Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 149
  1. #121
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Quoting you back, in context, what do you believe the point to be? I am (as I have been doing in most of these ACA debates) establishing that this is the new reality, whereas E4M is talking about pushing off the problem with no underlying reason to. Delaying the IM isn't going to make young people sign up faster, so that's not a solution to the problem of getting more people signed up (if indeed, her goal was to make ACA a success).
    Okay, as usual you construct responses machine gun style, which makes answering them cogently and with any sort of depth problematic, but I'm going to try to go point by point. In this first paragraph, I see a question and two delcaratory statements, so in that order:

    1.) I think E4M's point was the ACA is unworkable. So is mine. It directly impacts nearly 18%, according to some reports, of our GNP, and is designed to provide health care insurance as a means of redistributing the wealth represented by that 18% or 16% or whatever it actually is. Let's be magnanimous and call it 10% of GDP for 2012, which would make it $1,568,480,000,000, through all the various aspects of the law designed to move revenues from one groups benefit package to another's; i.e., "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Our federal government (and indeed all forms of government in this country, state, county, city) have for over 225 years now been dedicated to protecting the private property of its citizens, and even of it's non-citizens living here. This was, in fact, about 90% of the reason for the break with England in the first place! Look, I get basic tax theory. Governments don't run on air, especially not ones that govern 318 million people. I can even understand a slight progressive tilt in the tax tables (although not to anything like the degree there is today!) A little official charity helps project the image of a compassionate government, and an image like that makes paying taxes a bit less painful, which in turn helps in collecting them without gun fire. But when we get to $1.568 TRILLION in government takings just to give it to a special interest group of citizens (that under the ACA is going to be about 65% of the population!), even if they could really use the extra cash subsidies and tax revenues and medical coverage, then that, in my humble opinion, is WAY beyond the pale, and only a socialist at heart would be for anything like that.

    2.) As to "the new reality", well, that depends. Are we talking about the new reality of the ACA as written, passed, and signed into law? Are we talking about the ACA after Obama made his first unilateral change to the law? His second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, or fourteenth change? Or is this "new reality to remain literally undefined untill Obama finishes passing it and making it the "law"? And let's not even get into how what Obama is doing has never been done by any president, ever, and may very well be unconstitutional when the dust settles.

    3.) I agree. Delaying the IM will not get the young to sign up faster. Nothing it going to get 18-29 year olds to sign up faster. Why? Because it makes no economic sense for 18-28 year olds, and especially for those who can be put on their parents policy. But what happens when a member of this group gets added to their parents policy? Two things: it raises the cost of the parents policy slightly, and it increases the size of the household for purposes of determining the size of the taxpayer subsidy that household receives, in effect, another re-distribution of wealth.

    Now, what about those 18-29 year olds that will not be placed on their parents policies? They'll have to buy insurance on the exchanges or pay the fine. And why would they want to pay the fine instead of the premium? Because according to a recent study it's not going to make any sense for this group to buy insurance until at least 2016, and maybe not even then.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course they would pay more! The insurance everyone is getting is a lot better than they had before -- there's no actual free lunch here!
    Your confused. The CBO figure was for the extra $621 billion spent on medical care delivered, not the cost of health care insurance additional to it. People will be using medical services more, because under the ACA the government is subsidizing the cost for everyone within 400% of the federal poverty line. Basic economics applies to health care just like it does to tennis shoes. When costs go down, demand goes up. But with the ACA costs aren't really going down. As you say, there's no free lunch. In fact, that "lunch" is going to cost $612 billion more over the next 9 years, because those that have, and those that don't need, are going to be paying for those that don't have and need, and this latter group is going to be going to the doctor much more often than if it's costs were coming out of their own pockets.

    It's the old story, JJ, when it's your dime, you're willing to spend the time shopping before you buy. When it's not your dime, your time is all you care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The death spiral may not happen due to several reason, but the pertinent one here is the individual mandate. So whether the young want to or not is largely irrelevant because it is their legal responsibility to pay for insurance that they've thus far been getting for free. The first fine is a nudge, and then it gets more expensive until such a point that it makes more sense to get insurance than not.
    But will the young really have any financial incentive to pay premiums instead of penalties? According to this Congressional Research Service paper; p. 3:
    "The penalty for noncompliance cannot exceed the national average premium for bronze-level -qualified health plans offered through exchanges(for the revevant family size)."

    and:
    "Any penalty...must be included in their return for the taxable year."

    So, the penalty, even after 2016 could be very close or even slightly less than paying premiums, and even if it slightly more, an 18-34 year old could still beat the system by making monthly payments to himself, earning interest on the accrual, keeping the gain, and paying the lump sum penalty at the end of each year to the IRS. Even better, an 18-34 year old sharpie could file to make monthly payments on last year's tax bill, which includes their penalty, and simply find an investment that pays them more each month than the IRS charges in interest for making monthly payments, realizing a net gain each and every month! With how idiotic federal programs are, I wouldn't doubt that in 2016 a million or more people will be using federal bonds and notes as their investment to off set the interest the IRS charges them for paying monthly, and still make money on the deal!!

    There is also this: if the young continue to avoid the exchanges, preferring to pay the penalty, that in itself will drive the price of policies up. As the price of the exchange policies go up, the increasing penalty becomes, at least potentially, relatively less, and the incentive to join the program less in lock step. So there may never be a point when, given the penalties written into the law, the young find it economically feasible to join the program! And then what?

    The point here is, this is a dumb program, founded on a liberal utopian dream that is not based on anything like sound economic and fiscal principles. It's not just that it won't work; it can't work. And were it not for the fact it's going to cause a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain before it spirals into economic oblivion, I wouldn't say a word against it. I mean, I'm set myself. I don't have to worry about this monstrosity until at least the end of 2014, and I'm betting by then it'll all be over but the liberal spin, and spin dont' pay the bills. So except for the pain of others I'd have on my conscience, I'd just nod along with Democrats while I watched them go down the toilet, never again to be seen in American politics any where near the levers of national power.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    As for the Pew Poll, the actual young people quoted in your article ("Among young people, whose participation is seen as crucial for the exchanges to work, just 56% realize there's a mandate to be insured or face a fine."), the Pew results quoted were that 56% of 18-29' year olds were not aware that they needed to be covered. But behind those numbers are the 18-26 year olds who may or may not know that they can now be covered by their parents' insurance, if any. So it's a little hard to draw any real conclusions regarding why they're not buying into it.
    I can draw two: They've historically been the demographic that is most in favor of the ACA in the abstract, and now we find they don't even know enough about it in reality to know it applies to them. It also tells me the ACA's drop in popularity in the last two months within this demographic must have something to do with finding out how it works, and actually having to deal with it. It's one thing to answer a pollster roaming campus asking:

    Pollster: Are you in favor of the ACA?

    Student: Is that Obama's new health care law ?

    Possster: Sure is!

    Student: Yeah, I'm all for that!

    and quite another to find out you have to start paying into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The website is much better than it was, and will only get better - it's just software, it can be fixed.
    So instead of sacrificing health care for MILLIONS of Americans who used to have it, because they went out and shopped for it and paid for it on their own, and were, for the vast majority of them, perfectly happy with it, why on earth didn't Obama simply suspend the entire law until the website was fully tested and ready to go? As it is Obama is not only willing to put millions of Americans at risk of losing their insurance for extended periods of time (perhaps even two years or more!), but he's threatening them with identiy theft, fraud, and a potnetial spike in governmental corruption the likes of which this country has never even dreamed about, let alone experienced.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There have been successful exchanges (e.g. NY, CA) or even MA's, which ACA is modeled upon. So failure is not a certainty if the will is there to make it work.
    Jim, the idea that California's exchange is working is a talking point, not a reality. I know, I know, Covered California has been called "the bright spot" in the otherwise woefully dark ACA roll out, and you have to do some digging to find out what the reality really is. I've already done that, and it took me a couple of hours of reserch to make sure I was getting the facts, because Covered California is not anxious to share across the board. It's easy to get what they think of as a positive, but not the rest, and believe me, the rest is not good.

    I'll just say this from memory, and if you challenge me on it, I'll not refer to it again in this debate (because I'm not doing another two hours to document my earlier research). Full disclaimer, I live in California, so I've done more than browse the pundits:

    From Oct. 1 to Sept. 1 Covered California "signed up" (and recall that a "sign up" refers only to someone having shopped the policies offered on the exchange, and picked one; not that they've paid; not that they actually have any insurance, because Covered California is not set up to accept premium payments and forward them to insurers, nor are they set up to verify subsidies and apply them. Furthermore, those new sign ups for Medicaid are not really part of the ACA's economics, and so I'm just ignoring them in what follows) about 32,000. In the first three weeks of Sept. they claimed to have doubled that figure, so let's err on the side of caution and say that for Sept. the figure was 100,000. And let's say that they level out at about double that, or 200,000 per month. In California there have already been over one million cancellation letters sent, so on Jan. 1 one million Californians, some of them receiving cancer treatments, treatment for diabetes, and other degenerative diseases, worth millions that used to be covered by policies they paid for themselves, are now gone unless they can get coverage through Covered California. At a rate of 200,000 a month it will take a minimum of five months just to re-insure all those Californians who used to have insurance, but thanks to Obama's "vision", now are out in the cold. But it's not just those who've had their policies cancelled that will be using the exchange for those five months, and so that period could easily stretch into a year...or more!

