Interesting business journal article on the ACA

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: What claim have I made

health care cost rise 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.


skyrocketed and deductibles are not "massively higher." nor is there "less coverage" overall.
So yeah, all of that.

Again, you're clearly implying ACA is what's causing costs to decrease. Prove it. They were decreasing rapidly prior to ACA.

Quit cherry picking.

You're just full of fallacies today.

 

[qazplm]

so you disagree

that the health care cost rise is slower now than it was before?

you disagree that it's slower than the rest of the world?

you disagree that costs are going up more slowly, and that the solvency of medicare/medicaid is tied at least in part to the rate of cost increases?

you disagree that more people are covered? That more coverage won't mean more preventive care?

I don't think you actually disagree with ANY of that.

I didn't make the claim that deductibles are massively higher, or skyrocketed or less coverage overall...I disagreed with all those claims...there's a difference.

Do you think those are all true? Again, I doubt you do.

the only issue I think you do have, is the idea that ACA is tied/responsible to those things, of course i didn't say that, I said tha tthe economy didn't blow up and that the ACA didn't lead to changes in healthcare costs to the negative...I made it pretty clear I was mocking the "it's all going to "blow-up'" argument used against the ACA.

What "fallacy" am I full of exactly?

Other than the made-up ones in your head?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: so you disagree

Originally posted by qazplm:

What "fallacy" am I full of exactly?

Other than the made-up ones in your head?

Correlation, not causation for one. Maybe they didn't teach you that one at law school? Cherry picking for another, limiting your statement to only when ACA was signed even though the cost trend was already well-established before the ACA...

I can probably find some more if you want.
This post was edited on 2/6 3:21 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: the rate of increase in healthcare

Originally posted by qazplm:
.

The ACA wasn't designed and couldn't be designed to make healthcare costs dropped...it was designed to cover more people.

Are you saying your hero, Obama, lied, when he said that premiums would be reduced approximately $2500 per family. OMG, who woulda thunk it.....vbg.

 

[BoilerMadness]

It has more credibility

Originally posted by qazplm:
How can I beat the statistical power of "all the people I know?!"

than you regurgitating the Obama talking points. At least his assertion has some basis in reality, whereas yours is based purely on the BS that the Dems spouted to force feed this abomination to the unsuspecting and unwilling public.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Nice try

Originally posted by qazplm:
But I'm supposed to supply the facts and data...got it.

You refuted the claim, by diminishing his anecdotal evidence, yet you have shown nothing to support your assertions.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: most people

Originally posted by qazplm:
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.

Perhaps a small part, if that is true, but gas prices being about 50% of what they were a year ago, had a much more significant impact.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Really?

Originally posted by qazplm:
I don't expect you or others with your mindset to admit that, but nevertheless. The uninsured are way down, healthcare costs are slowing, and the economy didn't "esplode" because of the ACA.

There were about 30 million uninsured before ACA and there are about 30 million uninsured now, so where is the net gain?

Now that the employer mandate is becoming effective this year, you will see a negative impact on the economy. There was a reason that Obama kicked that can down the road, until after the midterm elections and those chickens are about to come home to roost.

If ACA is so revenue neutral, why did it have to take $716 Billion from Medicare, and why did they have to fund ACA for four years, before it's actual implementation? ACA is a giant black hole, that's going to swallow hundreds of millions of dollars, before it's done. If I remember correctly, Obama was actually saying the ACA would help balance the budget at some point in the near future, but then again, he promised a lot of things to sell this bag of crap.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: most people

Originally posted by lbodel:
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.

How many of those had coverage that literally covered nothing?

You say a lot, but how are you going to prove that statement? You can't, because that was just a Democrat talking point to make the ACA seem like it was a great deal. The vast majority of the people I've talked with, that have had to deal with ACA, are saying they're paying more for less. The garbage, that the Obama spokesmen were spouting, about giving people better policies is a lot more spin, than fact.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: most people

Originally posted 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

If the real concern was providing coverage for people with existing conditions, they could have linked a provision to Medicare that covered these people and left the rest of the system intact. This would have saved Billions of dollars and disrupted fewer lives.

