7 ms·

What's your point in your false equivalency? Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamac

What's your point in your false equivalency? Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamacare isn't worth it? Was that all "talk"? I'm seriously trying to understand your "equivalency" position. Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? Right now it seems that the only thing they've done is to actually limit universal health care, so we have less than 100% coverage. Are the two parties the same on health care? Right now I don't trust anybody that says the two parties are the same, since they are clearly very, very different. In fact, it seems the only people that say that are Republicans that don't have a better argument? Are you a Republican? Or maybe you fall under the auspices of a white-male demographic that bias towards conservatism?

beemanners 10y ago
20M on Obamacare != 20M who have health insurance because of Obamacare. Stop parroting CNN talking points and do your own research.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mozumder 10y ago
  Since you are a researcher, where is your research published? I would like to see your peer-reviewed research that you did to come up with your data.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I don't find that a very enlightening point, but I will offer some real numbers. The widely cited 20 million is from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan organization, not CNN, as you state [1]. And even if you chose to reject that, the number of health insurance policies purchased on exchanges in 2016 was 12.7 million and is expected to top 13 million this year, not an insignificant amount and not including the "ripple effect" that would create in the insurance market. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
  - valuearb 10y ago
    Obamacare made private medical insurance illegal, so millions of self employed lost coverage from that. The exchange policies have increased in cost so rapidly they are unaffordable for anyone not getting a massive subsidies. Many self employed are now without insurance because of that.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-open-enrollment/ https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-o... As to costs, those vary widely by state. This recent article in the NYTimes was a fairly good overview of how policy decisions can affect the premiums: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-states-coaxed-the-health-law-to-success-or-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-state...
      - valuearb 10y ago
        Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.
        stinkytaco 10y ago
        > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
valuearb 10y ago
I don't believe 20M more people have medical coverage because of Obamacare, that's a lagging indicator that's likely dead wrong. If you are self employed it made medical insurance unaffordable. Before Obamacare I paid $400 a month for a $5k deductible plan for my family. Post Obamacare I paid $1,100/month, then $1,400/month and quit when it went to $1,800 a month. So my family has no long term medical insurance and no one is counting our dropping medical insurance in any statistic.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  About 13 million fewer people are without insurance than before ACA, that's a 1.3% decrease in the amount of uninsured people [1]. ACA marketplaces will insure about 13.1 million people in 2017 and insured 12.9 million in 2016. The rate of private insurance increased 1.2% from 2014 to 2015 and the rate of public insurance .6%. Now, how much of this is due to ACA and how much is due to other factors is really impossible to separate. Almost anything would be pure speculation. Interestingly, premiums on the exchanges are climbing slower than private insurance [2]. Health insurance premiums had been rising for years, probably due to several issues: aging population, rising costs of equipment and pharmaceuticals, administrative overhead, tort, etc, etc. Additionally, ACA added some costs in the inclusion of pre-existing conditions. I don't disagree that something has to be done, but getting rid of ACA is not going to be a panacea. [1]:https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-25... [2]:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-premiums-20160919-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-premiums-201...
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    Insured and insured in a meaningful manner are totally different things. It's like measuring productivity in lines of code. Once a metric becomes a target it's meaningless as a metric.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    Insured and insured in a meaningful manner are totally different things. It's like measuring productivity in lines of code. Once a metric becomes a target it's meaningless as a metric.
pdkl95 10y ago
> Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? "Obamacare" (formerly known as "Romneycare") is a republican healthcare plan. One of the big reasons we claim that our two major parties are approximately equivalent is the Democrats' habit of passing Republican policies. > since they are clearly very, very different There are differences between R & D that are significant, but they are minor compared to all the ways they are the same. You can be 100% sure that politicians will side with their establishment, monied donors. > Are the two parties the same on health care? No, but they're both bad. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve healthcare, but neither are the Democrats. Did you know Feinstein said a few days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer? > it seems the only people that say that are Republicans Assuming things like that only makes you sound partisan or uninformed. I'm not a Republican, so now you have a counterexample.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  > No, but they're both bad. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve healthcare, but neither are the Democrats. Did you know Feinstein said a few days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer? I don't know Feinstein's motivations, nor am I knowledgeable about the internal politics of the Democratic Party, but do you think her rejection of single payer has more to do with politics than with actual belief? The "public option" was realistically the closest America ever came to a single payer system, and that proposal was largely sunk by Republicans in Congress, though some Democrats in right-leaning states also rejected it. Are Democrats just trying to compromise in a right-leaning political climate, or are they truly the same?
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Using Feinstein as a representative of a typical politician is like using McVeigh as an example of the typical veteran. The only people who deserve to be compared to here are the people who voted for her.
jessaustin 10y ago
Yeah I'm such a racist conservative that I voted in the primary for Bernie, and certainly would have voted for him again in the general if DNC hadn't been in the tank for Mrs. Superpredator, because he had the most credible argument for something, anything different. Congratulations on electing Trump instead! Congratulations, too, on hypnotizing yourself into really believing that there's no one to your own left. Perhaps you can't imagine it, but I really don't care about purported "differences" between Ds and Rs. It's clear that both of those gangs are interested in exploring only a tiny portion of the universe of political possibility. (So far, that seems to be the portion that maximizes public payouts to big political donors!) I have voted and will vote for any departure from that tiny area, in any direction whatsoever. If Vladimir Lenin and David Hume both rose from the grave and ran on a ticket together, I would vote for that. Unlike everyone who votes every election for the status quo (NB: that's you!), I am not a conservative.
- mozumder 10y ago
  I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties? Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference? Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal". Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bernie-bro. Bernie-bros are generally racist, as he supports a largely xenophobic nativist trade policy. There's a reason Bernie's base is largely white. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same. In the end, you should never trust anyone that claims the two parties are equal. Those people have other problems they need to work out first. Maybe they just don't want 20 million Americans to have health care?
  - eecc 10y ago
    Wo-hoo... what's this name calling! Are you seriously accusing the latest American spin to socialism as xenophobic racists?! You serious? So let's hear from you, what are we supposed to do? Respectfully defer to the pundits endlessly quibbling about the differences between D and R? That is also part of the problem, in case you hadn't noticed...