    And all this for what? There are pretty relialbe estimates that say when this is all finished, and the ACA is running at full capacity in 2015 or 16, there will still be about 30 million uninsured people in America!! So, who is going to try and tell me that this is all about "bending the cost of medical care down" (when the CBO states emphatically it will most likely go up!), and getting the uninsured insurance, when in fact it's estimated it will only increase the number of insured in this country by a measley 3%? This is a scam to redistribute money, perpetrated under the guise of health care reform.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    All laws need tweaking, especially one so far reaching.
    And you call 14 different unilateral adjustments by the president "tweaking"? Well, that's your perogative. I call it something else. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court calls it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I think if you're going to criticize something then you should also produce alternatives IMHO - and that's something that is missing from many of these ACA 'debates'.
    It's "missing" because no one ever listens to the alternatives that Republicans in the House have been offering for over three years now. The Republican alternatives have come in a steady stream since before the ACA passed Congress! At that dog and pony show the president called to supposedly "hear alternatives", Republican representatives and senators put forward alternative after alternative, and not one was ever even considered seriously, let alone incorporated into the bill.

    So please, don't burden me with your ignorance as to these alternatives. Frankly, if you don't know what they are by now, you don't know enough about the five year long debate to be taking part in it.

    Sorry, but I haven't proof read this post. It simply took too long to produce to spend the extra time proofing it. I hope it's okay.

  2. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  3. #122
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It absolutely is. You can pay an ER bill by the month just as easily as you can pay an insurance premium bill by the month.
    Only difference is, you aren't guaranteed to have an ER bill to begin with.
    So the hospital is just forced to give you an installment loan? I am use providers would take a monthly payment now if people would send it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why do you think you have to fork over 10K all at one time?
    Well I don't get my car after repair until after the bill for repair is paid.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't understand this comment.
    OK maybe you mean something by tort reform other than limiting awards. Arbitrary award limiting is unconstitutional. If the jury feels that a plaintiff was injured a million dollars they they should get a million dollars. We have the right to trial by jury in civil cases too. The seventh amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Charity hospitals.
    Charity Hospitals? Sure if there is some charity hospital that will treat people who can't pay. Now we force all hospitals to give service for free. Should we force restaurants to feed the starving who can't pay too?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think lowering the requirement to become a Dr is the same thing as lowering the end care. There is no reason that it should take 12 years to become a Dr, especially as the industry becomes more and more specialized. WWII was a great example of how they were able to churn out qualified surgeons and DR without the extended time paying crazy tuition and starting off a buisness in massive debt.
    (ask if you would like to learn more)
    I really don't know if they could shorten the time or not.

  4. #123
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    It absolutely is. You can pay an ER bill by the month just as easily as you can pay an insurance premium bill by the month.
    Only difference is, you aren't guaranteed to have an ER bill to begin with.
    Here's something that needs airing in this debate. I found an article, Healthcare blame game: What hospitals charge vs. what they get paid, by a Dr. Johnathan Kaplan, in which he claims:

    "In an effort to survive the healthcare system, hospitals determine how much it costs them to treat a patient with insurance. They then multiply that cost by a factor of two, three or whatever number they think will help bring in enough money to help cover the costs of treating patients who don't have any insurance.

    Hospitals attempt to make more money on patients who have insurance in an effort to treat the uninsured, which is why you don't see people dying in the streets. And this explains why a hospital charges more than what you'd expect for services because they're essentially raising the money from patients with insurance to cover the costs, or cost-shifting, to patients with no form of payment."

    So apparently it was the 85% of Americans who had insurance before Obamacare who were paying for not only the hospitals treating the uninsured who couldn't afford to pay, but were also reimbursing the hospitals for what the Federal government was shorting them on the expense of treating Medicare/Medicaid patients. Now, since under Obamacare supposedly 40 million Americans (13%) who didn't have insurance will be buying it there will be fewer people using hospitals who aren't insured, which is good, but at the same time Obamacare cuts Medicare funding substantially (to supposedly keep Obamacare deficit neutral, which it doesn't do!), and provides premium subsidies for all households with income less than 400% of the federal poverty line, which, for 2013 amounts to $45,960 for a single person, and $78,120 for a family of three.

    Now according to the census data "quick facts", the average number of households between 2008-2012 was 115,226,802 that averaged 2.61 persons per household, which had a median income of $53,046. That means there are over, well over 150,370,976 Americans, or about half the nation, who will have their heath insurance premiums subsidized to some extent by the other half. So the group not paying their way in full before Obamacare is fully implemented gets expanded 400%, and the group paying their way in full before Obamacare is fully implemented gets reduced by 42%.

    And according to the promoters of this program it is "deficit neutral", "doesn't raise taxes", and "bends the cost curve down" for health insurance. And if you believe that, I've got a really neat bridge in New York for sale; maybe you'd like to tender an offer?

    Is there ANYBODY who can frost glass with their breath who can't see this program for the huge, I mean really ginormous income redistribution scam that it is?

  5. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Okay, as usual you construct responses machine gun style, which makes answering them cogently and with any sort of depth problematic, but I'm going to try to go point by point.
    That may well be true but if you have multiple points that need being addressed then it's a little disingenuous to complain when they are, and then machine gunning back makes you part of the problem too, thus defeating the original reason why you brought this up in the first place. Not to mention that you are now contributing and exacerbating the problem you originally complained about!

    But let's dispense with the insults and since your central point is true - threads can get out of hand. Let's fix the problem by addressing the main topic, that of young people being ACA's Achilles Heel.

    JJ:Quoting you back, in context, what do you believe the point to be? I am (as I have been doing in most of these ACA debates) establishing that this is the new reality, whereas E4M is talking about pushing off the problem with no underlying reason to. Delaying the IM isn't going to make young people sign up faster, so that's not a solution to the problem of getting more people signed up (if indeed, her goal was to make ACA a success).

    1.) I think E4M's point was the ACA is unworkable. So is mine.
    This is understood but to make things worse by delaying the mandate just exacerbates the problem that she was claiming to be a failure to begin with. My point is that if the young are so critical and if they're not signing up in the numbers required, what is the point of suggesting a further delay? To accelerate its failure?

    It directly impacts nearly 18%, according to some reports, of our GNP, and is designed to provide health care insurance as a means of redistributing the wealth represented by that 18% or 16% or whatever it actually is. Let's be magnanimous and call it 10% of GDP for 2012, which would make it $1,568,480,000,000, through all the various aspects of the law designed to move revenues from one groups benefit package to another's; i.e., "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Our federal government (and indeed all forms of government in this country, state, county, city) have for over 225 years now been dedicated to protecting the private property of its citizens, and even of it's non-citizens living here. This was, in fact, about 90% of the reason for the break with England in the first place! Look, I get basic tax theory. Governments don't run on air, especially not ones that govern 318 million people. I can even understand a slight progressive tilt in the tax tables (although not to anything like the degree there is today!) A little official charity helps project the image of a compassionate government, and an image like that makes paying taxes a bit less painful, which in turn helps in collecting them without gun fire. But when we get to $1.568 TRILLION in government takings just to give it to a special interest group of citizens (that under the ACA is going to be about 65% of the population!), even if they could really use the extra cash subsidies and tax revenues and medical coverage, then that, in my humble opinion, is WAY beyond the pale, and only a socialist at heart would be for anything like that.
    This is really a separate reason as to why ACA is not workable but a diversion from where we started -- about the young not signing up. I'm choosing to ignore this as being irrelevant to the thread.


    2.) As to "the new reality", well, that depends. Are we talking about the new reality of the ACA as written, passed, and signed into law? Are we talking about the ACA after Obama made his first unilateral change to the law? His second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, or fourteenth change? Or is this "new reality to remain literally undefined untill Obama finishes passing it and making it the "law"? And let's not even get into how what Obama is doing has never been done by any president, ever, and may very well be unconstitutional when the dust settles.
    I'm not clear why we need to clarify what reality means but here goes. Reality is the post ACA world, with it being passed legally, with multiple failures to defund it, with the Supreme Court agreeing to its constitutionality, surviving a government shutdown and overcoming the blackmail of shutting down the financial world. Your slight fundamentalist approach that it needs to be done correctly, accurately, efficaciously from the get-go seems a little off-kilter as to how the real world works. Holding 'reality' to be the law as written 7 years ago, is definitely not reality. Is that your point - that this is the baseline reality that you are addressing? If so please declare it as such otherwise, drop this point. It makes no sense and is counter to how actual reality works.

    It is the law and it has been in implementation for several years now. Changes in laws are required since lawmakers are not prophets and problems should be fixed as they come along; and if they're done un-constitutionally then that can be addressed in the future (if indeed they are). Even if it is unconstitutional, it is still reality. So your point here is largely irrelevant.

    The point about reality (vs written law) is that they are different things; and it will always be undefined forever - that's why our system of law is so good: it can respond to errors in the original text - it's NOT a religion with static laws. These laws are man-made and can be and have been changed by man. I don't see your point here - you're complaining that the law is unworkable, then when it is made more workable (as is normal when unforeseen problems surface) then you complain that the original law should have been done correctly in the first place and also complain that the fix means that the ACA should be defunded in its entirety!

