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 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107
  1. #1
    Registered User

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

    ObamaCare is here to stay

    A trio of news items this last week is pointing towards ObamaCare being a permanent fixture and that the Republican efforts to minimize its successes and exaggerate its flaws are coming to naught.

    RAND Report

    Rand's report on the effects of ObamaCare is showing that that:


    • At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law.

    • How The White House Just Undercut One Of The GOP's Top 2014 Attacks The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.

    • The number of people getting insurance through their employers increased by 8.2 million. Rand said the increase is likely to have been driven by a decline in unemployment, which made more people eligible for employer plans, and by the incentives in the Affordable Care Act encouraging more employer coverage. The figure certainly undermines the contention by the healthcare law's critics that the legislation gave employers an incentive to drop coverage.
    • Of the 3.9 million people counted by Rand as obtaining insurance on the individual exchange market, 36% were previously uninsured. That ratio is expected to rise when the late signups are factored in. Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, the majority of whom did not have insurance before signing up.



    Warts and all, it is clearly achieving its primary goal to get insurance into the hands of people that need it most. This is on top of the other goals already achieved in insurance reform ($2B of premiums returned back to the consumer, no more life-time limits or cancelations, etc.)

    GOP is beginning help make ObamaCare better

    An important event last week had the GOP vote in a measure that improved ObamaCare for businesses ("The tweak itself is relatively minor. It eliminates a provision of the Affordable Care Act that capped deductibles for small-group health plans at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families" - source).

    This represents the first time that the Republicans have done anything that hasn't been blatantly hindering or derailing ObamaCare in some way. Of course, it was done surreptitiously and the public rhetoric hasn't changed, but the new reality that ObamaCare isn't collapsing under its own weight (with or without a nudge here and there) and that the best way forward is to perhaps hammer it into into place.

    Drudge's scaremongering on this may scupper any future efforts, as is all the publicity around this event, but if the GOP are going to have to be pressured by the various interest groups (and some pundits) to stop the current path and move on, then they may not have a choice. It certainly makes for interesting optics.

    TPM: How The White House Just Undercut One Of The GOP's Top 2014 Attacks

    TPM reported this week that:


    In a move with big election-year implications, the Obama administration announced Monday that it would reverse a proposed cut to private Medicare Advantage plans. The decision undercuts one of the GOP's favorite lines of attack on Obamacare and on Democrats in general.

    ...

    For Republicans, though, it might be unwelcome news. Attacking the cuts, authorized under Obamacare, had become a favorite criticism of the health care reform law -- especially as other critiques dwindled. And they quickly sought to portray Monday's change as political opportunism by the Democrats.
    Of course, the Republicans can still play the 'Obama is repealing ObamaCare himself' card, but that can only be done whilst simultaneously pretending that this is a bad thing, even though they've been campaigning for the very same (in which case, how is this a criticism again?)



    CONCLUSION

    So we have the facts coming in now that removing insurance from 9 million+ people is going to be very unpopular and unlikely. And that's today's figure, in 2016 the next real chance of reform if Republicans win the White House, it will be 10's of millions more as it becomes the new reality. Of course, there's the repeal/replace strategy but that would likely keep same components of ACA. More importantly though, the GOP is beginning to be forced to join in with the Administration's efforts to shore up the law and try and make it work despite some of the early flaws.

    It will be interesting to look back on the rhetoric and tally up the scores, the death panels, the death spiral, young people not signing up, the terrible website, getting to keep your crappy insurance (wait till those birds come home to roost for those people that actually want to do so), all the fake horror stories, and maybe some of the real horror stories. So I don't think it's a victory for ObamaCare yet, but I thought this week represents a good solid checkpoint to note in the ongoing dialogue on the health care system.

    Vermont's single-payer experiment (more detail that you'd care here) will be closely watched as this will be next logical step. Maybe a Clinton 2020 initiative?

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Vermont's single-payer experiment (more detail that you'd care here) will be closely watched as this will be next logical step. Maybe a Clinton 2020 initiative?
    I think it's way too soon to presume that we'd be going single payer that quick. People will still be adjusting to the ACA for years. I think at best you'd be looking at a public option as the next step.
    ~Zealous

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    I think it is still too early to say.

    Certainly a lot of the doomsayers have been already shown up as full of crap. No doom as of yet.
    And certainly anyone claiming the AHCA was going to solve all ills are also full of crap (though I've seen very few of these).

    There are two main measures of this thing.
    1) The number of people who have substantial medical insurance (Or the overall health profile of the US populace)
    2) Overall government spending across all types of health care
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    1) The number of people who have substantial medical insurance (Or the overall health profile of the US populace)
    2) Overall government spending across all types of health care
    I think these are two good proxy measures for the law's effectiveness, though we could argue quite a few others. Part of the problem is that they (like all measures by definition) assume we all have the same goals here, and I don't think that is necessarily clear. College age students might not have the goal to have substantive medical insurance for example.

    As for the metrics themselves,

    I was still under the impression that 1 is still a negative number on net, that the number who lost insurance numbers is higher than the number who actually got insurance from the exchanges.

    The second measure should probably only be the percent increase above the historic rate of increase as well. It will be a couple of more years before we get a substantive, holistic look at this number across the field, but small leading indicators have already shown increases above historic rates here.


    I would also add one more metric, though a much harder one to get a hold of.

    The percentage of disposable income spent on health insurance.

    This metric would be a good way of measuring what we no longer have available to consume or invest because we are seeing price increases in insurance policies. I would recommend keeping this metric at a pre-subsidy level too since subsidies are a transfer payment and as such just show a decrease in consumption/investment in one area in favor of another.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Certainly, those looking to pat themselves on the back for the ACA are a bit premature. Firstly, Obama touted the ACA as a cost-saving measure. He promised health costs would decline due to his legislation. Yet, the most recent study on insurance costs related to the ACA show the exact opposite.


    "The cost of the ACA to large U.S. employers (10,000 or more employees) is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee"

    "These large employers will see overall ACA- related cost hikes of between $163 million
    and $200 million per employer, or an increase of 4.3 percent in 2016 and 8.4 percent in
    2023 over and above what they would otherwise be spending. (See Appendix One for
    cost estimates for specific ACA provisions)"

    "The total cost of the ACA to all large U.S. employers over the next ten years is estimated
    to be from $151 billion to $186 billion."

    http://www.americanhealthpolicy.org/...Cost_Study.pdf


    Remember, Obama promised costs cuts of up to $2500 per year for most families. This is a claim which Politifact.org has already called a broken promise.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/

    In fact there is concern that the ACA will not only fail to decrease individual costs for insurance, but that it is on the verge of fairly dramatic increases:
    "The average increase for health plans between 2013 and 2014 surpassed the average increase of the previous eight years combined. "
    http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...years-combined


    Next we should look at the supposed success of providing insurance to the previously uninsured. From the RAND study mentioned in the OP, it should be noted that while 9+ million people now have insurance, only about 1/3 are through the exchanges. In other words, the mandate forced people to sign up for Medicare or enroll on a company plan which is to be expected. Of those uninsured, less than 4 million signed up through the exchanges, the centerpiece of the ACA. Of course, not everyone who signed up on the exchanges was previously uninsured.
    "Although a total of 3.9 million people enrolled in marketplace plans, only 1.4 million of these individuals were previously uninsured. "
    http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/sur...an-adults.html

    In other words, the ACA is responsible for just over 1 million people newly acquiring insurance who previously may not have had insurance readily available for them. This is important because the other 8 million people did not need new legislation to get covered. The real benefits of the ACA have been in its satellite provisions such as in preventing denial for pre-existing conditions. It is unlikely the GOP would repeal these popular aspects of the law. Yet, in looking at the major components of the law, those that go beyond small regulations and tweaks to the marketplace, the legislation is still ripe to be repealed. The law has failed to do what is was intended to do; cut costs, cover the uninsured. Considering how expensive the law has made health care for most Americans without providing the #1 promised benefit, why would anyone want to keep this legislation?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #6
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think it is still too early to say.

    Certainly a lot of the doomsayers have been already shown up as full of crap. No doom as of yet.
    Right.

    And certainly anyone claiming the AHCA was going to solve all ills are also full of crap (though I've seen very few of these).
    I don't think anyone has claimed that ACA solves all ills! It's just the next step.


    1) The number of people who have substantial medical insurance (Or the overall health profile of the US populace)
    Done. With the expanded medicaid roles this has certainly been achieved.