beemanners 10y ago

20M on Obamacare != 20M who have health insurance because of Obamacare. Stop parroting CNN talking points and do your own research.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mozumder 10y ago
Since you are a researcher, where is your research published? I would like to see your peer-reviewed research that you did to come up with your data.
stinkytaco 10y ago
I don't find that a very enlightening point, but I will offer some real numbers. The widely cited 20 million is from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan organization, not CNN, as you state [1]. And even if you chose to reject that, the number of health insurance policies purchased on exchanges in 2016 was 12.7 million and is expected to top 13 million this year, not an insignificant amount and not including the "ripple effect" that would create in the insurance market. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
- valuearb 10y ago
  Obamacare made private medical insurance illegal, so millions of self employed lost coverage from that. The exchange policies have increased in cost so rapidly they are unaffordable for anyone not getting a massive subsidies. Many self employed are now without insurance because of that.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-open-enrollment/ https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-o... As to costs, those vary widely by state. This recent article in the NYTimes was a fairly good overview of how policy decisions can affect the premiums: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-states-coaxed-the-health-law-to-success-or-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-state...
    - valuearb 10y ago
      Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.
      - stinkytaco 10y ago
        > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?

valuearb 10y ago

I don't believe 20M more people have medical coverage because of Obamacare, that's a lagging indicator that's likely dead wrong. If you are self employed it made medical insurance unaffordable. Before Obamacare I paid $400 a month for a $5k deductible plan for my family. Post Obamacare I paid $1,100/month, then $1,400/month and quit when it went to $1,800 a month. So my family has no long term medical insurance and no one is counting our dropping medical insurance in any statistic.