    You are missing the forest for the trees in this case and forgetting that the point of the law is to remove bad insurance practices and to ensure that as many people get insured as possible and that those people currently getting free insurance (via the Emergency Room) are paying for it. How we get there was launched with the passing of ACA, and tweaks will be needed to reach the goal. So if you disagree with the approach of ACA (e.g. that young people won't get insurance) then that's one discussion but if you disagree with the goals of ACA (that young people should be allowed cheap insurance, allowed to be on their parents' insurance, and be required to pay for insurance they're already receiving) then let's discuss that. Which is it?


    3.) I agree. Delaying the IM will not get the young to sign up faster. Nothing it going to get 18-29 year olds to sign up faster. Why? Because it makes no economic sense for 18-28 year olds, and especially for those who can be put on their parents policy.
    So if you agree that most of the 18-26 year olds are not relevant then why quote a survey that attempts to make them relevant in the context of the original complaint that they won't sign up? If they don't need to sign up because they will be insured via their parents then that explains why three-quarters of your young that won't sign up. You've answered your own question! How does this impact your (and E4M's) original estimate of ACA being a failure due to the lack of young people if some of those young are already accounted for? Do you now agree that you are off the mark on your original thinking since it seems to be flawed?

    But what happens when a member of this group gets added to their parents policy? Two things: it raises the cost of the parents policy slightly,

    Yes, policies increase when more features are added. This is fact and this is reality. Is your complaint now that ACA isn't a free lunch? Or are you saying that the clause is a bad one and that the pre-ACA reality, where young people wouldn't get insurance at all (or rather not pay for Emergency insurance), is a better idea?

    and it increases the size of the household for purposes of determining the size of the taxpayer subsidy that household receives, in effect, another re-distribution of wealth.
    Now you're complaining it is not a free lunch! Which is it? Do you expect better insurance for free or are you disagreeing that there should be better baseline insurance at all?

    Edit: It occurs to me that you might not have known that 26yr olds are covered under their parents' insurance since your argument in this section are no longer about the lack of numbers but that a redistribution of wealth that is the central issue. Am I correct?

    ------
    Note: I think I've set the discussion on the right track - that you agree with E4M that young people signing up is a fundamental building block of ACA's success and it is currently shown to be a failure and therefore the entire act needs to be repealed because of this. Correct this point if I have mis-stated it but if I am correct in the statement then you'll need to defend it. (In future let's leave e4m out of this, she's been helpful for my points about ACA in other discussions but not here.)

    I have not read the rest of the post so that we can focus on the central point. If you feel there are points need to be raised sooner (and I will too, once we have dealt with the main question at hand) then, of course feel free to do so. But I'm addressing your point that there are too many issues to discuss.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; December 22nd, 2013 at 08:20 AM.

  6. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    So the hospital is just forced to give you an installment loan? I am use providers would take a monthly payment now if people would send it.
    Yes to the first sentence... I don't know what the second one means.

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    Well I don't get my car after repair until after the bill for repair is paid.
    Yes, but they aren't mandated to fix your car.

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    OK maybe you mean something by tort reform other than limiting awards. Arbitrary award limiting is unconstitutional. If the jury feels that a plaintiff was injured a million dollars they they should get a million dollars. We have the right to trial by jury in civil cases too. The seventh amendment.
    Well, the first(Idea)of tort reform I would suggest is changing it to a "no fault" exchange.
    In other words, just like some states have with car insurance. You insure yourself. So you go to the DR, and you are inherently accepting certain risks, if you want those risks insured then you (as the patient) pay for it.
    Instead of the Dr having to purchase blanket coverage. I think this would also cut out all of the inherent insurance costs added into everything, like the insurance costs to cover the scissors by the scissor factory.

    I'm willing to hear how that would violate the 7th amendment.

    I think this would actually work to keep bad doctors out of the field because they would have higher insurance premiums attached to them that the end user would actually have to take into account.

    -Limiting awards-
    I'm not really for limiting awards, but another thing that could be changed (if not the above) is the awards for "pain and suffering". In other words, one would have to prove an actual loss (as it used to be).
    This would cut out awards where a man gets paid a million dollars because his cat was killed, and it hurt his feelings. The cat was not worth a million dollars. (fair market price). This is a shift in scope and reach of the court, not an arbitrary limit to monetary awards.

    ... P.S. on second though I'm not sure limiting awards would be a violation. I mean there are limits on some awards specifically "fair market value" limits. You can sue the gov all you want for confiscating your land, but the cap to the jury is going to be the "fair market value".
    Not fully certain where I fall on that point, but it isn't really what I am calling for.

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    Charity Hospitals? Sure if there is some charity hospital that will treat people who can't pay. Now we force all hospitals to give service for free. Should we force restaurants to feed the starving who can't pay too?
    I don't understand this line from you.
    I mean how does it make any sense in comparison to what I have been arguing and saying?

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    I really don't know if they could shorten the time or not.
    They most certainly can. The time was extended for the reason of creating a shortage or making it hard.
    In the end it is the experience that is important anyway. I mean the greatest heart surgion isn't such because he went to the best school, it is because of the opperations he has actually done.



    Quote Originally Posted by CSTAM
    Now according to the census data "quick facts", the average number of households between 2008-2012 was 115,226,802 that averaged 2.61 persons per household, which had a median income of $53,046. That means there are over, well over 150,370,976 Americans, or about half the nation, who will have their heath insurance premiums subsidized to some extent by the other half. So the group not paying their way in full before Obamacare is fully implemented gets expanded 400%, and the group paying their way in full before Obamacare is fully implemented gets reduced by 42%.
    Wow.. You know results matter, and that is certainly an unworkable end result.
    Well, I guess actual results only matter to some, to others the pie in the sky ideas is all that matters, "meaning well".

    Quote Originally Posted by CSTAM
    Is there ANYBODY who can frost glass with their breath who can't see this program for the huge, I mean really ginormous income redistribution scam that it is?
    There are some really smart people lying or with ideological blinders on, that are deceiving a large group of citizens.
    Why can be left for debate, but my point is that Really smart people can make ridiculous things sound reasonable to those who are untrained in critical thinking or haven't bothered to apply that skill.
    To serve man.

  7. #126
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes to the first sentence...
    How is forced loans or forced labor for no pay not true communism?

    At least forced insurance is just socialism.

    Why should medical professionals be forced to work for free?

  8. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    CSTAM: Is there ANYBODY who can frost glass with their breath who can't see this program for the huge, I mean really ginormous income redistribution scam that it is?

    There are some really smart people lying or with ideological blinders on, that are deceiving a large group of citizens.
    Why can be left for debate, but my point is that Really smart people can make ridiculous things sound reasonable to those who are untrained in critical thinking or haven't bothered to apply that skill.
    I'm not sure where these denials are from. ACA is making insurance more expensive because it's better and it is actual insurance that works. This seems to be largely a strawman argument that relies on everyone's natural inclinations not to pay taxes and ignoring that everyone has a duty to ensure that the society they live in is properly functioning.

    It also ignores that the 'redistribution' is from corporations who have been ripping consumers off for decades into an insurance pool that everyone benefits from. In additional ACA provides limitations on profits such that 80% of premiums actually go into the purpose that consumers are paying for - i.e. an actual insurance pool rather than the pockets of investors.

    You're looking for an argument where there is none.

  9. #128
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    How is forced loans or forced labor for no pay not true communism?
    I think it is, that is why I am against it and would rather see people who can't pay forced to go to a charity hospital, which I believe churches would and have set up in the past.

    What I am discussing a compromise dealing with the "reality" that you are so fond of appealing to.
    That said, if it is communism it is significantly less than the socialism Obama care sets up.

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    At least forced insurance is just socialism.
    and a whole heck of a lot more of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MD
    Why should medical professionals be forced to work for free?
    I do not suggest that they should. I suggest compensation be strengthened to ensure that they do get compensated.
    If however you are going to argue that we lift the mandate that they are required to provide service regardless of ability to pay... then you can hardly complain to me about your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm not sure where these denials are from. ACA is making insurance more expensive because it's better and it is actual insurance that works. This seems to be largely a strawman argument that relies on everyone's natural inclinations not to pay taxes and ignoring that everyone has a duty to ensure that the society they live in is properly functioning.
    Wow.. there is so much wrong with this sentence.. I'm not sure I can possibly untangle it all.
    1) It is not shown that the ACA system of insurance will "actually work" yet. That is a HUGE assumption on your part. There is also mounting evidence as to why it can't possibly work (see CStams posts)
    2) not sure of the claim of straw-man argument means.
    3) No one has a duty to ensure that society is "properly functioning". a) We have a duty to ensure that the gov protects the rights of all people, and the bottom line is that people do not have a "right" to the money and labor of others. B) The idea of "properly functioning society" is so vague as to be meaningless, so one can hardly have an obligation to a meaningless term.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It also ignores that the 'redistribution' is from corporations who have been ripping consumers off for decades into an insurance pool that everyone benefits from.
    First, that is just wishful thinking, higher premiums and the purpose of getting people to buy a product that they do not need (IE young healthy) shows it to be false
    Second, even if it were true that is not a valid justification. There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation that they should have their property taken from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You're looking for an argument where there is none.
    I don't know what this means.
    To serve man.

  10. #129
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Wow.. You know results matter, and that is certainly an unworkable end result.
    Well, I guess actual results only matter to some, to others the pie in the sky ideas is all that matters, "meaning well".
    I think you're right that, generally, they mean well, but meaning well isn't nearly enough for doing good. You have to have wisdom as well, and I think that is something the Left just generally doesn't have.

