The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[DC Tom]

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance"

Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed.....

 

"Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents"

[JuanGuzman]

Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it.

 

 

Heroin is good too because it lowers blood pressure. We'll ignore all of the bad effects it has.

 

 

 

haha oh man you lecture me on ignorance? In one sentence you argue that individual health insurance plans weren't prohibitively expensive and in the next you tell me that I ignore all the bad effects. One of the biggest issues in health care in the last 10 years has been how much its price has outpaced family income growth.

 

I've been very clear on my ACA views, there are costs and there are benefits to it the plan, but the benefits outweigh the costs. The old system was broken buddy.

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[JuanGuzman]

"Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents"

 

I think you're almost there... you've made the connection that number of uninsured is falling good for you. Now consider that 30 per cent of that number are illegal residents who aren't eligibe. So reduce that number by 9.3 million unless you think obamacare should also cover illegal residents. Then consider that last measure of the number of american citizens without health care was some 50 million in 2011... so without even adjusting for population growth you have dropped the number of uninsured by 60%.

 

Than give Obama a round of applause

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[Nanker]

The new face of the Democrat party:

[Azalin]

The old system was broken buddy.

two points:

1) quit using such a tiny font.

 

2) 'the old system was broken buddy' - system? who made this system? the government? doctors? pharmacists? all/none of the above? health insurance and medical care is not a system, and people need to stop defining it as such. that's half the problem right there. the electrical grid, interstate highways, servers interfacing the internet, your digestive tract.....those are systems. health insurance is an independent industry, as are the legion of doctors, nurses, and caregivers. regulations placed upon the insurance industry have made it inefficient, and government promises of free medical care (which has been available for decades) for low-income individuals and families have contributed to the rising costs of medical care. the majority of the cause of rising costs in both health insurance and medical care are due to government action, either directly or indirectly. so what is the logical solution to the problem of affordability? why, even more government involvement, of course.

 

nothing will ever get fixed if people continue to look at entire industries as 'systems' and run to the federal government for a solution in fixing them. nothing. in fact, it's only going to screw things up even more.

 

buddy.

[JuanGuzman]

two points:

1) quit using such a tiny font.

 

2) 'the old system was broken buddy' - system? who made this system? the government? doctors? pharmacists? all/none of the above? health insurance and medical care is not a system, and people need to stop defining it as such. that's half the problem right there. the electrical grid, interstate highways, servers interfacing the internet, your digestive tract.....those are systems. health insurance is an independent industry, as are the legion of doctors, nurses, and caregivers. regulations placed upon the insurance industry have made it inefficient, and government promises of free medical care (which has been available for decades) for low-income individuals and families have contributed to the rising costs of medical care. the majority of the cause of rising costs in both health insurance and medical care are due to government action, either directly or indirectly. so what is the logical solution to the problem of affordability? why, even more government involvement, of course.

 

nothing will ever get fixed if people continue to look at entire industries as 'systems' and run to the federal government for a solution in fixing them. nothing. in fact, it's only going to screw things up even more.

 

buddy.

 

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

This is all economics 101

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[B-Man]

Killing the Work Ethic : Changing people’s incentives doesn’t make them freer.

 

There is a point in almost every debate at which the losing party recognizes its predicament and concludes that its only remaining play is to try to corrupt the language. In Texas, pro-choice hero Wendy Davis has begun, risibly, to describe herself as “pro-life”; in his second inaugural, President Obama cloaked the most ambitious statist agenda in a half-century in the patois of limited government and rebellion; and, in my own country of birth, authorities that lock people up for speaking do so in the ostensible name of “respect.”

 

If you can’t beat ’em, confuse ’em.

 

Yesterday morning, Obamacare’s beleaguered partisans got in on the act, too. Responding to a CBO report that suggested the law would encourage more than 2 million people either to seek less work or to leave the labor market completely, progressives picked up their tricornered hats and their muskets, and started to shout incoherently about “freedom.” In a lovely illustration of the truism that progressives really haven’t the slightest clue what it is that conservatives believe, the Huffington Post’s Senior Congressional Reporter, Michael McAuliff, spoke for the cabal, suggesting ludicrously that,

There’s an irony in the GOP complaining that ACA lets people quit jobs. I mean, what’s wrong with freedom?

 

To answer a remarkably misguided rhetorical question, there is nothing at all “wrong with freedom.” As Patrick Henry rightly argued, above all other things “liberty ought to be the direct end” of government, for, after that, everything else is mere indulgence. But there is an awful lot “wrong” with using the word “freedom” where it does not apply.