    2) Overall government spending across all types of health care
    This one is tougher. Hopefully, the insurance companies being forced to spend 80% of premiums on actual health care will direct the money towards actual care rather than profits. This in turns drives down the actual cost of insurance for everyone.

    ---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Certainly, those looking to pat themselves on the back for the ACA are a bit premature. Firstly, Obama touted the ACA as a cost-saving measure. He promised health costs would decline due to his legislation. Yet, the most recent study on insurance costs related to the ACA show the exact opposite.
    I think you have to take a look at the original goals which are to provide insurance to as many people as possible and to remove some of the worst practices of the insurance companies. The latter is already paying dividends (literally returning money back to consumers) and the former beginning to happen in an irreversible way.

    Costs, are important, but that will take time and more people on the insurance roles and likely more reforms such as single-payer. But I don't think ACA's primary goal is to save money - otherwise, why even do it: letting people die poor saves more money.

    Remember, Obama promised costs cuts of up to $2500 per year for most families. This is a claim which Politifact.org has already called a broken promise.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/
    That was from 2012 before the ACA took full effect; indeed, the article notes "Notice the frequent use of the conditional in these descriptions. The law doesn't go into full effect until 2014 and we won't know how the costs of premiums will change until then. Cutler, the former Obama advisor: "The general point is that the ACA is just starting to take effect, so we can't judge its effect for sure.”"

    I think you have to give it time.


    In fact there is concern that the ACA will not only fail to decrease individual costs for insurance, but that it is on the verge of fairly dramatic increases:
    "The average increase for health plans between 2013 and 2014 surpassed the average increase of the previous eight years combined. "
    http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...years-combined
    Well, if it does then someone made a mistake in their calculations. I wouldn't be surprised by some increases because we're actually getting better coverage than we had before and then 80% of premiums have to be spent towards medical care. I've never understood the free lunch argument where somehow we getting more and better stuff without having to pay for it. That can only happen if there are more people paying into the system and cutting costs - those are really the only two ways that premiums can legitimately go down. That, and the 80% rule means that structurally, it is robust towards passing those efficiencies and savings back to the consumer.

    Again, I think you have to give it time.


    Next we should look at the supposed success of providing insurance to the previously uninsured. From the RAND study mentioned in the OP, it should be noted that while 9+ million people now have insurance, only about 1/3 are through the exchanges. In other words, the mandate forced people to sign up for Medicare or enroll on a company plan which is to be expected. Of those uninsured, less than 4 million signed up through the exchanges, the centerpiece of the ACA. Of course, not everyone who signed up on the exchanges was previously uninsured.
    "Although a total of 3.9 million people enrolled in marketplace plans, only 1.4 million of these individuals were previously uninsured. "
    http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/sur...an-adults.html
    Certainly, the expansion of medicaid wasn't as successful as it could have been, but that was because Republican states as part of the scorched earth campaign against ACA decided not to perform this expansion. That's 15 million people in 23 States (source) that could have been enrolled but weren't purely because of politics. Those people are will now either die or contribute to medical bankruptcy statistics and we will get to draw some conclusions in perhaps 5 or 10 years time to determine whether it was a good idea or not.

    Again more time is needed.

    [/QUOTE]In other words, the ACA is responsible for just over 1 million people newly acquiring insurance who previously may not have had insurance readily available for them. This is important because the other 8 million people did not need new legislation to get covered. The real benefits of the ACA have been in its satellite provisions such as in preventing denial for pre-existing conditions. [/QUOTE]

    I'm seeing 5.4million previously uninsured - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101552700. Either way, to claim that ACA hasn't achieved its goal of increasing the uninsured is certainly not true. It may not be happening at the rate originally predicted but who knew that Republicans have done as much as they could to not assist and/or hinder its implementation?

    It is unlikely the GOP would repeal these popular aspects of the law. Yet, in looking at the major components of the law, those that go beyond small regulations and tweaks to the marketplace, the legislation is still ripe to be repealed. The law has failed to do what is was intended to do; cut costs, cover the uninsured. Considering how expensive the law has made health care for most Americans without providing the #1 promised benefit, why would anyone want to keep this legislation?
    I'm not clear what would be repealed though. I think people like having insurance and better insurance than they had before. No lifetime limits is a huge weight off the minds of parents with sick children that require expensive medicine. Hopefully, medical bankruptcies will be eliminated thus saving even more families from becoming destitute and hopefully, people will get to take care of themselves by visiting their doctors sooner rather than waiting until they need to go to the ER.

    There are plenty of articles out there saying that Republicans are finding that they can only replace ObamaCare with ObamaCare, basically saying that there really aren't too many options to choose from whilst remaining consistent with conservative values. Only the Democrats have significant plans and changes to come with single-payer being the biggest one. So the best Republicans can do is to make ObamaCare work better thereby solidifying its permanence - and that time has come.

    Largely though, your claims of ACA's failure really have no merit. Firstly, you are claiming failures in the first few months of implementation and just like the complaints about the website in its initial *days* have pretty much fizzled out, this too will fizzle out with time. More people are going to be signing up because everyone needs to offset the risk of medical bankruptcies. So getting people on board is just a matter of getting the message out.

    While, it's too early to claim ACA's victory, I'm not doing that - I am saying it is here to stay and that it is the Republicans turn to help make it work. It certainly makes no sense to call it a failure! If the worst you can say is that some of the promises didn't pan out then so be it - those are small potatoes compared to the statistics that will bear out the true goals of ACA.

  8. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post

    I think you have to take a look at the original goals which are to provide insurance to as many people as possible and to remove some of the worst practices of the insurance companies. The latter is already paying dividends (literally returning money back to consumers) and the former beginning to happen in an irreversible way.

    Costs, are important, but that will take time and more people on the insurance roles and likely more reforms such as single-payer. But I don't think ACA's primary goal is to save money - otherwise, why even do it: letting people die poor saves more money.


    I think you have to give it time.


    Again, I think you have to give it time.

    Certainly, the expansion of medicaid wasn't as successful as it could have been, but that was because Republican states as part of the scorched earth campaign against ACA decided not to perform this expansion. That's 15 million people in 23 States (source) that could have been enrolled but weren't purely because of politics. Those people are will now either die or contribute to medical bankruptcy statistics and we will get to draw some conclusions in perhaps 5 or 10 years time to determine whether it was a good idea or not.

    Again more time is needed.

    I'm seeing 5.4million previously uninsured - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101552700. Either way, to claim that ACA hasn't achieved its goal of increasing the uninsured is certainly not true. It may not be happening at the rate originally predicted but who knew that Republicans have done as much as they could to not assist and/or hinder its implementation?

    I'm not clear what would be repealed though. I think people like having insurance and better insurance than they had before. No lifetime limits is a huge weight off the minds of parents with sick children that require expensive medicine. Hopefully, medical bankruptcies will be eliminated thus saving even more families from becoming destitute and hopefully, people will get to take care of themselves by visiting their doctors sooner rather than waiting until they need to go to the ER.

    There are plenty of articles out there saying that Republicans are finding that they can only replace ObamaCare with ObamaCare, basically saying that there really aren't too many options to choose from whilst remaining consistent with conservative values. Only the Democrats have significant plans and changes to come with single-payer being the biggest one. So the best Republicans can do is to make ObamaCare work better thereby solidifying its permanence - and that time has come.

    Largely though, your claims of ACA's failure really have no merit. Firstly, you are claiming failures in the first few months of implementation and just like the complaints about the website in its initial *days* have pretty much fizzled out, this too will fizzle out with time. More people are going to be signing up because everyone needs to offset the risk of medical bankruptcies. So getting people on board is just a matter of getting the message out.

    While, it's too early to claim ACA's victory, I'm not doing that - I am saying it is here to stay and that it is the Republicans turn to help make it work. It certainly makes no sense to call it a failure! If the worst you can say is that some of the promises didn't pan out then so be it - those are small potatoes compared to the statistics that will bear out the true goals of ACA.
    Isn't claiming the ACA is here to stay akin to claiming a victory for the ACA? Is it possible for the ACA to be repealed and be considered a victory? Indeed, your claim that problems with the website have fizzled out is also a bit premature.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oba...arrives-n67666


    This is the claim of your OP.
    A trio of news items this last week is pointing towards ObamaCare being a permanent fixture and that the Republican efforts to minimize its successes and exaggerate its flaws are coming to naught.
    In fact, according to the statistics and data I clearly laid out, the ACA is not meeting its goals. Furthermore, I demonstrated that the ACA was unlikely to meet its goals over time based on the projected increases in premiums due to the ACA. Finally, I demonstrated that just over 1 million people really acted in a manner suggesting they have any desire for this law. The only point of mine you rebutted was the 1 million previously insured number which I pulled from the Rand website. Your statistic is from a second hand source and should be considered inherently less accurate. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the American people would complain if the Republicans repealed the ACA in a manner which left intact some of its more popular provisions. In other words, despite your contention, there is absolutely nothing to believe that the ACA is a permanent fixture.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #8
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Isn't claiming the ACA is here to stay akin to claiming a victory for the ACA?
    Not really. Victory would be if all Americans were covered and that is not happening due in a large part of active hindrance from the Republicans.