  11. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    JJ: I'm not sure where these denials are from. ACA is making insurance more expensive because it's better and it is actual insurance that works. This seems to be largely a strawman argument that relies on everyone's natural inclinations not to pay taxes and ignoring that everyone has a duty to ensure that the society they live in is properly functioning.

    Wow.. there is so much wrong with this sentence.. I'm not sure I can possibly untangle it all.
    Don't worry, I'm here to help.

    1) It is not shown that the ACA system of insurance will "actually work" yet. That is a HUGE assumption on your part. There is also mounting evidence as to why it can't possibly work (see CStams posts)
    His post is an interesting one but largely a diversion from our actual discussion. Many pieces of ACA have already been instituted and are working: $2 billion have been returned to customers due to the limits on insurance profitability for one.

    2) not sure of the claim of straw-man argument means.
    It means that the left haven't said it isn't a redistribution of wealth; or at least not per se. It's clear that there will be some people who will be impacted financially. Not to mention that all insurance has to increase.

    3) No one has a duty to ensure that society is "properly functioning". a) We have a duty to ensure that the gov protects the rights of all people, and the bottom line is that people do not have a "right" to the money and labor of others. B) The idea of "properly functioning society" is so vague as to be meaningless, so one can hardly have an obligation to a meaningless term.
    That's fine, I understand your views - we've danced this dance before. Our perspectives boil down to winning elections, which your side will not likely do for a while.


    JJ: It also ignores that the 'redistribution' is from corporations who have been ripping consumers off for decades into an insurance pool that everyone benefits from.
    First, that is just wishful thinking, higher premiums and the purpose of getting people to buy a product that they do not need (IE young healthy) shows it to be false
    Which young are you talking about?

    Second, even if it were true that is not a valid justification. There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation that they should have their property taken from them.
    Yes there is, if they are selling insurance that they will not honor; if they deny selling insurance to groups of people; or if they put lifetime limits in place. These are faulty products that are directed towards profitability whilst not protecting people. It's like selling food without safe handling processes in place. Or selling homeopathic products as actual medicine.

    I don't know what this means.
    It means that there is no-one on the left making the claims you are suggesting. It is indeed, as you call it, a redistribution of wealth; as are nearly all transactions. So what's your point?

  12. #131
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not sure where these denials are from.
    First off, I've not denied anything for which I've not provided evidence; quotes from and links to facts and figures. So for you to start off with a remark that suggests you don't know anything about that evidence is simply a disingenuous way of not interacting with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    ACA is making insurance more expensive because it's better and it is actual insurance that works.
    To begin, all insurance "works", so this is a meaningless sentence. Next, assuming your intention was to say that some insurance policies provide more coverage than others, it's difficult to grasp why you think that needed to be said. Of course variously priced policies have greater and lesser coverage. To the extent that's an issue in America, the question is, should the government decide what price should be charged for what degree of coverage, or should the person whose paying for the coverage be the one to decide how much they're willing to pay for what degree of coverage. Likewise, who should decide how much coverage I should have, given my income? Certainly not the federal government! What do they have to do with that decision? What right do they have to inject themselves into that decision? It's MY decision because it's my life and my money!

    But maybe you meant to say something like "Well, we're all in this together, and if you don't pay for your hospital bills, I have to, and that's not only not fair, but it's very inefficient." If you did, please refer to my post to MT to get a picture of where this is all headed, and how really "unfair" it's going to get.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It also ignores that the 'redistribution' is from corporations who have been ripping consumers off for decades...
    That's just false on at least two levels. First, insurance companies have traditionally operated on profit margins that are equal to or smaller than the average for American industrial sectors. There were only 11 health insurance companies listed in the Fortune 500 for 2011, and half of them saw decreases in their profits year to year. Of course, thanks to Obamacare, 2014 looks like the year everybody's going to get well! Nothing like having a third party with the power to tax telling people how much insurance they have to buy. Imagine how well the vacuum cleaner salesman would do if as he went door to door an IRS agent went with him.

    Then there's this unfortunate fact:


    Another falsehood told by the Obama administration about Obamacare; this time, the one about how it was going to increase competition.

    But this begs the question, why lie about this? Here's why: nobody gets past Economics 101 without learning that reductions in suppliers of a commodity or service reduces competition, which puts upward pressure on prices, especially if there is a simultaneous and substantial increase in demand (which is definitely the case with Obamacare!). Therefore, it would have been counter productive for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team's "We are going to bend the cost curve down for health insurance in this country" narrative to state the number of insurers that would be selling insurance in the state exchanges was going to be less than what the states then currently allowed. So they lied. Is this news anymore?

    Bottom line, under Obamacare there are going to be fewer insurance companies making more money...lots more money, and once again the favored few will reap huge rewards from Obama. People who don't know any better think Obama is a socialist. He's not, in fact far from it. What he is, is an opportunist, a masterful opportunist, who understands crony capitalism a heck of a lot better than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    In addition ACA provides limitations on profits such that 80% of premiums actually go into the purpose that consumers are paying for - i.e. an actual insurance pool rather than the pockets of investors.
    The only thing that goes into the pockets of investors is what's left over after all the premiums are used to pay for all the claims made by policyholders (and a bevy of other business costs, including labor, materials, legal fees, advertising, rent, construction, preferred stock payouts, dividends, corporate bond payments, etc.), so this comment is jaw-droppingly ill-informed at best.

    Further premiums don't go into any "pool". They go to the insurance company providing the insurance policy for which the premiums are paid. You may have been thinking of "risk", which is "pooled" by individual insurance companies, and which determines the price of policies. But if so, say so!

    Finally, whatever your "80%" figure actually is, it doesn't even limit how much insurance companies can spend on costs other than claims. All the "80%" does is limit the percentage of gross income insurance companies can spend on costs other than claims. Since, in effect, the federal government is now doing their advertising for them, and guarding their profitability to boot, their need to spend money on non-claim related costs has, or certainly will once Obamacare if fully implemented, decrease substantially.

    So that "80%" limit you seem to think important doesn't limit squat. It's a fabrication; political hand-waving that has insurance boards of directors all over America laughing their as*es off behind richly upholstered red leather doors, and ordering new and bigger yachts, and righting gargantuan checks to their DC lobbying firms. And here you are thinking Obama is out there slaying dragons for you. How naive can you get?!

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    But let's dispense with the insults...
    What did I say that insulted you? I never intended any insult. All I did was point out that you opened your reply with several statements and nothing to back them up. I get tired of being the only one in our debates to cite credible sources for what I have to say. Perhaps if you held up your end a bit better when it comes to that, you'd get less frustration back from me, that you interpret as "insult".

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Let's fix the problem by addressing the main topic, that of young people being ACA's Achilles Heel.
    Why would you think my main topic was the young not signing up being the biggest threat to Obamacare? It's certainly one of them, and it's the one that dominated for a few news cycles a week or so ago, but it's not Obamacare's "Achilles Heel".

    I'm happy to concentrate on it if you want to, but not on the understanding it's the main problem with Obamacare, okay?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    This is understood but to make things worse by delaying the mandate just exacerbates the problem that she was claiming to be a failure to begin with. My point is that if the young are so critical and if they're not signing up in the numbers required, what is the point of suggesting a further delay? To accelerate its failure?
    Did you ever consider her point may have been that delaying the IM was a good idea even if it had nothing to do with getting the 18-34 crowd to buy insurance? Why was it a good idea for Obama to delay the big employer mandate? Was it to get big employers to sign up faster? I don't think so. Why did Obama later delay the small employer mandate? Did it have anything to do with getting small employers to enter the exchanges faster? Again, do we really think that? Then why would you think E4M's point in wanting a delay for the individual mandate was to get the young to sign up faster?

    Besides, I'm not interested in debating E4M's "point" about the 18-34 group (mostly because of my confidence in her more than adequate ability to to it herself if she so desires!), but my own. And my point is they're not going to sign up ever!

    Now, I not only made that clear in my last to you, but spent a considerable amount of time and effort giving you reasons why I think so. So, to avoid wasting my time, in what follows I will only be addressing any actual objections you make by presenting facts and figures to support them. So here we go...


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    ...about the young not signing up. I'm choosing to ignore this as being irrelevant to the thread.
    What?!! You just said, "Let's fix the problem by addressing the main topic, that of young people being ACA's Achilles Heel." It's right there a couple of inches above!

    JJ, I can't do this. I can't debate someone who contradicts themselves like this, especially when they don't seem to notice.

    In closing I do want to thank you for again showing me why it's important to read through a posting in full before beginning to respond. It's my habit to reply as I read, and this is what happens sometimes when I do that.

  13. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    First off, I've not denied anything for which I've not provided evidence; quotes from and links to facts and figures. So for you to start off with a remark that suggests you don't know anything about that evidence is simply a disingenuous way of not interacting with it.
    This was in response to MT, not to you. To avoid the machine gun accusation, I'd like to deal with the one specific topic that we already have going and again, choose to ignore your responses to this.


    What did I say that insulted you? I never intended any insult. All I did was point out that you opened your reply with several statements and nothing to back them up. I get tired of being the only one in our debates to cite credible sources for what I have to say. Perhaps if you held up your end a bit better when it comes to that, you'd get less frustration back from me, that you interpret as "insult".
    Perhaps not an insult but an accusation of making the debate unclear, difficult to follow or hard to focus properly or respond to efficiently. Hence, in keeping with such a criticism, I am responding only to one topic at a time.

