Yeah, having a problem with a lowered rate of increase is just weird.
If you’re gaining 5lbs a week because of bad eating habits, and a pill drops that to 1 lb a week, your weight is still going up, but it’s making a difference.
The idea that lowering the rate of increase doesn’t count is goofy as fuck.
It depends on what the specific claim is.
Let’s say that we believe insurance costs will rise by 10% a year. Over 10 years, Obamacare is estimated to cost $400 billion (just using random numbers here to illustrate a point). Then we find out that insurance costs are rising by 8% a year, and Obamacare is now supposed to cost $350 billion over the same ten years.
It is perfectly valid to say that the cost of Obamacare was lowered, while your insurance costs go up each year.
It’s a whole lot easier to make competition work for cosmetic procedures. Here’s an analogy. If I wanted to get 18 inch wheels installed on my car, I could research reputable shops, get quotes, and go with the best deal. If the power steering suddenly stops working, well, then I’m going to wrestle the car to the nearest mechanic and do whatever they recommend, provided it seems vaguely reasonable.
You think I was the only person whose rates went? You think I was the only person who had their hours cut because of this? Really? We’ve had this discussion on this very board and it was filled with people who had their rates go up.
This harmed a lot of people and you see the results in the last 2 elections. Both houses flipped dramatically despite what you obviously consider a successful political agenda. We’re 9 trillion further in debt and we have little to show for it.
Too bad you lost hours, but that is not the trend. Here is hours worked per week from 2007 - 2014. Last year we were at 24.5, one tenth of an hour below 2007. There was a big dip, 2007 - 2009, thanks to Mr. Bush’s recession. Obamacare - not so much.
Think it is just setting in? Here is the data from last year to April 2015 by month. Pretty stable.
Maybe your boss is blaming ACA for his own lack of business success. But it is pretty clear that the economic disaster that the Republicans predicted never happened. We got job growth, we got economic growth, we got a market limited by Europe.
Why were people against it? The big lie. If McConnell and Boehner had an ethical bone in their bodies they’d apologize for being wrong. Not going to happen.
So you don’t believe that the cost of Obamacare has gone down from initial estimates because you and many other Americans pay more for health insurance than they did previously. In effect, you’re looking at your paycheck and concluding that the Congressional Budget Office is lying.
Well, there’s no use arguing with that logic.
To paraphrase Scalia, this is just argle bargle. Pure applesauce.
First, I assume by “last two elections” you mean “last two midterm elections,” since, of course, 2012 was a presidential campaign fought largely on the issue of Obamacare and, as you might recall, Obama won. Increased his Senate majority, too.
The only election that may have turned on Obamacare’s actual effects (rather than Obamacare as a political issue) is 2014, since the two prior elections happened after Obamacare was passed but before any of its major provisions went into effect. So none of the effects of 2010 and 2012 could possibly act as evidence of people being “harmed” by the law.
Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur, since Obamacare, of course, lowers the deficit.
I also question your use of the word “further.” Debt held by the public is currently $13 trillion. A lot, to be sure. But the only time frame from which we might have been $9 trillion “further” in debt is 1993 or so (when the debt held by the public was about $4 trillion). Even if you look at total outstanding debt, $9 trillion dollars takes you all the way back to 2006. Before that Obama guy was even in office.
Not true - we got two wars and a massive recession for it.
So you think Obama’s spending caused the recession? That seems unfair to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Accusing another poster of lying is against the rules of Great Debates, rsa. Warning issued and don’t do it again.
The problem is that the market “works” because of the large numbers of people saying “no thanks, that’s too expensive”. Great idea for boob jobs and Lasik, not so great for diabetes, blocked arteries, and mammograms.
It’s also true that elective procedures, since they don’t fall under insurance, don’t require the providers to deal with a complex variety of insurers, they just bill the customer. Administrative costs drop like a rock, because you don’t have to decide who is paying, negotiate, and send bill after bill waiting for a payment because two parties are arguing over who is responsible.
I agree.
You were talking to Magiver, right?
MA has had exchanges for over 10 years. There has been no significant price competition among insurers here. Admittedly, there are other forms of competition outside of price, but it is not clear if these are well understood.
I have no idea … but 16.53% yield seems high
I’m not sure what the point of this is, but Pozen had a one time dividend Dec 31, 2013.
Yield since then: 0%.
I used to pay $750/month for health insurance, and now, thanks to Obamacare, I pay $325/month for health insurance. And I have better coverage.
I’m not eligible for subsidies, and I pay the highest marginal rate on my income tax (although my ding on the unearned income surtax is pretty small). So, overall, I came out ahead, and my personal situation is apparently enough to constitute an argument.