So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Corsair 115]

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/093013-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

Investors.com? A.k.a. Investor's Business Daily? That's the same outfit which, back in 2009, published its (in)famous editorial in which it said Stephen Hawking would surely have died had he be subject to the socialized medicine of the U.K. rather than the free market health care available in the U.S. The only problem is that they forgot to do the most basic fact checking, which would have revealed Hawking is a British citizen and has been under the care of the NHS for most of his life.

When one screws up that badly, as far as I'm concerned, one's credibility is permanently ended.

Oh come on. If I post something and use rense.com or infowars.com as a source, and someone tells me to get a better one, you're gonna say that's unreasonable?

If a source has a history of being biased and unreliable, it's valid criticism to distrust information that comes with it. In fact it would be foolish to take anything it says at face value.

Moreover, if the evidence is at all substantive and clear, then it should be readily available from numerous sources.

 

[quadraginta]

You don't get to dictate what I can and can't post. My initial post was a direct response to the OP. Subsequent posts challenged my statements. Follow the thread.

So low income people that have their income cut, won't suffer?



ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

http://news.investors.com/politics-...mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

US employers slashing worker hours to avoid Obamacare insurance mandate

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/us-employers-slash-hours-avoid-obamacare

<snip>

Or maybe ...

Cable and broadcast television outlets, driven largely by Fox News, promoted the myth that the Affordable Care Act is forcing employees into part-time work and killing full-time jobs, while ignoring serious discussions of the labor market and the effect of policy proposals on job growth.

The claim that ACA has a negative effect on the job market has been addressed and debunked by independent economists, but the myth persists as a talking point in the media. At Fox, the myth is a central theme of economic discussions.

Study: Insurance costs to soar under Obamacare
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_1...der-obamacare/

People who currently pay little for a bare bones policy with a very high deductible will likely see their monthly insurance tab rise. Duh. ACA requires all policies include certain coverages. Stuff some people don't want or need. Guess what? Stuff costs money. Also, young men, who often pay little for insurance since they rarely go to the doctor, will also likely see a bump in their premiums.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/25/news...ums/index.html


I still am surprised with all the talk about it, some supporters still aren't aware of the above facts. Unplug from MSNBC and it's amazing what you can learn.

Also this ...

15 Myths The Media Should Ignore During Obamacare Implementation

 

[eeyore1954]

It's more accurate and dependable than the Manhattan Institute.

Although that source says

The new rules don’t go into effect for another year, but already businesses and state governments are cutting back workers’ hours to avoid the cost of buying more health insurance... But one company is bucking that trend

So this apparently reliable source also says companies are cutting back.

 

[Upchurch]

Although that source says
So this apparently reliable source also says companies are cutting back.

That isn't the point of contention with the Manhattan Institute. It's their "analysis" that the subsidies don't offset the burden of insurance costs that I question.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Although that source says
So this apparently reliable source also says companies are cutting back.

That isn't the point of contention with the Manhattan Institute. It's their "analysis" that the subsidies don't offset the burden of insurance costs that I question.

Maybe I went too fast through the thread but I thought the issue was about people losing jobs/hours because of the ACA .

I agree that most people who are part time workers will have incomes at the level where they will qualify for the subsidies that will greatly lower the cost of health insurance.

 

[eeyore1954]

The claim that ACA has a negative effect on the job market has been addressed and debunked by independent economists, but the myth persists as a talking point in the media. At Fox, the myth is a central theme of economic discussions.

One of the debunking articles you sourced said

So far, few employers cutting workers to part time in response to Affordable Care Act - ...Only 4 percent said they had shifted to more part-time workers, while another 7 percent said they planned to do so. But 89 percent said they had not made, nor were planning, such a move. -

Is it your contention that the 11% who have or are planning to cut back will not have a negative impact.

 

[Neally]

So this means your argument is out of gas.

Nope. It shows that I can use the Ad hominem fallacy just like everyone else.

Oh come on. If I post something and use rense.com or infowars.com as a source, and someone tells me to get a better one, you're gonna say that's unreasonable?

I'm going to say criticism of the source rather than addressing the content is an Ad hominem fallacy. Should be quite simple to show the flaws in their argument if indeed they are a crappy source, right?

If a source has a history of being biased and unreliable, it's valid criticism to distrust information that comes with it. In fact it would be foolish to take anything it says at face value.