    As for sources, there are plenty but we are dealing with the claim you are starting off with, that young people are not going to sign up and your article defending that point.

    Why would you think my main topic was the young not signing up being the biggest threat to Obamacare? It's certainly one of them, and it's the one that dominated for a few news cycles a week or so ago, but it's not Obamacare's "Achilles Heel".
    It was the topic that you chose to defend and if it's not ACA's Achilles Heel then perhaps you should have started a new thread to discuss what you really wanted to discuss instead of attaching yourself into another topic in order to introduce another sideline. I don't mind veering off, we should at least deal with the original topic first, if that's OK.

    I'm happy to concentrate on it if you want to, but not on the understanding it's the main problem with Obamacare, okay?
    Understood.

    Did you ever consider her point may have been that delaying the IM was a good idea even if it had nothing to do with getting the 18-34 crowd to buy insurance? Why was it a good idea for Obama to delay the big employer mandate? Was it to get big employers to sign up faster? I don't think so. Why did Obama later delay the small employer mandate? Did it have anything to do with getting small employers to enter the exchanges faster? Again, do we really think that? Then why would you think E4M's point in wanting a delay for the individual mandate was to get the young to sign up faster?
    I have no idea what was going on in her mind since she chose not to pursue that line. I am interested in why you are defending the point with an article from a poll that doesn't properly defend the point you are making.

    Besides, I'm not interested in debating E4M's "point" about the 18-34 group (mostly because of my confidence in her more than adequate ability to to it herself if she so desires!), but my own. And my point is they're not going to sign up ever!
    Well, we already know (or at least should do by now) that the 18-26, needn't sign up if they're already on their parents' insurance. So what is your explanation and backing for the rest of them? MA shows that young people do sign up and there are already 27-29 year olds already with insurance so I don't understand your point.

    If your point that those 18-26 year old on their parents' insurance won't ever sign up then that seems plausible and is actually the point of ACA, but then what about the rest of them?

    Also, does your point that "they're not going to sign up ever" also include those 18-34 year olds already with insurance?

    Now, I not only made that clear in my last to you, but spent a considerable amount of time and effort giving you reasons why I think so. So, to avoid wasting my time, in what follows I will only be addressing any actual objections you make by presenting facts and figures to support them. So here we go...



    In following up with the Pew Poll itself, I was specific in that your article it uses the 56% of 18-26 year olds incorrectly as an indication that young people won't sign up. First of all, it's not 100% so you're instantly wrong on your claim that they're not going to sign up ever. Secondly, you have failed to account for those 27-29 year olds who would be forced under the mandate to buy insurance out of that 56%.

    In addition, the Pew Poll's result is on a different topic altogether:
    What People Know about the Health Care Law

    Awareness of three of the key components of the health care law (the individual mandate, state health insurance exchanges and federal subsidies for low-income Americans) varies across subgroups of the population.


    For instance, although young people are somewhat less likely to be insured than older people, just 56% of those younger than 30 are aware of the requirement that uninsured people get health insurance. That compares with 73% of those 30 and older.
    Young people are about as likely as other age groups to be aware of the availability of health care exchanges and federal subsidies for low-income people in their state.

    You have not yet defended the original point correctly and it is your claim that we are discussing. The onus is on you to back up your statements, not me to prove it otherwise (not that it can't but done, but it needn't). I am interested in how you are drawing conclusions.

    JJ: So it's a little hard to draw any real conclusions regarding why they're not buying into it.

    CS: I can draw two: They've historically been the demographic that is most in favor of the ACA in the abstract, and now we find they don't even know enough about it in reality to know it applies to them. It also tells me the ACA's drop in popularity in the last two months within this demographic must have something to do with finding out how it works, and actually having to deal with it. It's one thing to answer a pollster roaming campus asking:

    Pollster: Are you in favor of the ACA?

    Student: Is that Obama's new health care law ?

    Possster: Sure is!

    Student: Yeah, I'm all for that!

    and quite another to find out you have to start paying into it.

    So this is yet another unsubstantiated claim - a drop is popularity doesn't necessarily mean that they won't sign up. And once the mandate properly kicks in then they will have no choice or pay the fine. And if you're talking about students, you are still talking about those young that are likely covered under their parents' plans. The only relevant people are those that are older than 26, who are not college students but more likely young professionals or jobless (in which case their insurance will be heavily subsidized if not entirely free). So who exactly are these young people you are talking about?

    And again, were you or were you not originally aware about the ACA provision that provides insurance for 18-26 year olds? I'm finding some of your statements a little confusing because you keep including them in the pool of people that won't sign up.

    ...about the young not signing up. I'm choosing to ignore this as being irrelevant to the thread.
    What?!! You just said, "Let's fix the problem by addressing the main topic, that of young people being ACA's Achilles Heel." It's right there a couple of inches above!

    JJ, I can't do this. I can't debate someone who contradicts themselves like this, especially when they don't seem to notice.
    There's no contradiction. We are addressing a specific point and you are diverting the discussion into another area. That's why it is being ignored.

    In closing I do want to thank you for again showing me why it's important to read through a posting in full before beginning to respond. It's my habit to reply as I read, and this is what happens sometimes when I do that.
    Of course, you should. But at the same time, it is also critical that we focus on one point a time. If what I'm ignoring is relevant then I apologize but it read like a diatribe about re-distribution of wealth and not addressing young people explicitly. Even if it is relevant, we have to first address the single point of the article that you quoted and either you withdraw the article or I accept it. That's how we can actually achieve something.

  15. #133
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Don't worry, I'm here to help.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    His post is an interesting one but largely a diversion from our actual discussion. Many pieces of ACA have already been instituted and are working: $2 billion have been returned to customers due to the limits on insurance profitability for one.
    How do you figure?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It means that the left haven't said it isn't a redistribution of wealth; or at least not per se. It's clear that there will be some people who will be impacted financially. Not to mention that all insurance has to increase.
    So then how is calling it redistribution a straw-man?
    If they are basically admitting it, or conceding that argument, then it can't be a straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That's fine, I understand your views - we've danced this dance before. Our perspectives boil down to winning elections, which your side will not likely do for a while.
    I agree....
    Whaaaat!?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Which young are you talking about?
    The ones the plan is counting on.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes there is, if they are selling insurance that they will not honor;
    Nothing inherent about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    if they deny selling insurance to groups of people;
    Do you mean people with no money? or maybe People in other states (which the gov is responsible for)?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    r if they put lifetime limits in place.
    I don't think all policies have that, but then I see nothing wrong with that iether, I'm sure it will effect the price.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    These are faulty products that are directed towards profitability whilst not protecting people.
    Not sure they are "faulty" or how they can be said to be that way.
    I haven't seen any cost comparison for if that feature lowered prices. I also don't have a problem with the gov regulating that kind of thing.
    Having a "standard" by which to compare coverage isn't bad and I would almost call it "regular" (Ie, as in to "regulate").

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's like selling food without safe handling processes in place. Or selling homeopathic products as actual medicine.
    Not in the least. That is a false analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It means that there is no-one on the left making the claims you are suggesting. It is indeed, as you call it, a redistribution of wealth; as are nearly all transactions. So what's your point?
    Then it isn't a straw-man. If it is an accurate argument, then it stands. It is however NOT what the people voted for as evidenced by their surprise and chagrin when they were not able to keep their policies that they liked.
    To serve man.

  16. #134
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I am responding only to one topic at a time...the claim you are starting off with, that young people are not going to sign up and your article defending that point.
    This is the very last time I'm going to tell you this: the claim I "started off with" was, verbatim, " I think E4M's point was the ACA is unworkable. So is mine."

    "Unworkable" is NOT limited to how many or how few people ages 18-34 buy heath insurance through the exchanges under Obamacare.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It was the topic that you chose to defend and if it's not ACA's Achilles Heel then perhaps you should have started a new thread to discuss what you really wanted to discuss instead of attaching yourself into another topic in order to introduce another sideline. I don't mind veering off, we should at least deal with the original topic first, if that's OK.
    This is MY thread, JJ. I wrote the OP! Try reading it sometime. There is nothing in it about the young failing to buy insurance through the exchanges being what will sink Obamacare economically. In fact, the economics of Obamacare aren't even included in the OP!

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Understood.
    I hope so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I have no idea what was going on in her mind...
    That wasn't the question. The question was, did you ever consider the possibility that was part of her train of thought?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I am interested in why you are defending the point with an article from a poll that doesn't properly defend the point you are making.
    Because in my judgment the poll does defend the point I am making, just as I explained to you at the time you first questioned me on this point. But if you don't think that poll demonstrates the "sea change" that has occurred concerning the opinions of "the young" about Obamacare, try these links:
    Time: "Poll: Young Adults Rejecting Obamacare"
    Fox News: "'Sea Change: Poll shows young people skeptical of Obamacare, amid Obama outreach"
    Breitbart Big Government: "52% of Young Adults Want Obamacare Recalled, 57% Oppose Obamacare"
    Bloomberg Politics: "Youth Break with President on Obamacare Support in Poll"

    Here's a good one from NPR Shots (not your average conservative source!), which is a bit off topic, but related, and details the latest lie the Obama administration is telling young people about Obamacare:

    "David Simas [Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Advisor for Communications and Strategy]...who touts that statistic again. "Nearly 50 percent of young, single adults will be eligible for a plan at $50 a month or less," he says. "That's an amazing rate." But is that accurate? The short answer is no at least not according to the administration's own analysis." (bolded italics added)

    Now, I'm calling David Simas a liar, because he can't possibly be ignorant of the administration's own analysis onthe very point to which he is speaking. So why would he spin such an obvious deception that NPR, of all people, reports it, if millennials were waiting in line to sign up for Obamacare? Answer: he wouldn't. People don't lie when the truth will get them what they want; at least not unless they're mentally ill. So we've got two and only two sensible ways to interpret Simas' prevarication: a) millennials aren't signing up because of what they know about the economics of Obamacare now, or b) Simas is a pathological liar, who lies on a whim.