    At best, one could say victory is more likely. I am just pointing out that the most republican fears have shown to be unfounded and that they too are realizing it is the new reality and that perhaps more overt hindrance may have political consequences.


    Is it possible for the ACA to be repealed and be considered a victory?
    One measure of it's success that Obama pointed out is that Republicans will stop calling it ObamaCare! But in that light, Republicans can only repeal and replace. So you can call it whatever you want but you'd be hard pressed to deny it's Genesis.

    But I asked before, what would you repeal?



    Indeed, your claim that problems with the website have fizzled out is also a bit premature.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oba...arrives-n67666

    This is the claim of your OP.
    Yes, software has problems and they get fixed. I'm not going through the October arguments again.


    In fact, according to the statistics and data I clearly laid out, the ACA is not meeting its goals.
    This is *one* 'goal' that is more of an implementation milestone.

    Furthermore, I demonstrated that the ACA was unlikely to meet its goals over time based on the projected increases in premiums due to the ACA.
    Well then something needs to be fixed. It's really that simple. ACA is not a 'goal' locked in stone. It is a new reality that will have to be hammered into place and supported by additional legislation and ideas.

    It is not an end, it is a beginning. All of your objections are fixable if they even pan out.

    Finally, I demonstrated that just over 1 million people really acted in a manner suggesting they have any desire for this law.
    I dispute your number includes the Medicaid examples and nevertheless, those 1m represents success.


    The only point of mine you rebutted was the 1 million previously insured number which I pulled from the Rand website. Your statistic is from a second hand source and should be considered inherently less accurate.
    Inherently less accurate! Really - that's grasping at straws.

    There is absolutely no reason to believe that the American people would complain if the Republicans repealed the ACA in a manner which left intact some of its more popular provisions.
    Well, that's assuming that can be done in the first place. None of the plans put forward have much steam and it's not for the lack of trying. Plus there'd have to be a Republican president which is going to be unlikely for a little while.

    In other words, despite your contention, there is absolutely nothing to believe that the ACA is a permanent fixture.
    Well, I didn't say that it was going to be permanent either;I said it is the new reality from which we can move forward on. I'm sure that in 100 years it wouldn't be around in the same form!

  10. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Not really. Victory would be if all Americans were covered and that is not happening due in a large part of active hindrance from the Republicans.
    If you insist.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    At best, one could say victory is more likely. I am just pointing out that the most republican fears have shown to be unfounded and that they too are realizing it is the new reality and that perhaps more overt hindrance may have political consequences.
    Which fear have you shown to be unfounded? Furthermore, my argument has clearly rebutted the idea that there will be political consequences for repealing (i.e. hindering) the ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    One measure of it's success that Obama pointed out is that Republicans will stop calling it ObamaCare! But in that light, Republicans can only repeal and replace. So you can call it whatever you want but you'd be hard pressed to deny it's Genesis.
    And yet here I am denying it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    But I asked before, what would you repeal?
    I don't recall this question and am not sure why it is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes, software has problems and they get fixed. I'm not going through the October arguments again.
    Wait. You had just claimed that the website problems were behind us.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    just like the complaints about the website in its initial *days* have pretty much fizzled out
    I am just rebutting your claim that complaints have fizzled out.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is *one* 'goal' that is more of an implementation milestone.
    So cutting costs and employing the previously uninsured are now implementation milestones??? I am a bit confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well then something needs to be fixed. It's really that simple. ACA is not a 'goal' locked in stone. It is a new reality that will have to be hammered into place and supported by additional legislation and ideas.
    Whether it is a new reality is what we are debating, isn't it? Your claim is that it is the new reality. I have offered an argument that counters your contention. I am struggling to find anywhere that you have rebutted my arguments. So, it would seem rather brash on your point to continue with your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It is not an end, it is a beginning. All of your objections are fixable if they even pan out.
    Sure, but, and this was my final point in the last post, the American people don't seem all that interested in fixing it. The uninsured are not lining up for insurance. It is costing people more money they were promised. I can add that the ACA is rather unpopular according to polls.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/168491/am...hcare-law.aspx
    A plurality of Americans believe that the ACA will either make things are worse or provide no net to change in the long run.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I dispute your number includes the Medicaid examples and nevertheless, those 1m represents success.
    You dispute the number based on what? And 1 million hardly represents success considering just under a million lost insurance directly because of the ACA per the same study. More to the point, while you may see it as a success, based on the polls, most Americans are not calling the ACA a success.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Inherently less accurate! Really - that's grasping at straws.
    How so? Primary source versus a secondary source, which is inherently more accurate?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, that's assuming that can be done in the first place. None of the plans put forward have much steam and it's not for the lack of trying. Plus there'd have to be a Republican president which is going to be unlikely for a little while.
    This does not really rebut my argument. My argument was that, as an unpopular law, Republicans will not pay a price for repealing it. This is a counter to your claim where you offered that
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So the best Republicans can do is to make ObamaCare work better thereby solidifying its permanence
    I think I am making it clear that so long as Republicans do not repeal certain popular provisions of the ACA, then there would be little uproar over repealing the remainder of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, I didn't say that it was going to be permanent either;I said it is the new reality from which we can move forward on. I'm sure that in 100 years it wouldn't be around in the same form!
    Clearly we disagree on the definition of reality.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #10
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you insist.
    Yep, I do and it's a good thing - we now know who has been hindering ObamaCare and the Republicans are going to have a hard time walking back their positions. There's more fodder for the comedy shows so I guess there is a smaller silver lining to this.


    Which fear have you shown to be unfounded? Furthermore, my argument has clearly rebutted the idea that there will be political consequences for repealing (i.e. hindering) the ACA.
    That the website would never work, that nobody would sign up, that it will die because of the death spiral when no young people sign up, etc. etc.

    And yet here I am denying it.
    With less and less facts to back up you.

    I don't recall this question and am not sure why it is relevant.
    Because otherwise, you're just whining for political gain. With no substance, no backup plan and no real alternative, your purpose of complaining is political.

    The problem is that unless you disagree with what ACA is trying to achieve, then you largely have no argument unless you have an alternative (which you don't). Ultimately, this all seems like Republicans trying to spoil a major Democratic achievement, which is understandable since the Republican party hasn't had any major achievements for quite a while. To complain about ACA's failure whilst rooting for it is just about the weirdest position to hold.

    Wait. You had just claimed that the website problems were behind us.
    Not all of them! Goodness me, I thought you were a software engineer. The point is that the original moaning is just a memory but the site continues to be working and enrolling people.

    I am just rebutting your claim that complaints have fizzled out.
    And those complaints have.

    So cutting costs and employing the previously uninsured are now implementation milestones??? I am a bit confused.
    The goal is to provide insurance to as many people as possible - if that goal is achieved then the costs will kick in.


    JJ: Well then something needs to be fixed. It's really that simple. ACA is not a 'goal' locked in stone. It is a new reality that will have to be hammered into place and supported by additional legislation and ideas.

    Whether it is a new reality is what we are debating, isn't it? Your claim is that it is the new reality. I have offered an argument that counters your contention. I am struggling to find anywhere that you have rebutted my arguments. So, it would seem rather brash on your point to continue with your claim.
    The new reality is that Republicans are past the point of no return. Whatever that is going to be doing will either strengthen ACA or make it better.


    Sure, but, and this was my final point in the last post, the American people don't seem all that interested in fixing it. The uninsured are not lining up for insurance. It is costing people more money they were promised. I can add that the ACA is rather unpopular according to polls.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/168491/am...hcare-law.aspx
    A plurality of Americans believe that the ACA will either make things are worse or provide no net to change in the long run.
    Well, if people want to take the risk of bankruptcies or leech off the taxpayer by expecting us to pay for their free Emergency Room care, then we need to do some more things to fix that. I think a few years of the individual mandate will help people make that decision.


