare rolls everyday through Obamacare.
The whole thing was a sham. the insurance companies made out, but hardly anyone else did, except for people who get their new coverage paid for by people like you and me through vouchers.
This post was edited on 2/3 9:05 PM by SDBoiler1
Obama and his underlings lied through their teeth. They deceived the American people and the American people were left holding the bag (and will be for years to come). Don't even try to argue this - how many videos of Gruber do I have to point to?
I never said the health care system was a-ok. But that doesn't mean you blow the system up where 85% have coverage, many of whom including people like me and lots of people I know, had better coverage than they do now for a lower cost (lower premiums). "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage" was an absolute lie. Nearly everyone I know has been forced off of a so-called "Cadillac plan" and onto a High Deductible plan. The coverage is worse and it costs more. That is a fact.
Adjustments could have been made to the existing health care plans to cover some of things that liberals were so hot for - coverage of pre-existing conditions, coverage of millenials up to age 26, etc. You don't have to blow up the existing system to allow for these changes. Instead a huge tax increase was foisted onto the US taxpayer to allow coverage of maybe 5 million new people. Obama defunded Medicare by $716B, yet more and more people are joining the Medicare rolls everyday through Obamacare.
The whole thing was a sham. the insurance companies made out, but hardly anyone else did, except for people who get their new coverage paid for by people like you and me through vouchers.
This post was edited on 2/3 9:05 PM by SDBoiler1
Re: show me evidence
Exactly. Calling ACA a "conservative" plan is just a ludicrous statement. It's "conservative" when compared to single-payer, but an apple is closer to a rose than it is to a dog.
Re: most people
ACA doesn't alleviate the ER burden. It just throws the ER burden onto the insurance companies and Medicaid. So either way, we're still paying for the health care of others... either through taxes to Medicaid or by subsidizing their plans via the ACA.
As I've said, I am thankful I don't have to participate in this sh*^show in any way, other than paying state tax (which I don't right now anyway) and Medicare tax.
You also can't oversimplify things. Just because someone has coverage doesn't mean they're going to see the doctor now. ACA didn't all of the sudden make everyone get off their ass and schedule checkups. Hell, my sister is a well-compensated medical professional in her mid-40s with free care from her hospital and she hadn't been for a physical since she gave birth to her second son 11 years ago.
ACA doesn't alleviate the ER burden. It just throws the ER burden onto the insurance companies and Medicaid. So either way, we're still paying for the health care of others... either through taxes to Medicaid or by subsidizing their plans via the ACA.
As I've said, I am thankful I don't have to participate in this sh*^show in any way, other than paying state tax (which I don't right now anyway) and Medicare tax.
the rate of increase in healthcare
is slower than during the recession AND it's slower than most of the rest of the world.
costs are going up, but they are going up more slowly, which means things like medicare/medicaid stay solvent longer.
the more people are covered, receive preventive care, etc, the better it's going to be for healthcare costs.
The ACA wasn't designed and couldn't be designed to make healthcare costs dropped...it was designed to cover more people.
is slower than during the recession AND it's slower than most of the rest of the world.
costs are going up, but they are going up more slowly, which means things like medicare/medicaid stay solvent longer.
the more people are covered, receive preventive care, etc, the better it's going to be for healthcare costs.
The ACA wasn't designed and couldn't be designed to make healthcare costs dropped...it was designed to cover more people.
Re: the rate of increase in healthcare
Absolute horse$hit. Obamacare defunded Medicare by $716B in order to HELP pay for this new monstrosity. How does this help Medicare stay solvent longer?
Obama and his minions lied when they said families would see a DECREASE of $2,500/yr on average in their healthcare costs.
Absolute horse$hit. Obamacare defunded Medicare by $716B in order to HELP pay for this new monstrosity. How does this help Medicare stay solvent longer?
Obama and his minions lied when they said families would see a DECREASE of $2,500/yr on average in their healthcare costs.
Re: the rate of increase in healthcare
ACA doesn't dictate that people have to receive preventive care.
Health care costs for families grew by 9.5% in 2002, but that growth had slowed to 3.9% by 2010. ACA wasn't even signed into law until March 23, 2010.
ACA doesn't dictate that people have to receive preventive care.
Health care costs for families grew by 9.5% in 2002, but that growth had slowed to 3.9% by 2010. ACA wasn't even signed into law until March 23, 2010.
Re: premiums have not
Wrong. Almost everyone I know has higher deductibles now, in some cases double. In its infinite wisdom, the Obamacare folks decided my plan and the plans of many others I know were "Cadilliac plans", so we were forced onto High Deductible plans. My coverage actually is more expensive and worse than it was before, except for a marginal improvement for medications.
Wrong. Almost everyone I know has higher deductibles now, in some cases double. In its infinite wisdom, the Obamacare folks decided my plan and the plans of many others I know were "Cadilliac plans", so we were forced onto High Deductible plans. My coverage actually is more expensive and worse than it was before, except for a marginal improvement for medications.
Re: STOP!
LOL. Everytime he calls me "crazy" or "bat shite crazy" I take it as a compliment, coming from him.
LOL. Everytime he calls me "crazy" or "bat shite crazy" I take it as a compliment, coming from him.
Re: Ah
At least I supplied anecdotal information. You've brought nothing but opinion to the table... Where are your facts and data?
But why should we expect any differently...
At least I supplied anecdotal information. You've brought nothing but opinion to the table... Where are your facts and data?
But why should we expect any differently...
Re: the rate of increase in healthcare
My point was that ACA isn't necessary to slow the rise of healthcare costs. It was already happening. The fact that Democrats take credit for that is kind of silly considering the cost rise had slowed by well over than 50% before the ACA was even signed into law, let alone taken effect.
My point was that ACA isn't necessary to slow the rise of healthcare costs. It was already happening. The fact that Democrats take credit for that is kind of silly considering the cost rise had slowed by well over than 50% before the ACA was even signed into law, let alone taken effect.
Re: You made the claim
You've made at least five different claims in this thread which you've not supported with facts nor data. What's good for the goose...
Re: Yes or no
This post was edited on 2/4 7:48 PM by gr8indoorsman
Irrelevant. ACA has expanded government again, cost the taxpayers money and redistributed wealth which is what I oppose. The cost rise was already being quelled before the ACA. I have not once argued that it didn't reduce the cost rise, so try your logical fallacies on someone else.
This post was edited on 2/4 7:48 PM by gr8indoorsman