    And if you need more sources telling you, both from the Left and the Right that the young are now against Obamacare, a majority of them for repealing it altogether, I got plenty more!

    So you'll excuse me if I consider the point made that young people don't like Obamacare anymore, and leave it to you to connect the dots, the other being people usually don't spend money on what they don't like and, arguably, don't need.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, we already know (or at least should do by now) that the 18-26, needn't sign up if they're already on their parents' insurance.
    Perhaps, perhaps not. What we do know for sure is that without knowing what percentage of the 18-34 year old age group is signing up on their parents policy, your observation is meaningless. So do you know what percentage that is? If not, stop bringing it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So what is your explanation and backing for the rest of them?
    Simply that every poll strongly suggests they won't, and the economics built into the law don't provide much incentive to buy a product (health insurance) they don't think they need. Look, I went and found one of the most supportive news outlets I could find on the Internet, the Huffington Post. It has cheerleaded Obamacare for over five years in a row. Here is what they're publishing now:
    "Millennials Will Not Sign Up for Obamacare

    Millennials will not sign up for Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

    Regardless of the term used to describe the new health care law, less than one quarter of young people ages 18 to 29 say they will definitely or probably enroll in insurance through an exchange, according to a poll from the Harvard Public Opinion Project released Wednesday morning. "

    Now what does it take to get through to you that millennials are simply not going to sign up in the exchanges? Frankly, I'm done. If the above isn't enough, when you've got ZIP in support of your contention they will, then a hundred more links wouldn't be enough either. Neither am I going to coddle your dithering of details, such as your claim further down that, "In following up with the Pew Poll itself, I was specific in that your article it [sic] uses the 56% of 18-26 year olds incorrectly as an indication that young people won't sign up. First of all, it's not 100% so you're instantly wrong on your claim that they're not going to sign up ever."

    I mean, really? That doesn't even make any sense. If they're not ever going to sign up, what's the the first thing that has to happen? That's right! They can't be signing up now. And are they signing up now? For most of them the answer is, no.

    In any case, you've now got what you insisted on having: my sources for why I think millennials will not participate in Obamacare..well, a sampling anyway. Now it's your turn. I want to see data, or at least sources referencing data, in support of your denials that millennials are staying away from Obamacare in droves.

  17. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  18. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    This is the very last time I'm going to tell you this: the claim I "started off with" was, verbatim, " I think E4M's point was the ACA is unworkable. So is mine."

    "Unworkable" is NOT limited to how many or how few people ages 18-34 buy heath insurance through the exchanges under Obamacare.

    This is MY thread, JJ. I wrote the OP! Try reading it sometime. There is nothing in it about the young failing to buy insurance through the exchanges being what will sink Obamacare economically. In fact, the economics of Obamacare aren't even included in the OP!
    I think we need to go back a little further. You began with ... nevermind. We have agreed to be on the path which we are on now, which is to address the claim that you made that no young people will sign up ever and you use an article that quoted the Pew poll as evidence. This is to avoid the machine-gun accusation, which I feel that you're more guilty of in this discussion than I.


    That wasn't the question. The question was, did you ever consider the possibility that was part of her train of thought?
    That is for her to explain, not for me to construe.
    edit: removed further discussions on e4m - I don't see how it's relevant.


    JJ: I am interested in why you are defending the point with an article from a poll that doesn't properly defend the point you are making.
    Because in my judgment the poll does defend the point I am making, just as I explained to you at the time you first questioned me on this point.
    That remains to be seen because I am still not joining the dots. We shouldn't move forward until we do.

    But if you don't think that poll demonstrates the "sea change" that has occurred concerning the opinions of "the young" about Obamacare, try these links:

    Here's a good one from NPR Shots (not your average conservative source!),
    Introducing more links to following without concluding the first one is surely the machine-gunning that you were originally claiming. It's a good tactic, very distracting but ultimately we will get lost in the weeds. If you want to have a serious debate then let us proceed step by step; I took you seriously about the machine gunning point so it would be nice to have you pay the same respects back and stop introducing new materials, divergent arguments when we have already agreed to discuss this one single point.

    We have not yet reached the stage where you have convinced me that the article backs up your point that 'no young person will sign up ever'. Until we do, let's stay on track.

    And if you need more sources telling you, both from the Left and the Right that the young are now against Obamacare, a majority of them for repealing it altogether, I got plenty more!
    I am sure you do, but you chose this out of the many as your initial argument. The groundwork in breaking down this one can be used to help you filter additional ones since they likely share the same flaws with respect to your conclusion that 'no young person will sign up ever'.


    So you'll excuse me if I consider the point made that young people don't like Obamacare anymore, and leave it to you to connect the dots, the other being people usually don't spend money on what they don't like and, arguably, don't need.
    I won't excuse you because you have not joined the dots. Firstly, you have not yet answered the following question:

    1. Did you know that 18-26 year olds would be covered under their parents' insurance before I brought it up?



    JJ:Well, we already know (or at least should do by now) that the 18-26, needn't sign up if they're already on their parents' insurance.
    Perhaps, perhaps not. What we do know for sure is that without knowing what percentage of the 18-34 year old age group is signing up on their parents policy, your observation is meaningless. So do you know what percentage that is? If not, stop bringing it up.
    No, I have to continue bringing up this point because it is the evidence that you yourself brought up via the article to support your own point! Indeed, it should be you retracting the entire article on that basis. I am pointing out flaws in your own evidence.



    So what is your explanation and backing for the rest of them?
    Simply that every poll strongly suggests they won't,
    So are you now agreeing that this poll in insufficient to support your point?


    and the economics built into the law don't provide much incentive to buy a product (health insurance) they don't think they need. Look, I went and found one of the most supportive news outlets I could find on the Internet, the Huffington Post. It has cheerleaded Obamacare for over five years in a row. Here is what they're publishing now:
    "Millennials Will Not Sign Up for Obamacare

    Millennials will not sign up for Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

    Regardless of the term used to describe the new health care law, less than one quarter of young people ages 18 to 29 say they will definitely or probably enroll in insurance through an exchange, according to a poll from the Harvard Public Opinion Project released Wednesday morning. "
    This falls under additional material to support your claim that the article is sufficient to support that 'young people will not sign up ever'. It is ignored (for now - the point about millennials is an important topic that I'd like to address once we have dealt with this)

    Now what does it take to get through to you that millennials are simply not going to sign up in the exchanges? Frankly, I'm done. If the above isn't enough, when you've got ZIP in support of your contention they will, then a hundred more links wouldn't be enough either. Neither am I going to coddle your dithering of details, such as your claim further down that, "In following up with the Pew Poll itself, I was specific in that your article it [sic] uses the 56% of 18-26 year olds incorrectly as an indication that young people won't sign up. First of all, it's not 100% so you're instantly wrong on your claim that they're not going to sign up ever."
    Firstly, I do not have nothing:

    1. I have shown your own evidence (or your reading of the evidence) is flawed - so your conclusion based upon the first article (which we are still debunking) is also flawed.
    2. Introducing other evidence is machine-gunning and doesn't address the specific that we are on now. You need to either admit that the article itself is insufficient to back up your claim or show specifically, how it does.
    3. In not following details, you are free to make whatever false claims you wish. But I do want to follow the details and they don't even back up your point, even if the article supported your point. Your claim is that 100% of young people will never sign up - but the numbers show that 44% will (assuming your incorrect reading of the numbers, which are actually about the knowledge of ACA, not intent to sign up).
    4. You have not properly addressed whether the 56% includes or does not include those on their parents' insurance and adjusted your conclusions accordingly. Please do so.


    I mean, really? That doesn't even make any sense. If they're not ever going to sign up, what's the the first thing that has to happen? That's right! They can't be signing up now. And are they signing up now? For most of them the answer is, no.
    Again, you are incorrect:
    1. The poll doesn't show intent to sign-up, it shows knowledge of ACA.
    2. Even if it is about intent, it doesn't mean that they won't once they realize that they have no choice due to the mandate, that they might find insurance that fits their needs, or that they might change their mind.
    3. If "For most of them the answer is, no" is true then your original claim that "young people won't sign up ever" is false!

    In any case, you've now got what you insisted on having: my sources for why I think millennials will not participate in Obamacare..well, a sampling anyway. Now it's your turn. I want to see data, or at least sources referencing data, in support of your denials that millennials are staying away from Obamacare in droves.
    No, I am not insisting on more material. I am insisting that you support the single article that you already brought up and address the flaws with respect to your claims.

    I understand how frustrating it is being pinned to the wall but I can't address the other sources because they might have similar flaws in which case, we're back to square one. Please address the flaws or withdraw the article and keep the claim or withdraw your claim based on that article.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; December 23rd, 2013 at 03:29 PM.