    You dispute the number based on what? And 1 million hardly represents success considering just under a million lost insurance directly because of the ACA per the same study. More to the point, while you may see it as a success, based on the polls, most Americans are not calling the ACA a success.
    They're not calling ObamaCare a success because they prefer ACA.

    edit: A new poll posted this morning shows that Americans are siding with ACA. So while it may not be called a success, I think most Americans would prefer to move forward:

    (Reuters) - Americans increasingly think Democrats have a better plan for healthcare than Republicans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted after the White House announced that more people than expected had signed up for the "Obamacare" health plan.
    Nearly one-third of respondents in the online survey released on Tuesday said they prefer Democrats' plan, policy or approach to healthcare, compared to just 18 percent for Republicans. This marks both an uptick in support for Democrats and a slide for Republicans since a similar poll in February.
    source

    This does not really rebut my argument. My argument was that, as an unpopular law, Republicans will not pay a price for repealing it. This is a counter to your claim where you offered that
    I think I am making it clear that so long as Republicans do not repeal certain popular provisions of the ACA, then there would be little uproar over repealing the remainder of the law.
    Then they will be responsible for the system collapsing then! If they just keep the 'good' stuff, and get rid of the 'bad' stuff then who will pay for it?

    No doubt, you will ignore the CBO's latest report that says that financially, it is even better:

    Premiums for health care insurance in the Affordable Care Act are lower than the federal government had anticipated, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Monday when it revised its cost estimate for the health care law. The nonpartisan office now believes that the ACA will cost the government $5 billion less than projected in 2014 and $104 billion less for the 2015-2024 period. It also found “no clear evidence” that premiums will surge in 2015, noting that “enrollees in the future will be healthier, on average, than the smaller number of people who are obtaining such coverage in 2014.” The agency estimated that the national average premium for individual silver policy plans would increase by $100 that year.

    source

    Clearly we disagree on the definition of reality.
    Yes, well, it seems that you see ACA as written in stone and everything has to be exactly as planned otherwise it's a failure. I think the real world is a lot more flexible. Just like Benghazi, this one is slipping away, all the major points are disappearing or rather, they're being corrected, as they should be.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 16th, 2014 at 04:11 AM.

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That the website would never work, that nobody would sign up, that it will die because of the death spiral when no young people sign up, etc. etc.
    Not sure who claimed the web site would "never" work, or that "nobody" would sign up. Whether the supposed death spiral occurs is yet to be seen and this has been a concern amongst members of both parties. Otherwise, you're just constructing straw men.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    With less and less facts to back up you.
    You have not refuted a single fact I have brought up, so how are the facts decreasing?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Because otherwise, you're just whining for political gain. With no substance, no backup plan and no real alternative, your purpose of complaining is political.


    The problem is that unless you disagree with what ACA is trying to achieve, then you largely have no argument unless you have an alternative (which you don't). Ultimately, this all seems like Republicans trying to spoil a major Democratic achievement, which is understandable since the Republican party hasn't had any major achievements for quite a while. To complain about ACA's failure whilst rooting for it is just about the weirdest position to hold.
    That is not the debate in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Not all of them! Goodness me, I thought you were a software engineer. The point is that the original moaning is just a memory but the site continues to be working and enrolling people.
    I am debating you, not myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And those complaints have.
    Except the latest one which I linked. You can stick your head in the sand. It does not mean the problems go away.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The goal is to provide insurance to as many people as possible - if that goal is achieved then the costs will kick in.
    So, if 1 person is provided insurance, then the goal is achieved..???? I thought the goal was to provide insurance to everyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The new reality is that Republicans are past the point of no return. Whatever that is going to be doing will either strengthen ACA or make it better.
    I have refuted this position. Just repeating it does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, if people want to take the risk of bankruptcies or leech off the taxpayer by expecting us to pay for their free Emergency Room care, then we need to do some more things to fix that. I think a few years of the individual mandate will help people make that decision.
    This does not address my claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    They're not calling ObamaCare a success because they prefer ACA.

    edit: A new poll posted this morning shows that Americans are siding with ACA. So while it may not be called a success, I think most Americans would prefer to move forward:



    Then they will be responsible for the system collapsing then! If they just keep the 'good' stuff, and get rid of the 'bad' stuff then who will pay for it?

    No doubt, you will ignore the CBO's latest report that says that financially, it is even better:


    Yes, well, it seems that you see ACA as written in stone and everything has to be exactly as planned otherwise it's a failure. I think the real world is a lot more flexible. Just like Benghazi, this one is slipping away, all the major points are disappearing or rather, they're being corrected, as they should be.
    I know you believe ThinkProgress is a highly reputable news source.... but geez. I mean in two minutes I found table 2 at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil..._Estimates.pdf
    According to the CBO, the number of uninsured will increase between now and 2024, swelling to 57 million people. So, while the CBO's estimate of government outlays for the ACA are reduced slightly, in part because of larger than expected revenue from taxes and penalties (i.e. individuals and employers paying more), this government spending is going towards a program which still leaves over 50 million people without insurance.

    Again, my position is that the Republican party will be encouraged to gut the ACA if not repeal it outright. This will be encouraged by the voters according to the polls I offered. Nothing you have provided refutes this.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #12
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not sure who claimed the web site would "never" work, or that "nobody" would sign up. Whether the supposed death spiral occurs is yet to be seen and this has been a concern amongst members of both parties. Otherwise, you're just constructing straw men.
    You're right actually. All the moaning on here, now that you point this out, just turns out to be moaning and complaining for the sake of it. As for the death spiral, it was pointed out that since young people weren't signing up at the time, then that indicated it would happen. Again, pointing out conclusions too early. Instead, young people have signed up (since they're pretty risk averse too when it comes to their own pocket) so I don't think it's too early to draw the conclusion that the death spiral is not going to happen. But feel free pretending that it will.

    You have not refuted a single fact I have brought up, so how are the facts decreasing?
    What facts have you brought up?

    That is not the debate in this thread.
    That is the exact debate in this thread. Complaining about things that are rapidly turning out not to be true, fear-mongering about nothing, and having no alternatives is exactly why the Republican politicians are in the bind they find themselves. Now that they've been consistently complaining about failures in the very system they are against working, they are at the point of having to fix things in secret or walking back their unfounded fears.


    I am debating you, not myself.
    Yes, but that doesn't mean you forget how software works!


    Except the latest one which I linked. You can stick your head in the sand. It does not mean the problems go away.
    And I just countered with a counter a poll that showed that the more American people are getting insured. But mainly those in Blue states that are supporting ObamaCare. The Red states, of course, aren't seeing any improvements.


    So, if 1 person is provided insurance, then the goal is achieved..???? I thought the goal was to provide insurance to everyone?
    The goal is to provide as many as 25 million people access to insurance. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision allowed Red States to refuse to expand their Medicaid rolls, so 15 million won't get insurance. Is that the fault of ACA who explicitly required the States to do so or the States to refuse to implement it? So do you want to discuss something substantive or throw out strawmen?


    I have refuted this position. Just repeating it does not make it so.
    You really haven't refuted anything. Almost every day this week more evidence is being forwarded that ACA is working in States that support it, and those States that don't are just going to seem worse and worse when the final statistics are tallied. You can pretend that the 'repeal/replace' strategy works but those are empty words with no details - it's largely why Republican's haven't settled on an actual plan yet. Much like your own 'refutation' it's really just a smokescreen for having no real ideas.


    I know you believe ThinkProgress is a highly reputable news source.... but geez. I mean in two minutes I found table 2 at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil..._Estimates.pdf
    According to the CBO, the number of uninsured will increase between now and 2024, swelling to 57 million people. So, while the CBO's estimate of government outlays for the ACA are reduced slightly, in part because of larger than expected revenue from taxes and penalties (i.e. individuals and employers paying more), this government spending is going towards a program which still leaves over 50 million people without insurance.
    Yes, of course the number of uninsured are going to increase - unless the Red States get with the program, there will be more people.

    On page 5, which I presume you are referencing, there is a footnote:
    c. The uninsured population includes people who will be unauthorized immigrants and thus ineligible either for exchange subsidies or for
    most Medicaid benefits; people who will be ineligible for Medicaid because they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage;
    people who will be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll; and people who will not purchase insurance to which they have
    access through an employer, an exchange, or directly from an insurer.
    So I how is it ACA's fault that unauthorized immigrants don't get insured? Or people decide themselves not to buy insurance or if red-sates choose not to expand coverage?

    Your position is based on nothing but a poor reading of the facts, even when they are directly in front of you. The above shows that you clearly have to ignore evidence that are directly against your specific claims.