The dirty secret is that the ACA is just the first step to the single provider system. They KNOW that this system will implode and they're relying on having enough people dependent on ACA, that when it goes belly up, and it will, the next logical step is to have Big Brother step in and save the day, by giving you the Federal option. That's also why so many people lost good insurance plans and got switched to ACA plans. When these plans start getting prohibitively expensive, and they will, people will be less resistant to accepting the Big Brother good deal. Yet the sheep blindly follow...

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: pick an argument

Originally posted by qazplm:
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).

"unless it was crap insurance that didn't cover even minimally"

That is largely a myth generated by Gruber and his minions. The policy requirements were written purposely, so people would have to lose their current insurance and go to ACA.

-- For men, if you didn't have coverage for breast exams and gynecological exams on your existent policy, it was deemed substandard and had to be replaced.

-- For women, if there wasn't a provision for prostate exams and other male specific exams, it was deemed substandard and had to be replaced.

They needed a lot of people signing up for ACA policies. If they were allowed to keep their existing policies and keep their doctors, ACA was doomed to immediate failure. By requiring a lot of coverages in the ACA approved policies, that they knew most people didn't really want, they could ensure that existing policies would be deemed insufficient and you would be required to sign up for ACA.

They had to do a lot of lying and promising things they knew were undeliverable, to sell a very flawed program.

For the record, they went into Medicaid, not Medicare.

As we get deeper into the Employer Mandate, which starts this year, you'll see it start to unravel. By the end of this year, it will be obvious, even to the indoctrinated, like you.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: Control, control, control

Originally posted by GMM:
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".

The Democrats know the secret of getting reelected: Promise people stuff -- It doesn't matter if you deliver or not, or how much it adds to the National Debt, it's all about amassing power. If they don't deliver on a promise, they blame the Republicans and the Liberal media carries the message for them. It requires the people to wake up and realize, that there is a COST for all this FREE stuff, that the Dems keep offering to get votes. Unfortunately, too many people like stuff and they are oblivious to who is going to pay for it.

Sadly, a lot of the mainstream Republicans have succumbed to the reality, that we have too many low information voters, who are more interested in getting stuff, rather than having responsible leadership and a well run country.

Hopefully, we can get an adult in the Whitehouse in 2 years, unless the current occupant totally destroys the country in the meantime. It's a bad combination, when you're clueless and too stubborn to listen to anyone with a differing viewpoint.

After Obama was elected, Michelle said, "For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country".

After six year of Obama, for the first time in my life, I'm concerned about the future of my country. The world is going to Hell in a handcart and Obama still maintains, that Climate Change is the single biggest threat to the world. REALLY? Perhaps he should stay awake in his morning briefings, or better yet, attend a few of them, so someone can explain the threat of Islamic Terrorism. It makes me even more nervous, when he makes excuses for the Islamic Terrorists and tries to establish moral relativism with Christians by bringing up the Crusades, Inquisition, Slavery and Jim Crow. What the Hell is he thinking? I shake my head in wonder every day at how oblivious he is to what's happening around him. He is clearly the wrong man at the wrong time.

Sorry about the rant, but I really am concerned about the country and the fact that no one is minding the store. The Talker in Chief is proving what I feared most, that he is an empty suit.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I'm amazed.

You were offered a lot of factual information refuting all the talking points, that you've been spouting, so what do you do? You ignore everything you've been told and start rambling about a lot of things that are just not true.

I guess when your little brain is washed thoroughly enough, you block out all those nasty little facts, that get in the way of your programming.

The Employer Mandate starts this year and by the end of the year, you will see the ACA start to unravel.

The whole program was sold on a series of lies, since the people responsible for it KNEW it would implode. ACA is just a stepping stone to the single payer system, that the Liberals really wanted all along. I've experienced it in the UK and trust me, you WON'T like it.