  19. #136
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Introducing more links to following without concluding the first one is surely the machine-gunning that you were originally claiming.
    I am not sure how you can not understand the context of a machine gun argument criticism.
    A list of SUPPORT is not "machine gun", it's called supporting your claim.
    It is the laundry list of UNSUPPORTED claims (such as you did) which is machine gun style deserving of criticism. Especially when it is repeated post after post.

    You seem to be all backwards on exactly what you were criticized for.

    The rest of this section of your quote(not repeated here) is a flat out dismissal of evidence.
    That multiple, multiple polls say the same thing erases your ability to claim the poll is flawed, so they are relevant to his point AT LEAST in that sense.

    I think you are missing the forest for the tree's here very badly. You have to construct a cogent response to the support offered to his claim, not complain that he is offering too much support.


    To review
    Repeated unsupported claims = not good.
    Long list of support for a single claim, with explanation of how it applies and why it supports = good.

    You did the former.
    CS did the later.
    To serve man.

  20. Thanks cstamford thanked for this post
  21. #137
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    JJ, I'm not arguing that my first poll makes it a necessary truth of logic that the substantial majority of millennials (the 18-34 group) are not going to sign up in 2014 (of course I'm making this statement on the unlikely assumption the Obama administration will not defraud this group further, or make any further exceptions for them in the implementation of the law, which now looks like won't be fully implemented until the Democrats are safely past next years mid-terms at the earliest), or '15, or '16, or for the foreseeable future (on the common assumption there is such a thing as the "foreseeable future", that is).

    My argument, which you don't get to characterize for me (obviously), is that the majority (some 75%) of millennials are not now, and have stated in polls they do not intend to enter the exchanges. That is premise number one, and it is not up for argument, being a widely reported fact. Premise number two is almost as factual, and is that because it is economically sound to do so, and will in all probability remain economically sound to do so in 2015 and 2016, even those millennials who sign up in the exchanges in 2014 will probably not sign up in 2015 or 2016, and if they don't sign up in 2016, when the penalty, but not insurance premiums, are guaranteed by law not to increase further, then after 2016 whatever economic incentive is left (and it takes a great deal of faith to suppose there will be any at all, since there isn't any at all now, and the economic trend is that any increase in penalty will be more than mitigated by increases in premiums in the exchanges) can only decrease with further increases in premiums. I merely add to this the fact that I have never seen an across the board decrease in health insurance in my entire life, so common sense dictates I not imagine one in or after 2016, especially given the federal government's continuing "QE3" fiscal policy.

    Now, as I see it, the only viable argument left open to you is to argue that Obamacare really is going to "bend the cost curve down" for health insurance (and thereby change a trend that is at least forty years old!), so that it becomes probable that in 2015 and 2016 the increases in the penalty inscribed in the law will actually provide an economic incentive for millennials to sign up in the exchanges. Because without that economic incentive all you have is hand-waving, which, credit where credit is due, you're a master.

    Now, I've supported my premise every step of the way in my opinion, and in the opinion of others whose judgment in such matters I respect, which brings us to the point in all this where you step up to the plate, and make the argument millennials are going to get some sort of economic incentive from the penalties inscribed in the law to enter the exchanges in 2015 and beyond, or admit defeat. There's really nothing left for me to say.

  22. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Firstly, you have yet for the third time ignored the question as to whether you knew that 18-26 year olds would be covered by their parents' insurance before we started. This needs to be answered because you continue to forget that this segment of the population doesn't really apply to your argument since they have no reason to sign up. In continuing to quote numbers about the 18-34 group, you need to split them up properly in order to claim it as support.

    Also, unless those numbers are 0% or 100% then your claim that they will never sign up is immediately false. In which case you'll need to withdraw that claim on lack of evidence. Also, you can't add up 5 different polls to get to 100% - I don't think statistics work that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    JJ, I'm not arguing that my first poll makes it a necessary truth of logic that the substantial majority of millennials (the 18-34 group) are not going to sign up in 2014 (of course I'm making this statement on the unlikely assumption the Obama administration will not defraud this group further, or make any further exceptions for them in the implementation of the law, which now looks like won't be fully implemented until the Democrats are safely past next years mid-terms at the earliest), or '15, or '16, or for the foreseeable future (on the common assumption there is such a thing as the "foreseeable future", that is).
    You defended it for at least a few rounds until its flaws were pointed so it's a little odd to say that was never claim in the first place. You also quoted other articles that seem similarly flawed (which is why I refused to pursue them), so it's a little hard for me to accept that you didn't mean to post it to support your claim that no millenials will sign up. I suppose it's easier to claim it was for something else than to admit that you were wrong. But now you have to support why your brought up the articles in the first place. So why did you?

    More importantly, it is not the poll that is your evidence, I brought up the actual poll to show your reading of the article was wrong on several points. Let's recap what you said:
    #96
    But the young are not buying into the plan
    2, and worse, seem to hate it according to a recent poll3

    2. "Among young people, whose participation is seen as crucial for the exchanges to work, just 56% realize there's a mandate to be insured or face a fine." (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ition/2817169/)

    If you read your own article, or even your quote or the Pew article (source), they are clearly at odds with the claim that you were referencing: You are making facts about young people's knowledge of ACA as them never (actually, 'ever') buying into the plan. It's a bit much to now claim 3 rounds later that it "doesn't make it a necessary truth of logic that they're not going to sign up" since that was your exact claim and the exact point that you brought up the article in the first place.So that poll itself is my support against your flawed interpretation of the article, not your evidence to withdraw, since I was the one who took the trouble to read it and interpret it. If you need to withdraw something, it needs to be your interpretation of the article, or the article itself or your claim. Which is it?

    <--- snip ... snip ... snip ... snip ... snip ... snip ... snip ... snip ... snip -->
    I have responded the rest of your response but decided to remove it, since I think we have serious issues to deal with here. Unfortunately, since I haven't been getting answers, please take these as formal challenges, (without the ugly graphics):



    1. Did you or did you not know that the 18-26 year olds were covered under their parents' insurance under ACA? If you did, then why did you quote figures that included these people that are irrelevant to your claim that no relevant millennials (i.e. 27-34 year olds who would be have to buy their own insurance)? If you didn't know then why not admit it?
    2. Why did you bring up an article that had little to do with your claim? Saying that it doesn't make it a 'necessary truth of logic' is fine, that's what I've been saying all along. So what purpose does it serve? Why did you continue to defend it for three rounds, even to the point of not seeming to realize that it wouldn't have supported your claims even if you had read it correctly?
    3. You are confusing where your evidence ends (your misreading of the article) and where mine begins (the Pew Poll itself). Since you didn't refer to the poll itself but merely quoted what you thought was relevant, then it was up to me to determine your mis-reading.


    It's all very well claiming the high ground in terms of evidence, facts and numbers, but when challenged you are falling short on multiple fronts: admitting you were wrong (or otherwise explain the last three rounds defending a point you now claim is not a 'necessary truth of logic' and explain what it is, if not that), admitting your knowledge of ACA (or otherwise explain how 18-26 year olds are relevant to your argument), and providing an accurate record from your statements, my challenges and where your arguments end and mine begin.

    There has been zero mischaracterization of your argument, these are your words and your quotes and they don't line up. I will address the rest of the post but I'd like to have some answers and concessions before we move forward. I understand more clearly about your machine-gunning comments since it seems even concentrating on a single topic is challenging if we delve into the details. I know you don't like it but 'coddling the details' is how we get to the underlying truth. Indeed, I suggest that it is better to start from facts then draw conclusions rather than the reverse as seems to be the case here.

    ---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not sure how you can not understand the context of a machine gun argument criticism.
    A list of SUPPORT is not "machine gun", it's called supporting your claim.
    It is the laundry list of UNSUPPORTED claims (such as you did) which is machine gun style deserving of criticism. Especially when it is repeated post after post.
    Yes, but a list of support that is equally as flawed as the first is just as bad as a list of supported claims. Both are lists of items that have to be separately examined and I understand the point. I have no need to make any new claims here, nor start additional branches because we are specifically looking at a single point CS made that doesn't stand up to scrutiny; so I'm not sure what the post after post comment is largely about.

    The rest of this section of your quote(not repeated here) is a flat out dismissal of evidence.
    That multiple, multiple polls say the same thing erases your ability to claim the poll is flawed, so they are relevant to his point AT LEAST in that sense.
    They're not flat out dismissals of the evidence, they are flat out dismissals of the evidence as it applies to his claims. He claimed that no millenials would sign up and as evidence he quoted a poll about their current knowledge of ACA. Also, since the numbers are around 50% his claims that no millenials ever will sign up is instantly false, even if the numbers reflected what he thought they reflected.

    There are other flaws lining up the 'evidence' to the claims, that I have also detailed. None of them are unfair dismissals. But largely I think you missed the point that the evidence has nothing to do with his claims.

    I think you are missing the forest for the tree's here very badly. You have to construct a cogent response to the support offered to his claim, not complain that he is offering too much support.
    Offering more evidence without supporting the first one properly is why I dismissed them. I did glance at them, they are similarly flawed but even if they weren't, it would only introduce more dialog without addressing the core failures. You'll also note that he has withdrawn the 'truth value' of article somewhat with respect to his claims. So I believe I am in the right to ignore the additional evidence.