    Again, my position is that the Republican party will be encouraged to gut the ACA if not repeal it outright. This will be encouraged by the voters according to the polls I offered. Nothing you have provided refutes this.
    I really don't think you have a position other than wishful thinking. I can tell because you have offered nothing more than what the Republican party has told you -- which also amounts to nothing but destructive politics and harm. But feel free to support a platform that removes insurance from people that have it - I think it's a great platform to continue with. Nothing makes a Democratic politician happier than seeing a Republican politician dig themselves deeper into the hole. Carry on! Really.

    But in terms of debate all you have is vague promises on top of an inaccurate or deliberate misreading of facts.

  14. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I really don't think you have a position other than wishful thinking. I can tell because you have offered nothing more than what the Republican party has told you -- which also amounts to nothing but destructive politics and harm. But feel free to support a platform that removes insurance from people that have it - I think it's a great platform to continue with. Nothing makes a Democratic politician happier than seeing a Republican politician dig themselves deeper into the hole. Carry on! Really.

    But in terms of debate all you have is vague promises on top of an inaccurate or deliberate misreading of facts.
    First, please support or retract your claim that I am offering nothing more than what Republicans have told me.

    Secondly, you have failed to establish that any of the facts I have offered are vague or misleading. In fact, of my rebuttals from the Rand report, you have refuted exactly zero of them.

    Finally, I have done my level best to have a civil debate with you over the facts. This is where it has led us.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #14
    Registered User

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

    ObamaCare is here to stay

    Firstly, I apologize if I have offended. I too am trying to have a civil debate though I do reserve the right to call out the lack of facts and details.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, please support or retract your claim that I am offering nothing more than what Republicans have told me.
    Perhaps I am jaded but nothing you're saying about repealing and replacing ACA hasn't been said already. And it is all vague with no real substance. If you want a serious debate about healthcare, I don't mind doing so but you can't wave a magical political wand to make all the bad stuff go away and keep the good stuff. I don't see any pros and cons or the sacrifices that you're making. So if you want I can go into detail and map your statements to similar Republican positions but that seems to be a waste of time. My purpose is really to point out your lack of detail.

    A good example of the poor position can be found here - http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...oss-obamacare/. Where a Republican politician is finding it hard to explain his 50 votes to repeal ObamaCare. He admits that one of the weakness of the party is that they have had no alternative plan. So basically, it's all just been moaning with no real plan to move forward.

    Unfortunately, that's all you've done too - point out problems and mistakes with no action plan. It's just complaining.



    Secondly, you have failed to establish that any of the facts I have offered are vague or misleading. In fact, of my rebuttals from the Rand report, you have refuted exactly zero of them.
    I will look at that again later tonight.


    Finally, I have done my level best to have a civil debate with you over the facts. This is where it has led us.
    Well, again, I apologize for any offense and I'll go back and review the thread. I thought I had covered everything.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 17th, 2014 at 09:56 AM.

  16. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Firstly, I apologize if I have offended. I too am trying to have a civil debate though I do reserve the right to call out the lack of facts and details.



    Perhaps I am jaded but nothing you're saying about repealing and replacing ACA hasn't been said already. And it is all vague with no real substance. If you want a serious debate about healthcare, I don't mind doing so but you can't wave a magical political wand to make all the bad stuff go away and keep the good stuff. I don't see any pros and cons or the sacrifices that you're making. So if you want I can go into detail and map your statements to similar Republican positions but that seems to be a waste of time. My purpose is really to point out your lack of detail.

    A good example of the poor position can be found here - http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...oss-obamacare/. Where a Republican politician is finding it hard to explain his 50 votes to repeal ObamaCare. He admits that one of the weakness of the party is that they have had no alternative plan. So basically, it's all just been moaning with no real plan to move forward.

    Unfortunately, that's all you've done too - point out problems and mistakes with no action plan. It's just complaining.




    I will look at that again later tonight.




    Well, again, I apologize for any offense and I'll go back and review the thread. I thought I had covered everything.
    Let's revisit the OP of the thread. This thread is not about your personal love of the ACA or my personal dislike of it. This thread is solely about whether it is wise for the Republicans to repeal the ACA. In your OP, you claimed that the evidence suggests the Republicans have no option but to except that that the ACA is here for good. That the ACA is permanent. This is the debate topic. It is not really about the numbers or about whether you think it is great and wonderful or whether I am offering some sort of alternative. That is not the debate. There are plenty of threads which cover that. The OP, as written by you, makes certain claims and I have countered those claims. Claiming I am working from Republican talking points isn't just insulting, it is absurd. I followed your links and then I went to the primary sources. I then provided numbers and statistics your sources either overlooked or ignored. You offering some link to some random politician is just a straw man. I have no idea who Dennis Ross is and I do not particularly care. I have no interest in his supposedly, "poor" position.

    So, while I have gathered information from primary sources and independent news sources, isn't it somewhat amusing that all of your links come from Media Matters, a Democratic party apparatus, and the Daily Show, a comedy act? Yet, you have the nerve to ignore the arguments I have made under the pretense that I am just repeating some sort of Republican talking point. So, if you wish to debate, then address my arguments. If you cannot do this, then just admit it and walk away. One last thing. If you're going to apologize for something, don't follow it up with a lame excuse to justify your behavior. It comes off as insincere and even condescending.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #16
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's revisit the OP of the thread. This thread is not about your personal love of the ACA or my personal dislike of it. This thread is solely about whether it is wise for the Republicans to repeal the ACA.
    No, this thread is about repeal not being much of an option any more.

    Firstly, it appears that it is working - people are signing up - 8million and counting according to Obama today; including 3m young people on their parents' insurance, 3m from medicaid expansions and another 2 enrolled in the same pool. Secondly, there is no death spiral because young people are signing up. Thirdly, red states that did not expand Medicaid are showing higher levels of uninsured than those blue states that did. Finally, the GOP undercover legislation recently shows that political reality is sinking in and they actually have to help ACA work rather than try and hinder it.

    That is the OP.

    In your OP, you claimed that the evidence suggests the Republicans have no option but to except that that the ACA is here for good. That the ACA is permanent. This is the debate topic.
    This is certainly main point - that there is currently no alternate plan other than vague promises of repeal/replace or outright repeal or the more unrealistic repeal the bad stuff and keep the good stuff, which you seem to be a proponent of. All there choices lacking an actual implementation plan and therefore meaningless. It's not me pointing out that there's no option - it's Republicans being able to come up with one!

    It is not really about the numbers or about whether you think it is great and wonderful or whether I am offering some sort of alternative. That is not the debate.
    Wrong. It is exactly about the numbers because the counter factual, that people weren't signing up was used as a sign of the act's failure. That it is clearly not a failure is now proven out by the numbers. That's one of the reasons why it is here to stay.

    If you don't have an alternative then all you are doing is moaning with no real idea of how to fix it and the hand waving you've done thus far does not count.

    There are plenty of threads which cover that. The OP, as written by you, makes certain claims and I have countered those claims. Claiming I am working from Republican talking points isn't just insulting, it is absurd. I followed your links and then I went to the primary sources. I then provided numbers and statistics your sources either overlooked or ignored. You offering some link to some random politician is just a straw man. I have no idea who Dennis Ross is and I do not particularly care. I have no interest in his supposedly, "poor" position.
    I also showed that you didn't even read your own sources properly. And you have yet to respond to that.

    I also showed you some of the political realities that are beginning to happen. There are plenty of other examples in the wings.

    So, while I have gathered information from primary sources and independent news sources, isn't it somewhat amusing that all of your links come from Media Matters, a Democratic party apparatus, and the Daily Show, a comedy act?
    That's a strawman. Facts are facts no matter where they come from.


    Yet, you have the nerve to ignore the arguments I have made under the pretense that I am just repeating some sort of Republican talking point.
    Only because I know you watch too much TV and I know where you are getting your information from. And it's because what you say and your position is just as empty as the Republican platform. That's how I am drawing my conclusions. The parameter space for discussing ACA is quite large and you and the Republicans and Fox News, which you watch, seem to be focussing on a narrow part of the space and make equally vague statements. So you'll have to excuse me for drawing the conclusions that seem to be much more than just coincidence.

    On the other hand, if you point out some specifics then we can have a more substantive discussion but you are being just as vague as the GOP has been. So I may be wrong in my conclusions and it could be a coincidence that you are getting information from somewhere else but I doubt it. There aren't too many root sources for these kinds of talking points.