 

After all, it is one thing for a person to choose not to work and to accept the natural consequences of that decision, but quite another indeed for a person to choose not to work because others are being forced to subsidize his well-being. One can reasonably attest that redistributing wealth to underwrite preferred social outcomes is “necessary” or “virtuous” or “kind” or “practical” — or even, more cynically, that it is the inexorable end product of a democratic system in which one man can vote himself the contents of another’s wallet. But one cannot claim that it makes either man “free” — at least not without twisting the word and the concept that it represents beyond all meaningful recognition.

 

More at the link:

 

 

Medicaid Enrollment Less than a Third of What the White House Claimed

 

Last month, the Obama administration said that 6.3 million Americans have been deemed eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare, but a new report from a health-care consulting firm shows that the enrollments attributable to the law are far short of what the White House has claimed. Avalere Health estimates that only 1.1 million to 1.8 million people nationwide signed up for Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act between October and December, less than one-third of the enrollments for which the White House credited the law.

Edited February 6, 2014 by B-Man

[OCinBuffalo]

How about we have an experiment? I'm going to give you 2 quotes, and any of you tell us which one is more likely to be an election-winning argument today, not 7 years ago.

 

First this:

...and you probably don't believe that people should be chained to an employer to get food, clothing, shelter, education or a cell phone. We're near the point in the U.S. (or maybe we are there) where people can simply choose to work or not and if they choose not, those that do choose to work will fund their needs. That reality is totally un-American and counter to the principles of most Americans.

 

Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it.

Then this:

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

 

If you had to win an election, and were confronted with these 2 positions, which one would you be more confident about going out and saying to people? Feel free to show your work as to which one is better, but, you don't have to.

 

 

Here ends the experiment.

 

See, the Juan's of the world really don't understand how truly F'ed they are on this issue. The CBO comes out with this report, and while on defense(let's be honest, this CBO report puts Ds on the defensive, all BS aside) the Ds start trying to play nuance too? Since 2006, the ENTIRE Democratic party has been running on bumper stickers, not nuance. Their current governing coalition is based on the dumbest/least informed = LIV = young single women, minorities, unskilled union people, handout recipients etc. The people who respond the best to nuance either didn't vote for them, or, did but are so small in # nationally(college professors, trial lawyers, urban IT people) that they don't matter, becaue they get cancelled out electorally with plenty of votes left over.

 

Live by the LIV, die by the LIV. Ask yourself: which argument above will the LIV understand, never mind agree with?

 

Once again, Obamacare "The Liberal Cleaver". That has nice ring to it. I may have to start doing gifs again.

[Delete This Account]

How about we have an experiment? I'm going to give you 2 quotes, and any of you tell us which one is more likely to be an election-winning argument today, not 7 years ago.

 

First this:

 

Then this:

 

 

If you had to win an election, and were confronted with these 2 positions, which one would you be more confident about going out and saying to people? Feel free to show your work as to which one is better, but, you don't have to.

 

 

Here ends the experiment.

 

See, the Juan's of the world really don't understand how truly F'ed they are on this issue. The CBO comes out with this report, and while on defense(let's be honest, this CBO report puts Ds on the defensive, all BS aside) the Ds start trying to play nuance too? Since 2006, the ENTIRE Democratic party has been running on bumper stickers, not nuance. Their current governing coalition is based on the dumbest/least informed = LIV = young single women, minorities, unskilled union people, handout recipients etc. The people who respond the best to nuance either didn't vote for them, or, did but are so small in # nationally(college professors, trial lawyers, urban IT people) that they don't matter, becaue they get cancelled out electorally with plenty of votes left over.

 

Live by the LIV, die by the LIV. Ask yourself: which argument above will the LIV understand, never mind agree with?

 

Once again, Obamacare "The Liberal Cleaver". That has nice ring to it. I may have to start doing gifs again.

 

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

 

The new face of the Democrat party:

 

 

really. that's what's considered a response in these parts. good one?

some might suggest that discussion is a lost art. yup.

 

juw

 

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

[OCinBuffalo]

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

You're saying this at 3:51 am EST? Let's see what the rest of the day brings, shall we?

 

Look, I have to be up at this time due to work.

 

What the hell is your excuse?

Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

really. that's what's considered a response in these parts. good one?

some might suggest that discussion is a lost art. yup.

