Nope.
You shut up.
No you shut up.
Timex does that a lot, I just got to respond in kind.
You criticized the ACA for not controlling costs. It did in fact control costs. Thus, your criticism was ill founded.
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.
Using facts in a discussion with gman.
http://thefinance.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/8693941-giphy.gif
This will be the next part:
I criticized it because the costs are too high. Your argument that yeah, theyâre 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 âBut opponents of the ACA never admit the costs are controlled,â even though I never said that. In fact, I admitted theyâre controlled, but too high, and now you are still pummeling the strawman.
How are we to interpret this statement?
It has not kept costs down. Costs areâŚhigh
Maybe what you meant to say is it has not lowered costs. I donât think that was an expected outcome though so I am not sure what the point of the criticism is.
Oh gimme a break. He wasnât serious about that and you know it. Itâs the old âdemocracy is the worst form of government, except for all the othersâ lament, in a different form.
Have a nice evening.
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
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 itâs entirety, with the GOP consistently fighting against itâs 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 canât say, âthese costs are too high, and itâs the fault of the ACA!â
The only reasonable analysis is to compare the costs under the ACA to the trend of costs prior to itâs 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 itâs 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 âit costs too muchâ is pointless. It serves no useful purpose. Itâs 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?
The Washington Post, I was a little off, 52 M. However, this doesnât just affect the uninsured. It affects everyone who consumes health insurance.
That was a campaign promise to implement universal healthcare⌠which almost certainly would have lowered costs.
That was not what the ACA was though.
Itâs literally a self-contained false statement. If the ACA somehow wasnât this, itâs 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 donât 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 itâs certainly not a prescription for fixing anything). Iâm not sure where the dogged desire to preserve whatâs 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.
Right, so when this says that â52 million peopleâ are âaffectedâ by pre-existing conditions limitations, itâs not saying that number of people actually would lose coverage due to poor health.
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 âIt just says âaffectedâ, it doesnât say itâll be a negativeâ when dealing with health insurance availability and premiums is such a bafflingly stupid point to make, that it actually made me laugh out loud.
No, Iâm suggesting âaffectedâ does not mean âlose coverage.â 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 Iâm reading it, would suggest 17 percent of the total population of the country is losing coverage due to preexisting conditions â a much higher number.
Well I guess you could just read the thing you linkedâŚ