    Indeed I think it is you missing the forest for the trees. I was and have been consistent is getting him to support only one claim from his one piece of evidence - the additional claims, additional arguments, extra evidence, are superfluous and should provide supplemental support at best. The original claim and the original evidence should still stand - otherwise, why bring them together? Again, you'll see that we have just spent three rounds discussing an article he is now admitting doesn't fully support his claim.

    In concentrating on the end goal (the forest), by dismantling the initial evidence, I have avoided getting lost in the weeds of separate arguments (the trees). I agree that looking at all the evidence, charts and numbers and arguments are quite impressive and initially compellingly true. But you have seem that he is now claiming his article doesn't necessarily reflect the truth value he originally claims: so which is the better approach - a detailed look at one claim or carry on multiple arguments?

    To review
    Repeated unsupported claims = not good.
    Long list of support for a single claim, with explanation of how it applies and why it supports = good.

    You did the former.
    CS did the later.
    Actually:

    CS: Initial article not supporting claim, List of support articles that did not support the claim, Diversionary topics, = bad
    JJ: Enumerated list of failures, with full explanations as to why, along with actual knowledge of ACA & the poll numbers = good.

    I do agree that my initial response contained too many points to discuss, which is why I stopped and honed in onto a single flawed point. Criticizing someone for admitting a problem and fixing it hardly seems fair but in keeping with the right-wing approach to ObamaCare, it is at least a consistent one: that way you get to 'win' on both counts. However, it appears, I am the one that is getting to the root of another flawed interpretation of facts to fit a pre-existing conclusion.

  23. #139
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Skipping more hand waving:

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Did you or did you not know that the 18-26 year olds were covered under their parents' insurance under ACA?
    I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If you did, then why did you quote figures that included these people that are irrelevant to your claim that no relevant millennials (i.e. 27-34 year olds who would be have to buy their own insurance)?
    Because the fact that 18-26 years olds can get insurance on their parent's policies doesn't give us any information as to how many 18-26 year olds have done so. If you want to make an argument based on what ratio of 18-26 year olds are signing up for Obamacare, then it's up to you to provide that data, not me. And I have run out of patience waiting for that data from you. Either make the argument, or don't, but stop simply alluding to the possibility! It's stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Why did you bring up an article that had little to do with your claim?
    Because I judge you to be so aware of the current situation with millennials and their widely reported aversion to signing up for Obamacare, it never crossed my mind you'd nit-pick the source I provided. If it will help, I will admit the Pew poll wasn't the best for my claim. Now, having admitted that, will you please engage all the other polls and sources I have provided since?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Why did you continue to defend it for three rounds, even to the point of not seeming to realize that it wouldn't have supported your claims even if you had read it correctly?
    JJ, after explaining to you why I thought the poll relevant, I moved on. You're the only one in this debate still stuck on it.

    Now, I've done all I can to get through to you. If I haven't by now, I don't know how. Of course obtuseness doesn't win debates. In fact it loses them, so unless you come up with something more than continually referring back to the Pew poll, and claiming it is inadequate to support my argument that the 18-34 year old cohort Obamacare desperately needs to survive are not going to enter the exchanges this year, or next, or next, or ever, I win.

    PS- even if you do, which I must say you've given me every indication you won't, I'm finished with any interaction with ODN that takes more than five minutes and little thought until after Christmas. So of you actually do construct some kind of well thought out and empirically supported argument in the mean time, please understand you can't expect a reply until the 27th at the earliest, and may even need to shoot me a PM to make me aware of any response you make before that date. And since this is our last mutual interaction before the celebration of the Lord and Savior of the world's incarnation, may I wish you and yours a very happy holiday without offense?

  24. #140
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the House Defund Obamacare?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Skipping more hand waving:

    JJ: Did you or did you not know that the 18-26 year olds were covered under their parents' insurance under ACA?

    I did.
    Hmm. OK.

    If you did, then why did you quote figures that included these people that are irrelevant to your claim that no relevant millennials (i.e. 27-34 year olds who would be have to buy their own insurance)?
    Because the fact that 18-26 years olds can get insurance on their parent's policies doesn't give us any information as to how many 18-26 year olds have done so.
    True, but that still has nothing to do with whether they would sign up or not, which is my point of you quoting numbers that included them. And you have it backwards because their parents' policies doesn't need to provide any information about numbers because this is a 'poll' not a report on 18-34 year olds. In addition, there are only 1506 people in the survey, so making that additional claim makes no sense at all.

    If you want to make an argument based on what ratio of 18-26 year olds are signing up for Obamacare, then it's up to you to provide that data, not me.
    No it isn't. It is you making a claim that this number is sufficient for your own claims!

    And I have run out of patience waiting for that data from you. Either make the argument, or don't, but stop simply alluding to the possibility! It's stupid.
    I don't need any data because the data you provided to support your point is invalid. You have yet to admit it is invalid.
    Secondly, even if your data properly supported your claim, then it is clear that there are people there (i.e. 100%-56%=44%) would would sign up. So you already defeated your own point that no millennial will sign up!

    Stop shifting the burden on me to disprove a point you have already failed to make. That's stupid!

    JJ:Why did you bring up an article that had little to do with your claim?
    Because I judge you to be so aware of the current situation with millennials and their widely reported aversion to signing up for Obamacare, it never crossed my mind you'd nit-pick the source I provided. If it will help, I will admit the Pew poll wasn't the best for my claim. Now, having admitted that, will you please engage all the other polls and sources I have provided since?
    It's not nit-picking if your source has NOTHING to do with your claims. It is insufficient that you admit it wasn't best for your claim because you have already done so. You have to understand that it is not only insufficient, it is completely off the mark and for the reasons I detailed. Namely, and for the last time:

    1. That the source has nothing to do with your claims - I quoted you back there that you are using current knowledge to indicate future intent (for ever). By nothing I mean it must be removed.
    2. The source already contradicts your claim by not being 100% against ACA.
    3. The source doesn't cover the relevant demographic you are making claims upon: i.e. your 100% is mixed up with people that are not relevant to your claim.


    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that we are on the same page and leave it up to you to provide one source that doesn't have the flaws above. I cannot do your homework for you because I can't go another 3 rounds discussing the very same points. So you have to concede that the flaws I have pointed out are indeed valid relative to the article you pointed out.


    JJ: Why did you continue to defend it for three rounds, even to the point of not seeming to realize that it wouldn't have supported your claims even if you had read it correctly?

    JJ, after explaining to you why I thought the poll relevant, I moved on. You're the only one in this debate still stuck on it.
    Right, and I pointed out that using current knowledge to predict future sign-ups is flawed. Not to mention that in that answer (#121) you again referred to students, the exact demographic that are likely be covered by their parents' insurance. So again, it appears that you have forgotten this key fact about ACA in drawing your conclusions. I'm stuck on it because you are drawing the wrong conclusions on a consistent basis based on a flawed reading of an article (which you have not formally removed from discussion) but worse, a fact about ACA which you claim you knew.

    Now, I've done all I can to get through to you. If I haven't by now, I don't know how. Of course obtuseness doesn't win debates. In fact it loses them, so unless you come up with something more than continually referring back to the Pew poll, and claiming it is inadequate to support my argument that the 18-34 year old cohort Obamacare desperately needs to survive are not going to enter the exchanges this year, or next, or next, or ever, I win.
    Hmm, now you are making a separate claim. Instead of saying now that they need to sign up (which again isn't true due to parent's insurance, it's actually 27-34) you are now claiming it is necessary for ACA to survive. You're shifting gears again. So let's stick to your original point that they won't sign up shall we? Then we can discuss their impact. I think the ball is in your court to:

    1. Agree that your article should be withdrawn in its entirety or explain why it should be included (given the responses, just above).
    2. Agree that my assessment of the flaws is correct (or dispute them).
    3. Come up with article from the four that you'd listed that doesn't have the same flaws that we have agreed to.

    PS- even if you do, which I must say you've given me every indication you won't, I'm finished with any interaction with ODN that takes more than five minutes and little thought until after Christmas. So of you actually do construct some kind of well thought out and empirically supported argument in the mean time, please understand you can't expect a reply until the 27th at the earliest, and may even need to shoot me a PM to make me aware of any response you make before that date. And since this is our last mutual interaction before the celebration of the Lord and Savior of the world's incarnation, may I wish you and yours a very happy holiday without offense?
    I understand completely - I am only being persistent not just to be onerous but because I haven't seen anything withdrawn. The claims and the original article are still in play because you have only weakened it and not entirely removed it. If you remove it then you have to also explain why if those reasons are not the reasons I gave. This is because my next move after you have provided your next piece of evidence it to ensure they don't have the same flaws, which they shouldn't if you agree to the flaws in the first place. If you don't agree with the flaws then that is where our dispute really is and not in the evidence itself. I hope that makes sense.

    I too celebrate Christmas & Hanukah & the Solstice, so no offense taken and I too, wish you and yours the very best. And thank you for your patience in this - I think it is entirely worth it and I appreciate your responses.

 

 
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obamacare upheld
    By Squatch347 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: August 15th, 2012, 06:36 PM
  2. I have won the debate on "Obamacare upheld."
    By Talthas in forum ODN Debates Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: August 9th, 2012, 07:37 AM
  3. Where Can I find The Texts and Bill for "Obamacare"?
    By DevilPup John in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 30th, 2012, 12:30 PM
  4. Facts About Obamacare
    By cds69 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 04:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •