"Affordable" Care Act - Yeah, Right.

[xjx388]

xjx388 quoted, "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you can keep it; you won't have to do a thing." Where did he deny the existence of what I call "edge cases"?

By not acknowledging their existence in any of the hundreds of speeches he gave concerning the ACA.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you can keep it; you won't have to do a thing," is very different from the reality which is more like, "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, chances are you are going to have to change it if it doesn't meet the new standards."

 

[eeyore1954]

5 million




That adds another 28 million people who live in households that earn less that $50k. So, roughly, an additional 32 million people can obtain insurance vs 7ish million who might have pay a little more for insurance.

Is insurance now going to be affordable to those people? I hope so.

 

[Neally]

Wait - are you describing the position after ACA or before it?

After. Remarkably, there are still some partisans that are in denial that there are any losers.

 

[DavidJames]

So, just keep raising the dept ceiling? Someone eventually has to pay for this.

How did you make to this point and still not know what the debt ceiling is?

 

[Matthew Best]

After. Remarkably, there are still some partisans that are in denial that there are any losers.

But isn't it just as good a description of the position before ACA?

 

[eeyore1954]

wow, so creative. Other then in your attempt to emulate the best emotional argumentative technique of a 6 year old (were you sticking your tongue out when you wrote that), you completely ignore the actual numbers.
As for your psychic ability to read my mind, don't give up your day job. Don't project your flawed logical thinking on me.

You frequently make statements that imply you can read the minds of others. Although you can only read conservative minds and that is easy because they are evil and stupid.

 

[Neally]

But isn't it just as good a description of the position before ACA?

Sure. The system has problems. The system still has problems. Obamacare helped some and made it worse for others.

 

[Upchurch]

By the same token, the old system didn't work for only a small percentage of people. For those that were negatively impacted, I feel bad. The reality is that so many more were positively impacted.

That is to say, under the old system, roughly 50 million people were uninsured under the old system. Whereas, under the new system, roughly 10 million people might pay a little bit more, assuming they don't qualify for subsidies.

How was the old system better?

So, by the criteria you outlined in your post, why did the Dems make it such a big ************* deal? The President demonstrably lied (more charitably: was monumentally wrong) about how it would impact people and it's true costs.

People keep saying this, but when you actually look at the numbers, it's more mole hill than mountain.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sure. The system has problems. The system still has problems. Obamacare helped some and made it worse for others.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ACA has helped many and made it worse for a few?

 

[Upchurch]

Is insurance now going to be affordable to those people? I hope so.

Time will tell. That is what the subsidy is for.

 

[DavidJames]

You frequently make statements that imply you can read the minds of others. Although you can only read conservative minds and that is easy because they are evil and stupid.

You are welcome to point that when it occurs. As for this post it's a violation of rule 12.

 

[Neally]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ACA has helped many and made it worse for a few?

Huge numbers of people are facing higher premiums due to Obamacare. The fact that some are better off due to others subsidizing them isn't much consolation for someone with significantly higher premiums.

 

[Upchurch]

By not acknowledging their existence in any of the hundreds of speeches he gave concerning the ACA.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you can keep it; you won't have to do a thing," is very different from the reality which is more like, "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, chances are you are going to have to change it if it doesn't meet the new standards."

You might be able to go for a weak lie of omission, but Zig claimed that Obama denied the existence of those edge cases. This is not the case. At least, not based on the evidence you two have provided.

Further, the phrase chances are indicates that it is likely you will have to change your health insurance plan. The actual chances that you are going to have to change your insurance are more like 4%, and that's a bit high of even the worst case estimated number. This is not at all likely.

 

[Matthew Best]

Huge numbers of people are facing higher premiums due to Obamacare. The fact that some are better off due to others subsidizing them isn't much consolation for someone with significantly higher premiums.

Once again, wouldn't it be more accurate to switch these terms around? Some people are facing higher premiums, but huge numbers of people are better off.

 

[xjx388]

wow, so creative. Other then in your attempt to emulate the best emotional argumentative technique of a 6 year old (were you sticking your tongue out when you wrote that),

I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to ad homs and focused on my actual argument. Thank you in advance.

you completely ignore the actual numbers.

How many will lose their insurance under Obamacare?

You want the numbers? No problem. About 50 million Americans were uninsured. That's roughly 15% - a small percentage. Larger than the number who will lose their insurance under ACA (which we still don't really know at this point)? Probably. But that's still a pretty small percentage. Yet that was a big enough deal that we had to pass the ACA?

The reality is that the vast majority of people were just fine under the old system. Even among those uninsured, there were many who were uninsured by choice. ACA is perhaps helping some of those uninsured people but it's also negatively impacting millions of others. Time will tell what the net impact will be, but my guess is that the number of uninsured won't drop by that much and you will add a very large new class of people who were happy before ACA but are not happy now because they couldn't keep their old coverage or because they are paying more in premiums now, not $2500 less.

As for your psychic ability to read my mind, don't give up your day job. Don't project your flawed logical thinking on me.

It's an educated guess. Consider it directed at the general Democrat/Liberal and not at you specifically.

 

[DGM]

How did you make to this point and still not know what the debt ceiling is?

So, who pays for the subsidies? Let me guess, the "rich"?

 

[Upchurch]

You want the numbers? No problem. About 50 million Americans were uninsured. That's roughly 15% - a small percentage. Larger than the number who will lose their insurance under ACA (which we still don't really know at this point)? Probably.

Whoops. Stop.

"Probably" based on what? I provided data based on best estimates that only 4% (maybe 10 million) of Americans would have to change their current insurance plans, not lose insurance, which is illegal under the ACA.

eta: 4% is on the high side. Some estimates are as low as 2.5%. If 15% is a small percentage, what is 2.5%?

But that's still a pretty small percentage. Yet that was a big enough deal that we had to pass the ACA?

Yes, because the "PP" portion of the PPACA protects all Americans from insurance company shenanigans. That's a pretty big percentage.

 

[Neally]

Once again, wouldn't it be more accurate to switch these terms around? Some people are facing higher premiums, but huge numbers of people are better off.

You're trying to get to a net judgement as to numbers better before or after. That a bunch of uninsured now have health insurance as a result of a bunch of other people subsidizing them may make sense to some, but there's no free lunch.

Again there are winners and losers with it. Something that many pro-Obamacare people are in denial of.

 

[Ziggurat]

xjx388 quoted, "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you can keep it; you won't have to do a thing." Where did he deny the existence of what I call "edge cases"?

Right there, in that quote. That's a categorical statement. It provides for no exceptions. And it's not taken out of context either: nowhere else did he provide any caveats to that statement, a statement which he made repeatedly.

Can you really be this blind? Never mind: to ask is to answer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In just glad that all the whining from the Right won't affect the ACA.