3321

Nope.

3322

You shut up.

No you shut up.

3323

Timex does that a lot, I just got to respond in kind.

3324

You criticized the ACA for not controlling costs. It did in fact control costs. Thus, your criticism was ill founded.

3325

You do seem to be objectively wrong though.

Also as every other country in the developed world figured out many decades ago, the solution is to socialize (most) costs for the entire population.

3326

Using facts in a discussion with gman.

This will be the next part:

3327

I criticized it because the costs are too high. Your argument that yeah, they’re too high, but they were controlled (prior to 2017), is something I agreed with. Now you are doubling back, to score macho-man points and pick a fight, and saying “But opponents of the ACA never admit the costs are controlled,” even though I never said that. In fact, I admitted they’re controlled, but too high, and now you are still pummeling the strawman.

3328

How are we to interpret this statement?

3329

It has not kept costs down. Costs are…high

3330

Maybe what you meant to say is it has not lowered costs. I don’t think that was an expected outcome though so I am not sure what the point of the criticism is.

3331

Oh gimme a break. He wasn’t serious about that and you know it. It’s the old “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others” lament, in a different form.

Have a nice evening.

3332

Seems like it was a stated goal to lower costs? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/

In fact Obama literally promised it?

But yes when I say costs are not kept down I mean they are unacceptably high

3333

Yes, the ACA failed to actually lower costs from where they were when the ACA was implemented.

But this is an inherently flawed criticism. Let me explain.

The ACA is not the entirety of the American healthcare system. It is one law, which affected part of the overall system, primarily focused on the minority of people not covered by employer plans. Further, it was not actually implemented in it’s entirety, with the GOP consistently fighting against it’s implementation.

So, for this reason, you cannot lay the blame for the entire state of the healthcare system at the feet of the ACA. You can’t say, “these costs are too high, and it’s the fault of the ACA!”

The only reasonable analysis is to compare the costs under the ACA to the trend of costs prior to it’s implementation. And that shows that the ACA did in fact lower costs compared to not implementing it.

This is not to say that the ACA is a perfect system. I do not believe that even it’s most staunch advocates would say so.

The problem with literally every GOP attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, is that all CBO projections for those plans showed major INCREASES in cost and premiums over the ACA. Likewise, the attacks on it that we have already seen on it from the Trump administration intentionally destabilize the insurance markets and are causing premiums to rise. The insurance companies themselves have given this as the cause. Finally, the removal of the individual mandate also contributed to increased premium costs, because it removed a critical supporting pillar of the system (young, healthy people paying into the system).

So simply saying “it costs too much” is pointless. It serves no useful purpose. It’s a statement of the obvious. Americans have, for decades now, paid far FAR more for our healthcare than every other nation in the world, while not receiving objectively better medical outcomes. That is the problem.

But what plan do you have to improve things?

3334

The Washington Post, I was a little off, 52 M. However, this doesn’t just affect the uninsured. It affects everyone who consumes health insurance.

3335

That was a campaign promise to implement universal healthcare… which almost certainly would have lowered costs.

That was not what the ACA was though.

3336

It’s literally a self-contained false statement. If the ACA somehow wasn’t this, it’s still a false statement:

Regardless, how about this, which is specifically about Obamacare:

What is the excuse for that one?

@Timex, I agree with your post, although I don’t think I ever said this either:

My point is simply that Obamacare was riddled with false promises and that costs are still too high (which I do not believe is an inherently flawed criticism, but it’s certainly not a prescription for fixing anything). I’m not sure where the dogged desire to preserve what’s left of Obamacare from the Democratic states comes from. They are going to court to defend the Obamacare, even without the individual mandate tax that was its one chance of sustaining itself.

3337

Right, so when this says that “52 million people” are “affected” by pre-existing conditions limitations, it’s not saying that number of people actually would lose coverage due to poor health.

3338

This is so pedantically stupid, I have to chime in. Are you somehow suggesting that there will be a not-insignificant number who will either be beneficially affected or affected in a manor that is neither good nor bad?

The implication of “It just says ‘affected’, it doesn’t say it’ll be a negative” when dealing with health insurance availability and premiums is such a bafflingly stupid point to make, that it actually made me laugh out loud.

3339

No, I’m suggesting “affected” does not mean “lose coverage.” The CBO estimated 3.5 percent of total uninsured were losing coverage due to preexisting conditions. This stat (52 million), if interpreted differently from how I’m reading it, would suggest 17 percent of the total population of the country is losing coverage due to preexisting conditions – a much higher number.

3340

Well I guess you could just read the thing you linked…