"An ad hominem argument attacks the messenger, not the message itself. " - Carl Sagan

Or maybe ...

Media Matters - Biased and untrustworthy.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

 

[Upchurch]

I'm going to say criticism of the source rather than addressing the content is an Ad hominem fallacy. Should be quite simple to show the flaws in their argument if indeed they are a crappy source, right?

Okay, this is the line I am skeptical of from your source:

For most people, subsidies in the law will not counteract the rate shock, says co-author of the study Avik Roy, a health care expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Of course, neither his rationale nor his numbers are given. As they say, anything asserted without evidence can just as easily be rejected. Unless you want to back Roy up, that should end it right there.

However, I did you a favor and went looking for his rationale and/or numbers for myself. This was the best I could find, which added as an after thought to other criticism he had received.

Jon is right that low-income individuals will be protected from these rate increases because of Obamacare’s subsidies, but if you’re not low-income, you face a double-whammy: higher taxes to pay for those subsidies, and higher indvidual-market insurance costs for yourself.

Assuming this is what your article was referring to, Roy does not say that most people will see a benefit from the subsidy, people who are not low-income individuals will not see a benefit, and I would like to see how he determines that. Further, most people are lower income. (Of course, the real question is whether or not they are under 400% of the poverty line, which varies from place to place. I don't know any hard numbers that can say how many fit into that category.)

So, you are correct. It is quite simple to show the flaws in the argument of your source's crappy source. Once we have established the lack of credibility a crappy source, do we really need to waste our time like this every time that crappy source is used?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Neally, should I accept all articles on the internet at face value?

 

[Neally]

Okay, this is the line I am skeptical of from your source:


Of course, neither his rationale nor his numbers are given. As they say, anything asserted without evidence can just as easily be rejected. Unless you want to back Roy up, that should end it right there.

However, I did you a favor and went looking for his rationale and/or numbers for myself. This was the best I could find, which added as an after thought to other criticism he had received.

Assuming this is what your article was referring to, Roy does not say that most people will see a benefit from the subsidy, people who are not low-income individuals will not see a benefit, and I would like to see how he determines that. Further, most people are lower income. (Of course, the real question is whether or not they are under 400% of the poverty line, which varies from place to place. I don't know any hard numbers that can say how many fit into that category.)

My claim was that thousands of people will be faced with higher premiums as a result of Obamacare. That is a fact due to the fact that Obamacare mandates all policies include "essential benefits". If a policy did not include those in the past, they will now, and the policy holder will pay more. Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute the fact that not everyone that has these higher premiums will qualify for subsidies?

So, you are correct. It is quite simple to show the flaws in the argument of your source's crappy source. Once we have established the lack of credibility a crappy source, do we really need to waste our time like this every time that crappy source is used?

Up to you whether you want to use the Ad hominem fallacy or not.

Neally, should I accept all articles on the internet at face value?

Do whatever you want. If you want to engage in a rational debate, address the message not the messenger.

 

[A'isha]

That is a fact due to the fact that Obamacare mandates all policies include "essential benefits".

Can you explain what benefits will now be required, and why it's a bad thing that plans will now have to cover these particular benefits, how much plans that didn't have these benefits cost before and how much of increase there will be in premiums for these plans to now include these benefits, and why this increased cost outweighs the, well, increased benefit of having these benefits?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Neally, should I accept all articles on the internet at face value?

Your avatar does not seem to match your posts.

 

[uke2se]

Neally, should I accept all articles on the internet at face value?

It seems rather that you need to accept all articles that Neally presents at face value. Otherwise you are engaging in the ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Upchurch]

My claim was that thousands of people will be faced with higher premiums as a result of Obamacare. That is a fact due to the fact that Obamacare mandates all policies include "essential benefits". If a policy did not include those in the past, they will now, and the policy holder will pay more. Do you dispute this?

Non-sequitor. A change in policy does not necessarily mean higher premiums, especially if the risk pool is spread out over a far larger group of people. Further, "higher premiums" may be (1) insignificantly higher for those above the subsidy line and (2) less than the rate of change premiums exhibited before for the ACA.

I fail to see hard evidence that the change in premiums will be a burden on anyone, but I'm willing to see any evidence to that end you'd like to provide.