    So, if you wish to debate, then address my arguments. If you cannot do this, then just admit it and walk away.
    I have done. I have shown you do not read the footnotes that undermine your point. And you have no details behind your ideas of repealing and replacing. I don't think there is much else to respond to. So let me know if there is. I'm actually pretty sure I have responded to all your vague points.


    One last thing. If you're going to apologize for something, don't follow it up with a lame excuse to justify your behavior. It comes off as insincere and even condescending.
    I was being precise about what I was apologizing for. I want to good vigorous civil debate as much as you do so causing offense is not my goal. That was what I was apologizing for.

    I will not apologize for factually saying you have an inaccurate reading of the table showing an increase in uninsured and I will not apologize for the fact that you have no details behind the republican idea of repeal. I certainly won't apologize for pointing out that your lack of details is exactly the same as the lack of plan forwarded by the Republican Party.

    So I am sincere in that I am not trying to cause offense. And I am just as sincere about the conclusions I draw from what you've said.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 17th, 2014 at 06:10 PM.

  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, this thread is about repeal not being much of an option any more.
    Sigh... I mean really??? My interpretation of the OP was
    This thread is solely about whether it is wise for the Republicans to repeal the ACA.

    Your response is that I am wrong because it is about whether repealing the ACA is an option.... Can some third party please help me connect the dots because either I am going mad or we are in basic agreement over the OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Firstly, it appears that it is working - people are signing up - 8million and counting according to Obama today; including 3m young people on their parents' insurance, 3m from medicaid expansions and another 2 enrolled in the same pool. Secondly, there is no death spiral because young people are signing up. Thirdly, red states that did not expand Medicaid are showing higher levels of uninsured than those blue states that did. Finally, the GOP undercover legislation recently shows that political reality is sinking in and they actually have to help ACA work rather than try and hinder it.
    Now wait. Seriously? You are back to Obama's numbers? Didn't we already discuss that his numbers are out of context? Did we not agree that the report YOU introduced offered a very different breakdown of the numbers than those the President is offering? According to the best statistical data available, roughly 1.5 million people now have insurance who were previously uninsured and just under 1 million no longer have insurance who were previously insured.


    To be clear, this is your attempt to support the contention of your OP. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is certainly main point - that there is currently no alternate plan other than vague promises of repeal/replace or outright repeal or the more unrealistic repeal the bad stuff and keep the good stuff, which you seem to be a proponent of. All there choices lacking an actual implementation plan and therefore meaningless. It's not me pointing out that there's no option - it's Republicans being able to come up with one!
    Yes, it is the main point... and the main point doesn't require me to offer an alternative plan. I've explained precisely why in previous posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Wrong. It is exactly about the numbers because the counter factual, that people weren't signing up was used as a sign of the act's failure. That it is clearly not a failure is now proven out by the numbers. That's one of the reasons why it is here to stay.
    No. You're just drinking too much Kool-Aid. And before you counter about how I am getting my info from Fox and some Republican newsletter, let me remind you... my information came from the primary source that your sources were quoting from.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    If you don't have an alternative then all you are doing is moaning with no real idea of how to fix it and the hand waving you've done thus far does not count.
    You do understand how a debate works, right? We don't talk about everything under the Sun at your whim. We stick to the argument made in the OP unless all parties agree otherwise. I have clearly not agreed to deviate from the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I also showed that you didn't even read your own sources properly. And you have yet to respond to that.
    I read the footnotes. They don't refute my rebuttal. Namely, the number of unemployed will grow. It does not matter why or whether various subgroups are included. They are included in the before and after and the number of uninsured will grow. Are you refuting that the CBO makes this prediction?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I also showed you some of the political realities that are beginning to happen. There are plenty of other examples in the wings.
    You have made lots of unsupported assertions... I'll give you that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That's a strawman. Facts are facts no matter where they come from.
    That is funny. I mean, I quote from primary sources and you accuse me of delivering a Republican talking point. You quote from partisan sources and claim you are offering nothing but facts.... Facts that I have refuted each and every time. I'm just asking for some consistency. Show me one instance in this thread where I have quoted from a Republican news source or some Conservative talking point. Name me one instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Only because I know you watch too much TV and I know where you are getting your information from. And it's because what you say and your position is just as empty as the Republican platform. That's how I am drawing my conclusions. The parameter space for discussing ACA is quite large and you and the Republicans and Fox News, which you watch, seem to be focussing on a narrow part of the space and make equally vague statements. So you'll have to excuse me for drawing the conclusions that seem to be much more than just coincidence.
    Obviously, you know very little. I am focusing on the topic at hand and not allowing you to run wild through this thread when you find your talking points refuted.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    On the other hand, if you point out some specifics then we can have a more substantive discussion but you are being just as vague as the GOP has been. So I may be wrong in my conclusions and it could be a coincidence that you are getting information from somewhere else but I doubt it. There aren't too many root sources for these kinds of talking points.
    You can walk down through the thread and address all the instances where I have asked you to support or retract your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I have done. I have shown you do not read the footnotes that undermine your point. And you have no details behind your ideas of repealing and replacing. I don't think there is much else to respond to. So let me know if there is. I'm actually pretty sure I have responded to all your vague points.
    Vague?? lol. I have offered specifics and in return I get Media Matters and John Stewart quotes. Oh, and babble about footnotes. I will discuss these footnotes towards the end of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I was being precise about what I was apologizing for. I want to good vigorous civil debate as much as you do so causing offense is not my goal. That was what I was apologizing for.

    I will not apologize for factually saying you have an inaccurate reading of the table showing an increase in uninsured and I will not apologize for the fact that you have no details behind the republican idea of repeal. I certainly won't apologize for pointing out that your lack of details is exactly the same as the lack of plan forwarded by the Republican Party.

    So I am sincere in that I am not trying to cause offense. And I am just as sincere about the conclusions I draw from what you've said.
    So, you are saying the table does not show the uninsured will increase? Is that your claim or are you just explaining it all away based on the footnotes which explain some of the subgroups which are included? Either way, under the ACA, for whatever reason, the number of uninsured will increase. Why does this matter? Because, if you are a Republican, you can factually point out this small detail listed in table 2 of the CBO report. If you're a Democrat, you then get to counter with a footnote that may or may not make a difference. Good luck explaining that in a 30 second add.... Even assuming you are absolutely correct and the footnote completely contradicts the data in the table, it would still need to be explained. Again. Good luck. So, for all intents and purposes, Republicans simply need to hold up the CBO report and point to the clearly listed numbers in table 2 showing the uninsured under Obama's plan goes up and up and up.

    So, I am reiterating my points from before. There is no reason for the Republicans to feel constrained by the ACA as repealing it would be a viable option for them in 2016 if they win the Presidency. To your point, should they have an alternative plan? Sure. They'd be wise to replace it with something. Whether the plan exists right now does not really matter because this thread is not a debate over the Republican plan or lack thereof. There are Republican plans, by the way. It just is not important to discuss them here.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #18
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sigh... I mean really??? My interpretation of the OP was
    This thread is solely about whether it is wise for the Republicans to repeal the ACA.

    Your response is that I am wrong because it is about whether repealing the ACA is an option.... Can some third party please help me connect the dots because either I am going mad or we are in basic agreement over the OP?
    You don't see the difference that repealing is not an option, that the Republican party, or at least its leadership, has already moved on, i.e. my OP and how you're reading it that believes they still have a choice?


    Now wait. Seriously? You are back to Obama's numbers? Didn't we already discuss that his numbers are out of context? Did we not agree that the report YOU introduced offered a very different breakdown of the numbers than those the President is offering? According to the best statistical data available, roughly 1.5 million people now have insurance who were previously uninsured and just under 1 million no longer have insurance who were previously insured.
    Yes, we are back to numbers, and when you showed that the number of uninsured is increasing, I showed you that you had a faulty reading of the table. As to your other reading, I know it comes from Fox News because there's an interesting article about how Fox mentions this pitiful number multiple times, pertinent to your mistake is

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...d-cover/198702
    KRAUTHAMMER: But on these exchanges, you have got to ask yourself, the price we have paid -- the estimate is one to one-and-a-half million of these people were uninsured before. The whole idea was insuring the uninsured. So that's going to leave about 40 million uninsured. And for that, we have to cancel 6 million policies? [Fox News, Special Report, 3/31/14]

    Here he, like you, are both talking about people on Exchanges. There are about 3m that were added due to Medicaid expansion, another 3m children added to their parents' insurance (though, I don't know if they were previously uninsured).

