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

[uke2se]

Please elaborate.

Don't bother. The person you replied to has long since ceased to contribute anything noteworthy, and is engaged simply in a long running series of troll-posts. Ignore is my advice.

 

[phunk]

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.

Only if you ignore the changes that will reduce costs, and don't bother to figure out which change is greater.

 

[Neally]

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

All the people, including myself, who had a cheap, high deductible policy with limited benefits.

Then I'll rephrase.
Neally, is it rational to accept all articles on the internet at face value?

Of course not. Research and critique the content or use an ad hominem fallacy and hand wave away the source.

Is it rational to reject all articles on the internet at face value?

Only if you ignore the changes that will reduce costs, and don't bother to figure out which change is greater.

The alleged savings down the road have yet to be confirmed. The higher premiums today as a result of added costs for "essential benefits" is confirmed. If you'd like to argue that over the past 12 months or so, there have been some sort of reduction in insurance costs as a result of Obamacare, do present your evidence.

 

[A'isha]

All the people, including myself, who had a cheap, high deductible policy with limited benefits.

What were you paying before, what are you going to pay now, and what benefits are being added to your plan that it did not have before?

 

[Upchurch]

All the people, including myself, who had a cheap, high deductible policy with limited benefits.

Well, first of all, that's anecdotal evidence. However, are you claiming that you make 400% of the poverty level or higher in your area and personally purchase health insurance that is not provided to you by your employer?

If so, a some questions:

1. What is the poverty level and/or subsidy threshold in your area?
2. What did you pay for health insurance prior to the first of the month?
3. What do you pay for health insurance now?

 

[Neally]

Well, first of all, that's anecdotal evidence.

Do you dispute that there are thousands of people that have had an increase in their insurance premiums as a result of having the Obamacare "essential benefits" added to their coverage and that these people would not qualify for subsidies?

 

[Upchurch]

Do you dispute that there are thousands of people that have had an increase in their insurance premiums as a result of having the Obamacare "essential benefits" added to their coverage and that these people would not qualify for subsidies?

I would like to see evidence for this.

 

[uke2se]

I would like to see evidence for this.

I'd like to see the added economic burden on those people compared to the amount of people that are now able to get health insurance.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Of course not.

Fantastic. We're making progress.

Now, would it be rational to accept untrustworthy sources with the same amount of scrutiny as those sources which have proven themselves accurate?

Is it rational to reject all articles on the internet at face value?

Of course not.

 

[Neally]

I would like to see evidence for this.

So that would be a "yes", you dispute that there are thousands of people paying more that don't qualify for subsidies?

Now, would it be rational to accept untrustworthy sources with the same amount of scrutiny as those sources which have proven themselves accurate?

It would be rational to examine the content of each claim, particularly if you wish to engage in a rational debate. The source you consider "untrustworthy" may be considered "trustworthy" by someone else. For your personal perusal day to day, use whatever source you deem trustworthy. In discussion/debate address the message not the source.

 

[Spindrift]

So that would be a "yes", you dispute that there are thousands of people paying more that don't qualify for subsidies?

No, that would be reserving judgment until evidence is presented.

 

[Upchurch]

So that would be a "yes", you dispute that there are thousands of people paying more that don't qualify for subsidies?

If you like.

I would like to see you support your claims with hard numbers.

 

[Upchurch]

No, that would be reserving judgment until evidence is presented.

No, that is a valid use of the word "dispute". I only refrain from using the word in case it is confused with "disagree". I'm not arguing that the claim is definitively false. I'm saying that I don't have enough information and would like to see any evidence that supports it's truth.

I do strongly question whether or not there has been enough time to collect hard numbers to make such claims.

 

[davefoc]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but it looks to me like ANTpogo completely covered the issue in the first two pages. I will be curious as to why there is any more to say about this simple issue.

The Republicans wouldn't cave if the Democrats threatened to shut down the government if they didn't get their way, why would the Republicans expect the Democrats to cave? Of course, they don't, and they realize that they are harming the lives of millions of people as their act of lunacy continues.

The only possible issue is why are they doing it. Perhaps a poll is in order:

Why is the Republican party shutting down the government?
1. Because they are hypocritical jerks that don't give a crap about anybody but themselves.
2. Because they are well intentioned idiots.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only possible issue is why are they doing it. Perhaps a poll is in order:

Why is the Republican party shutting down the government?
1. Because they are hypocritical jerks that don't give a crap about anybody but themselves.
2. Because they are well intentioned idiots.

Implicit in your list of possibilities is that enacting the ACA will have obviously positive or even mostly neutral effects. If that assumption is removed, then your list becomes quite incomplete.

One of the things I normally like about your posts, dave, is that you're willing to understand other perspectives even when you don't agree with them. But this post doesn't live up to your normally high standards in that regard.

 

[uke2se]

Implicit in your list of possibilities is that enacting the ACA will have obviously positive or even mostly neutral effects. If that assumption is removed, then your list becomes quite incomplete.

One of the things I normally like about your posts, dave, is that you're willing to understand other perspectives even when you don't agree with them. But this post doesn't live up to your normally high standards in that regard.

This isn't about whether the ACA is obviously positive or not. This is about a minority holding the nation's economy hostage unless they get their way.

 

[eeyore1954]

(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.)

Has nothing really to do with this discussion but it really bothers me that the percentage is 400%. ( I agree completely with people at low levels of income getting assistance or free insurance) Why should a person making 120,000 a year with 5 kids qualify for a several thousand dollar credit on their health insurance?
I guess the argument could be made that most people in that category are employed at a job that already provides insurance and this is an incentive for self employed individuals.
What happened to personal responsibility?

 

[DavidJames]

This isn't about whether the ACA is obviously positive or not. This is about a minority holding the nation's economy hostage unless they get their way.

You are 100% correct and I've yet to see one Republican sympethizer defend it. All they want to talk about is ACA They've also refused to discuss why the clean CR shouldn't be brought to a vote.

 

[Upchurch]

Has nothing really to do with this discussion but it really bothers me that the percentage is 400%. ( I agree completely with people at low levels of income getting assistance or free insurance) Why should a person making 120,000 a year with 5 kids qualify for a several thousand dollar credit on their health insurance?

As I understand it, the poverty line varies based on the area. So, a family of 7 (mom, dad, and 5 kids) making $120k in Hawaii is a much different deal than that same family in, say, Missouri. In Hawaii, that family is probably not living very lavishly and it does not seem unreasonable to me that they need help for insurance.

As with most things, it's a matter of context.

I guess the argument could be made that most people in that category are employed at a job that already provides insurance and this is an incentive for self employed individuals.

Indeed. I believe that argument could be made.

 

[Bob001]

As I understand it, the poverty line varies based on the area. So, a family of 7 (mom, dad, and 5 kids) making $120k in Hawaii is a much different deal than that same family in, say, Missouri. In Hawaii, that family is probably not living very lavishly and it does not seem unreasonable to me that they need help for insurance.
.....

These are the federal poverty guidelines:
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

This is a subsidy calculator. If you plug in a Honolulu zip code for a family of two adults and more than three children making $120K, it tells you the subsidy will be zero.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=3&child-tobacco=0

Subsidy examples:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1738900

It just doesn't look to me like these subsidies are going to be as huge for people with good incomes as some people seem to think/hope/fear.