Do you dispute the fact that not everyone that has these higher premiums will qualify for subsidies?

I question your premise. How many people who earn more than 4 times the poverty level purchase personal health insurance policies, instead of the health insurance usually provided by employers at that level?

I do not dispute that not everyone is qualified for the subsidies, but I suspect you are using an extreme edge case. How common will that actually be? You say "thousands", which could mean less than a fraction of 1% of the 300+ million people in this country, but how do you arrive at that number?

Up to you whether you want to use the Ad hominem fallacy or not.

I don't agree that it was an ad hom. Regardless, I took apart the argument for completeness. The message has been addressed and debunked, based on the evidence given (and some that wasn't). Do you wish to address the argument?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Or maybe ...

Media Matters - Biased and untrustworthy.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

You appear to have me confused with someone else. I have offered no opinion on the usefulness of your sources one way or another. I have only offered alternative ones for comparison.

Your response seems childish.

 

[Neally]

Non-sequitor. A change in policy does not necessarily mean higher premiums, especially if the risk pool is spread out over a far larger group of people.

LOL. Adding benefits to a policy isn't free. It doesn't become free by adding it to more policies. Insurance companies have added these benefits to policies and have charged for them. Do you dispute this?

We lose money on every item we sell!
How do stay in business?
Volume!

Further, "higher premiums" may be (1) insignificantly higher for those above the subsidy line and (2) less than the rate of change premiums exhibited before for the ACA.

Irrelevant to my point. My claim was that thousands of people will be faced with higher premiums as a result of Obamacare. "Essential benefits" added to policies that previously did not have them indeed increases premiums. My point is proven.

I fail to see hard evidence that the change in premiums will be a burden on anyone, but I'm willing to see any evidence to that end you'd like to provide.

The OP suggested that he got or will get his benefit from Obamacare and asked why he shouldn't be upset that the GOP was trying to block it. My answer was that thousands of other people are facing problems as a result of Obamacare, aren't his problem and that the important thing is that he got his. I've proven that indeed there are problems facing others. You challenged that there are the problems I cited. I've proven there are.

I don't agree that it was an ad hom.

It absolutely was Ad hom: "gets its information from the Manhattan Institute." & " info from crappy sources" then you had to be quoted and cited the definition of ad hominem before finally addressing the content rather than the source.

Regardless, I took apart the argument for completeness. The message has been addressed and debunked, based on the evidence given (and some that wasn't). Do you wish to address the argument?

All you've done is try to debunk some strawman. Imagine that, you've flipped from one fallacy to another!

 

[uke2se]

LOL. Adding benefits to a policy isn't free. It doesn't become free by adding it to more policies. Insurance companies have added these benefits to policies and have charged for them. Do you dispute this?

We lose money on every item we sell!
How do stay in business?
Volume!

Irrelevant to my point. My claim was that thousands of people will be faced with higher premiums as a result of Obamacare. "Essential benefits" added to policies that previously did not have them indeed increases premiums. My point is proven.

The OP suggested that he got or will get his benefit from Obamacare and asked why he shouldn't be upset that the GOP was trying to block it. My answer was that thousands of other people are facing problems as a result of Obamacare, aren't his problem and that the important thing is that he got his. I've proven that indeed there are problems facing others. You challenged that there are the problems I cited. I've proven there are.

It absolutely was Ad hom: "gets its information from the Manhattan Institute." & " info from crappy sources" then you had to be quoted and cited the definition of ad hominem before finally addressing the content rather than the source.

All you've done is try to debunk some strawman. Imagine that, you've flipped from one fallacy to another!

Seriously, are you even reading the responses to your posts? Your post is so full of fail, I can't imagine that you actually do.

 

[Morrigan]

Do whatever you want. If you want to engage in a rational debate, address the message not the messenger.

Evasion noted.

 

[Upchurch]

My claim was that thousands of people will be faced with higher premiums as a result of Obamacare. "Essential benefits" added to policies that previously did not have them indeed increases premiums. My point is proven.

It most certainly is not. Who are these "thousands of people"?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Do whatever you want. If you want to engage in a rational debate, address the message not the messenger.

Then I'll rephrase.

Neally, is it rational to accept all articles on the internet at face value?

Your avatar does not seem to match your posts.

Please elaborate.