    The whole 'previously uninsured' attack point is one of three (let's see how many you come up with) that the GOP pushes. It's wholly false because it ignores the fact, that in addition to bringing uninsured to people, as part of its regulation reform of the industry, it is now providing a way for people to compare different insurance plans by standardizing what they provide. So ignoring all those other millions is just ludicrous since it is clearly working too.

    By looking your quote, in context, i.e. including the very next sentence that puts your 'conclusion' into doubt:

    Although a total of 3.9 million people enrolled in marketplace plans, only 1.4 million of these individuals were previously uninsured. Our marketplace enrollment numbers are lower than those reported by the federal government at least in part because our data do not fully capture the surge in enrollment that occurred in late March 2014.
    http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/sur...an-adults.html

    Note how the number you are quoting is qualified. I know it sort of helps your case if you just quote the points that help you but to do so out of context is exactly how Fox News works too. And it's easily discovered so I don't know why you do it.

    So in order for your tiny number to hold up you have to:

    1. Ignore up to 3m on Medicaid.
    2. Ignore the children.
    3. Ignore the very next sentence that puts your number as not being current.


    To be clear, this is your attempt to support the contention of your OP. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.
    No, publishing numbers is exactly showing that the goals of getting uninsured insured is being reached - either through Medicaid or through private plans or through insurance reform. These numbers are all increasing, and Obama's numbers yesterday are showing this trend.

    All you have is another example of how facts can be deliberately ignored to create a false talking point.


    Yes, it is the main point... and the main point doesn't require me to offer an alternative plan. I've explained precisely why in previous posts.
    Right, and moaning doesn't help move the processes forward. If you want a substantive debate on the medical industry then without an alternative what exactly is your point?

    Let's say your claim is true, that ACA is a failure, it doesn't work and has been a waste of time? Then what? Nothing, is all I get from you and the GOP. This is part of the reason why the GOP has to accept ACA is the law of the land and move on and stop pretending it still thinks it can be repealed. Without an alternative plan, and not the handwaving you've been doing here, they can't even begin the discussion to repeal.


    No. You're just drinking too much Kool-Aid. And before you counter about how I am getting my info from Fox and some Republican newsletter, let me remind you... my information came from the primary source that your sources were quoting from.
    Except that you seemed to have missed a vital sentence showing that your number was old and incomplete and likely to rise due to the surge. Drinking Kool-Aid, is ignoring facts and obfuscating and hiding information that places doubt onto your claims.


    You do understand how a debate works, right? We don't talk about everything under the Sun at your whim. We stick to the argument made in the OP unless all parties agree otherwise. I have clearly not agreed to deviate from the topic.
    Actually, I believe that you're the one changing the OP. You seem to want to believe that the GOP is wise to consider changing the law - yet you fail to specify what exactly will be changed. So let's stick to the OP - I don't mind taking a side track into Tea Party land where they still believe that it's still repealable but you have to substantively back it up and have more detail than the impossible dream of keeping everyone happy and making zero sacrifices doing so!

    I read the footnotes. They don't refute my rebuttal. Namely, the number of unemployed will grow. It does not matter why or whether various subgroups are included. They are included in the before and after and the number of uninsured will grow. Are you refuting that the CBO makes this prediction?
    Yet in those subgroups are people that are forced out of the insurance market by Republican states and illegal immigrants! How is that not relevant to your broader claim that ACA is not successful. You have one group of people that is irrelevant and a second group denied through political machinations. And the third group who choose not to!

    So it's largely a number that is irrelevant to ACA itself (which originally mandated the expansion anyway) since those people are uninsured through choice. And not only that you have also admitted that Republicans are to blame for the increase! Well done, we finally agree on something.


    That is funny. I mean, I quote from primary sources and you accuse me of delivering a Republican talking point. You quote from partisan sources and claim you are offering nothing but facts.... Facts that I have refuted each and every time. I'm just asking for some consistency. Show me one instance in this thread where I have quoted from a Republican news source or some Conservative talking point. Name me one instance.
    You may be quoting from primary sources, but it appears that you are doing so in narrow contexts and ignoring contrary information. That is a Fox News modus operandi, as I showed how you have Fox News have narrowly argued the 1.5m number, whilst deliberately ignoring the other 7 or 8m. As just above, you also ignore the footnotes that makes your point not only irrelevant but a political own-goal: again what usually happens when people delve into Fox News narratives.

    So quote from wherever you want, that's not my complaint. My complaint is the approach in which you are being partisan in presenting the facts. Just like Fox News' famous y-axes in many of their charts, you're taking the same facts and presenting them in a way to benefit the Republican argument. You're not looking at the facts and drawing conclusions that directly come from the facts. You hide information that counters your points and you obfuscate details.


    Vague?? lol. I have offered specifics and in return I get Media Matters and John Stewart quotes. Oh, and babble about footnotes. I will discuss these footnotes towards the end of this post.
    What specifics? Repeal the bad stuff and keep the good stuff? That's specific? Really?


    So, you are saying the table does not show the uninsured will increase? Is that your claim or are you just explaining it all away based on the footnotes which explain some of the subgroups which are included? Either way, under the ACA, for whatever reason, the number of uninsured will increase. Why does this matter? Because, if you are a Republican, you can factually point out this small detail listed in table 2 of the CBO report. If you're a Democrat, you then get to counter with a footnote that may or may not make a difference. Good luck explaining that in a 30 second add.... Even assuming you are absolutely correct and the footnote completely contradicts the data in the table, it would still need to be explained. Again. Good luck. So, for all intents and purposes, Republicans simply need to hold up the CBO report and point to the clearly listed numbers in table 2 showing the uninsured under Obama's plan goes up and up and up.
    That's fine if you want to run a political attack ad but we are supposed to be having a civil debate where we can honestly assess numbers. It appears that you are being the Republican mouthpiece and admitting it! So tell me who is drinking the Kool Aid again?

    Also, you are misunderstanding that the footnote contradicts the numbers! They actually explain the numbers and they do so in a way that are counter to the Republican narrative! It precisely puts the blame of the increase squarely on Red States that refused to expand Medicaid!

    And how does this admission that you are throwing out numbers to put a false reading on ACA supposed to play out now that you've admitted you are doing so? You've certainly explicitly admitted that Republicans are the cause of the increase and not ACA! Are you sure you are on the Republican side?

    So, I am reiterating my points from before. There is no reason for the Republicans to feel constrained by the ACA as repealing it would be a viable option for them in 2016 if they win the Presidency.
    Well, there goes your entire argument there. Good luck with that.

    To your point, should they have an alternative plan? Sure. They'd be wise to replace it with something.
    This is where you are entirely wrong. It's not just wise, it is a logical necessity and that's where your lack of detail shows that you literally have nothing but anger against ACA. In not having a replacement it shows that your thinking is precisely one level deep: "ObamaCare BAD".

    Moving forward is not "no-ACA" nor is it "the good bits of ACA". And when the Republican party figures that one out then they'll have something substantive to discuss (and then you can present it for argument in a future debate). But if they throw around the same false narrative that you're trying here, I don't think they'll get very far.

    Whether the plan exists right now does not really matter because this thread is not a debate over the Republican plan or lack thereof. There are Republican plans, by the way. It just is not important to discuss them here.
    Of course they're important - it's my point that ACA is here to stay. There are no Republican plans out there, and I know about Jindal's, that are gaining any kind of traction or consensus. Therefore, Republicans have no choice but to accept the law of the land and move on. My example of the surreptitious way they have to do it is part of my argument that this is already beginning. My other example of a Representative admitting there is no plan and conceding it doesn't help his case to repeal also shows the bind that they will increasingly find themselves in. The political crows are now coming home to roost and it's wonderful to watch.

  20. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You don't see the difference that repealing is not an option, that the Republican party, or at least its leadership, has already moved on, i.e. my OP and how you're reading it that believes they still have a choice?
    No, I don't really see a major difference here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes, we are back to numbers, and when you showed that the number of uninsured is increasing, I showed you that you had a faulty reading of the table. As to your other reading, I know it comes from Fox News because there's an interesting article about how Fox mentions this pitiful number multiple times, pertinent to your mistake is


    Here he, like you, are both talking about people on Exchanges. There are about 3m that were added due to Medicaid expansion, another 3m children added to their parents' insurance (though, I don't know if they were previously uninsured).