stinkytaco 10y ago
About 13 million fewer people are without insurance than before ACA, that's a 1.3% decrease in the amount of uninsured people [1]. ACA marketplaces will insure about 13.1 million people in 2017 and insured 12.9 million in 2016. The rate of private insurance increased 1.2% from 2014 to 2015 and the rate of public insurance .6%. Now, how much of this is due to ACA and how much is due to other factors is really impossible to separate. Almost anything would be pure speculation. Interestingly, premiums on the exchanges are climbing slower than private insurance [2]. Health insurance premiums had been rising for years, probably due to several issues: aging population, rising costs of equipment and pharmaceuticals, administrative overhead, tort, etc, etc. Additionally, ACA added some costs in the inclusion of pre-existing conditions. I don't disagree that something has to be done, but getting rid of ACA is not going to be a panacea. [1]:https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-25... [2]:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-premiums-20160919-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-premiums-201...
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Insured and insured in a meaningful manner are totally different things. It's like measuring productivity in lines of code. Once a metric becomes a target it's meaningless as a metric.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Insured and insured in a meaningful manner are totally different things. It's like measuring productivity in lines of code. Once a metric becomes a target it's meaningless as a metric.

pdkl95 10y ago

> Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? "Obamacare" (formerly known as "Romneycare") is a republican healthcare plan. One of the big reasons we claim that our two major parties are approximately equivalent is the Democrats' habit of passing Republican policies. > since they are clearly very, very different There are differences between R & D that are significant, but they are minor compared to all the ways they are the same. You can be 100% sure that politicians will side with their establishment, monied donors. > Are the two parties the same on health care? No, but they're both bad. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve healthcare, but neither are the Democrats. Did you know Feinstein said a few days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer? > it seems the only people that say that are Republicans Assuming things like that only makes you sound partisan or uninformed. I'm not a Republican, so now you have a counterexample.

stinkytaco 10y ago
> No, but they're both bad. Yes, Republicans are not going to improve healthcare, but neither are the Democrats. Did you know Feinstein said a few days ago in a town hall that she has no intention to support single-payer? I don't know Feinstein's motivations, nor am I knowledgeable about the internal politics of the Democratic Party, but do you think her rejection of single payer has more to do with politics than with actual belief? The "public option" was realistically the closest America ever came to a single payer system, and that proposal was largely sunk by Republicans in Congress, though some Democrats in right-leaning states also rejected it. Are Democrats just trying to compromise in a right-leaning political climate, or are they truly the same?
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Using Feinstein as a representative of a typical politician is like using McVeigh as an example of the typical veteran. The only people who deserve to be compared to here are the people who voted for her.

jessaustin 10y ago

Yeah I'm such a racist conservative that I voted in the primary for Bernie, and certainly would have voted for him again in the general if DNC hadn't been in the tank for Mrs. Superpredator, because he had the most credible argument for something, anything different. Congratulations on electing Trump instead! Congratulations, too, on hypnotizing yourself into really believing that there's no one to your own left. Perhaps you can't imagine it, but I really don't care about purported "differences" between Ds and Rs. It's clear that both of those gangs are interested in exploring only a tiny portion of the universe of political possibility. (So far, that seems to be the portion that maximizes public payouts to big political donors!) I have voted and will vote for any departure from that tiny area, in any direction whatsoever. If Vladimir Lenin and David Hume both rose from the grave and ran on a ticket together, I would vote for that. Unlike everyone who votes every election for the status quo (NB: that's you!), I am not a conservative.

mozumder 10y ago
I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties? Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference? Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal". Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bernie-bro. Bernie-bros are generally racist, as he supports a largely xenophobic nativist trade policy. There's a reason Bernie's base is largely white. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same. In the end, you should never trust anyone that claims the two parties are equal. Those people have other problems they need to work out first. Maybe they just don't want 20 million Americans to have health care?
- eecc 10y ago
  Wo-hoo... what's this name calling! Are you seriously accusing the latest American spin to socialism as xenophobic racists?! You serious? So let's hear from you, what are we supposed to do? Respectfully defer to the pundits endlessly quibbling about the differences between D and R? That is also part of the problem, in case you hadn't noticed...