 

juw

 

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

[OCinBuffalo]

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

Well, now it's 8:38 am, how about we see where the experiment is at 2pm?

 

And, I'm not hanging up on you, far from it: I've presented you with a choice. You have the free will to try and make the case that the Juan's argument is an election winner, and that keepthefaith's is not. Go ahead and try. I guarantee I will listen.

 

(I make no promises about laughing...at you, and who knows, perhaps with you? Maybe there's some bridog insight that I may have missed? It's entirely possible: remember my years of JA impersonation are now over. I'm free to be funny once again, and less pedantic...unless it's required. )

[GG]

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

This is all economics 101

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

 

Oh goodie, the administrative cost meme. Are you comparing those costs on the same basis, or are you just taking what the Medicare & Medicaid trustees say the administrative costs are based on their definition of accounting? There's also a huge difference between a highly regulated market, which healthcare today is, and a government run market, which is where healthcare is heading.

 

But, it's always a neat day here when Juan does his drive by's.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh goodie, the administrative cost meme. Are you comparing those costs on the same basis, or are you just taking what the Medicare & Medicaid trustees say the administrative costs are based on their definition of accounting? There's also a huge difference between a highly regulated market, which healthcare today is, and a government run market, which is where healthcare is heading.

 

But, it's always a neat day here when Juan does his drive by's.

I suppose we an put GG down for "this is an election losing argument".

[birdog1960]

Well, now it's 8:38 am, how about we see where the experiment is at 2pm?

 

And, I'm not hanging up on you, far from it: I've presented you with a choice. You have the free will to try and make the case that the Juan's argument is an election winner, and that keepthefaith's is not. Go ahead and try. I guarantee I will listen.

 

(I make no promises about laughing...at you, and who knows, perhaps with you? Maybe there's some bridog insight that I may have missed? It's entirely possible: remember my years of JA impersonation are now over. I'm free to be funny once again, and less pedantic...unless it's required. )

oh goody! is this like a ppp showdown? where someone with polar opposite political viewpoints from me judges a political argument that i'm involved in?

 

 

and i'm still attempting to analyze the psychopathology involved in arguing under multiple aliases on an anonymous political opinion board. so far i've only concluded that it appears to be common but is definitely pathologic.

Edited February 6, 2014 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

oh goody! is this like a ppp showdown? where someone with polar opposite political viewpoints from me judges a political argument that i'm involved in?

I'm not judging you: I am giving you the opportunity to prove what you are saying is true. To any of us. Here you have a chance to convince us that Guzman's argument is a election winning argument, and, to do it objectively.

 

Objectively, that's the key word here: extricate yourself, and tell us which argument you think is a election winning argument. That's all this is. No mantra, just tell us which one you think is a winner, in this political enviornment, today.

 

 

Speaking of objectively, how about we hear from the CBO horse's mouth:

http://www.realclear...le_to_work.html

 

The last 24 hours of Dimocratic spin, has ranged from the slightly absurd, to the downright bizarre. In the end, the CBO director has come out and told us, objectively, what's what. There is no rational next step for Democrats here. Best to say nothing and pray for something bad to happen at the Olympics.

 

For Dimocrats: the next step is to attack Ryan(as if Ryan doesn't have more credibility on these issues in his pinky, than then entire left combined), and then attack the CBO director.

 

Waste of time. The man has told you: Obamacare disincentivizes work. You gain nothing by keeping this in the news, but, you're goint to anyway, because you can't admit you are wrong. Sheer stupidity. I look at RCP this morning, and what do I see? Dimocrats insisting on keeping this in the news...2 day later. If they had just shut up, a dry story like CBO ends yesterday. Meanwhile there's hardly anyone talking about this on the R side of things. It's almost like: they know the idiots are going to do their job for them, and keep this in the news.

 

Democrats know: continually being forced back onto Obamacare = lose in 2014. Dimocrats want to sit there and fight the losing battle.

 

Which one are you birdog?

Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

 

And there you have it; a devout progressive criticizing people for lacking original thought...by parroting a far left meme that is bereft of original thought.

 

Absolutely precious.

Edited February 6, 2014 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

 

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

[B-Man]

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

 

He just knows it to be true.............evryone says so..............lol

[birdog1960]

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

it's my opinion. isn't nearly everthing posted here opinion? even if it's an opinion originally generated and disseminated by the far right wing propaganda machine....