    First, you disagree with my interpretation of table 2, but only because you believe the footnote has more significance than I do. Secondly, the numbers we are discussing come from the Rand report, not the CBO report. For my refutation of you Rand report interpretation, which you took from CBS News, I used the primary source, getting my interpretation from Rand itself. You have never refuted this. I linked to the website. Claiming that it came from Fox News is absolutely fantasy on your part. Perhaps, like me, Krauthamer looked at the actual report. You are not refuting either his argument nor mine. Just because you do not like Fox News does not mean that you can dismiss my claim out of hand because it is reported on that channel.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The whole 'previously uninsured' attack point is one of three (let's see how many you come up with) that the GOP pushes. It's wholly false because it ignores the fact, that in addition to bringing uninsured to people, as part of its regulation reform of the industry, it is now providing a way for people to compare different insurance plans by standardizing what they provide. So ignoring all those other millions is just ludicrous since it is clearly working too.
    Again, I extrapolated the numbers from the Rand website, which I linked directly. You are just babbling now.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    By looking your quote, in context, i.e. including the very next sentence that puts your 'conclusion' into doubt:
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post

    Note how the number you are quoting is qualified. I know it sort of helps your case if you just quote the points that help you but to do so out of context is exactly how Fox News works too. And it's easily discovered so I don't know why you do it.

    So in order for your tiny number to hold up you have to:

    1. Ignore up to 3m on Medicaid.
    2. Ignore the children.
    3. Ignore the very next sentence that puts your number as not being current.
    Nope. Nothing was ignored. The people who signed up for Medicaid were already qualified. In other words, they were not helped by the ACA. If you have some statistic about children, please share, otherwise you are just making an unsupported claim. If you want to quote the next sentence, please do. We don't do link warz in here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, publishing numbers is exactly showing that the goals of getting uninsured insured is being reached - either through Medicaid or through private plans or through insurance reform. These numbers are all increasing, and Obama's numbers yesterday are showing this trend.
    Let's not get lost through the weeds here. The point is, and always has been, that the ACA can be repealed and it wouldn't hurt very many people. Since the ACA is responsible for providing very few people with insurance, there is little which would compel Republicans to not repeal it. If Obama's numbers could be taken at face value and 7+ million Americans now have access to insurance, then it would be tougher for the Republicans. Since the number is closer to 1 million.... not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    All you have is another example of how facts can be deliberately ignored to create a false talking point.
    Thanks for your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Right, and moaning doesn't help move the processes forward. If you want a substantive debate on the medical industry then without an alternative what exactly is your point?
    My point is to debate the topic at hand. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Let's say your claim is true, that ACA is a failure, it doesn't work and has been a waste of time? Then what? Nothing, is all I get from you and the GOP. This is part of the reason why the GOP has to accept ACA is the law of the land and move on and stop pretending it still thinks it can be repealed. Without an alternative plan, and not the handwaving you've been doing here, they can't even begin the discussion to repeal.
    The thing is, just because the GOP does not have a plan today, does not mean it won't have one tomorrow. Since any possible repeal cannot take place until 2016, any such lack of plan is pretty meaningless and since neither of us can see into the future, it is a futile argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Except that you seemed to have missed a vital sentence showing that your number was old and incomplete and likely to rise due to the surge. Drinking Kool-Aid, is ignoring facts and obfuscating and hiding information that places doubt onto your claims.
    Which vital sentence was this that I missed? Which Kool-Aid? How is going to a primary source and quoting from that primary source drinking Kool Aid? Isn't your charge a bit hypocritical since most of your support comes from Media Matters and the Daily Show?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Actually, I believe that you're the one changing the OP. You seem to want to believe that the GOP is wise to consider changing the law - yet you fail to specify what exactly will be changed. So let's stick to the OP - I don't mind taking a side track into Tea Party land where they still believe that it's still repealable but you have to substantively back it up and have more detail than the impossible dream of keeping everyone happy and making zero sacrifices doing so!
    I have made the argument that the GOP would have no trouble repealing a large portion of the ACA. I have backed this up.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yet in those subgroups are people that are forced out of the insurance market by Republican states and illegal immigrants! How is that not relevant to your broader claim that ACA is not successful. You have one group of people that is irrelevant and a second group denied through political machinations. And the third group who choose not to!
    Those groups are included. Do you know how significant those numbers are? You have no idea. You just jumped on a footnote. Do you know why its a footnote and not its own statistic?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So it's largely a number that is irrelevant to ACA itself (which originally mandated the expansion anyway) since those people are uninsured through choice. And not only that you have also admitted that Republicans are to blame for the increase! Well done, we finally agree on something.
    Where do you get this from? More people will be uninsured post-ACA than after. I am not assigning blame. I am just pointing out a very simple number.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You may be quoting from primary sources, but it appears that you are doing so in narrow contexts and ignoring contrary information. That is a Fox News modus operandi, as I showed how you have Fox News have narrowly argued the 1.5m number, whilst deliberately ignoring the other 7 or 8m. As just above, you also ignore the footnotes that makes your point not only irrelevant but a political own-goal: again what usually happens when people delve into Fox News narratives.
    While this is your claim, you have not supported your claim very well. Why are you even bringing up Fox News? What is your obsession with them? I have not quoted from them. I have not left anything open for interpretation. The only person in this thread who has actually quoted from a partisan news source is you. I am just reading the reports and demonstrating how wrong you are. But if railing about Fox News makes you feel better, have at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So quote from wherever you want, that's not my complaint. My complaint is the approach in which you are being partisan in presenting the facts. Just like Fox News' famous y-axes in many of their charts, you're taking the same facts and presenting them in a way to benefit the Republican argument. You're not looking at the facts and drawing conclusions that directly come from the facts. You hide information that counters your points and you obfuscate details.
    Sure, I guess I could just take quotes from Beitbart, as you do with Media Matters, but I prefer to link primary sources, look at the actual numbers and try to make a logical argument based on facts. Have fun in your Media Matters/John Stewart fantasy land.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    What specifics? Repeal the bad stuff and keep the good stuff? That's specific? Really?
    Specifics, like that only 1.5 million people now have insurance that did not have access to it prior to the ACA. Those kinds of specifics.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That's fine if you want to run a political attack ad but we are supposed to be having a civil debate where we can honestly assess numbers. It appears that you are being the Republican mouthpiece and admitting it! So tell me who is drinking the Kool Aid again?

    Also, you are misunderstanding that the footnote contradicts the numbers! They actually explain the numbers and they do so in a way that are counter to the Republican narrative! It precisely puts the blame of the increase squarely on Red States that refused to expand Medicaid!

    And how does this admission that you are throwing out numbers to put a false reading on ACA supposed to play out now that you've admitted you are doing so? You've certainly explicitly admitted that Republicans are the cause of the increase and not ACA! Are you sure you are on the Republican side?
    1. We are debating on whether the Republicans could politically repeal the ACA. How is my argument uncivil?
    2. No, you are taking the footnote and giving it attributes without any support. The numbers in the table include the subgroups listed. It is not limited to those subgroups. Nor does it indicate how large a percentage those subgroups make of the total. You are just lying if you claim otherwise.
    3. I am being realistic with regards to the numbers. Politicians put out half-truths all the time. Again, you are debating your own personal feelings and emotions. I am just debating the facts and reality of the situation. I am not making a value judgment. I am just pointing out the politically obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is where you are entirely wrong. It's not just wise, it is a logical necessity and that's where your lack of detail shows that you literally have nothing but anger against ACA. In not having a replacement it shows that your thinking is precisely one level deep: "ObamaCare BAD".
    This is where you'd be wise to learn how to debate and where you'd be wise to learn what debate means.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Of course they're important - it's my point that ACA is here to stay. There are no Republican plans out there, and I know about Jindal's, that are gaining any kind of traction or consensus. Therefore, Republicans have no choice but to accept the law of the land and move on. My example of the surreptitious way they have to do it is part of my argument that this is already beginning. My other example of a Representative admitting there is no plan and conceding it doesn't help his case to repeal also shows the bind that they will increasingly find themselves in. The political crows are now coming home to roost and it's wonderful to watch.
    Since you cannot predict what plans may emerge in the future, you really cannot intelligently discuss whether Republicans will have a plan or not.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. #20
    Registered User

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

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No, I don't really see a major difference here.
    Understood, then that's why you continue to make mistakes.


    Popping this up to the top. I think we've both misread the table, but you errors are worse than mine. Whereas your point about ACA entirely fails (see below), my point that your increase in uninsured is incomplete still holds.

    3. I am being realistic with regards to the numbers. Politicians put out half-truths all the time. Again, you are debating your own personal feelings and emotions. I am just debating the facts and reality of the situation. I am not making a value judgment. I am just pointing out the politically obvious.
    You are precisely pointing out the half-truths that you claim politicians do! Yes, it's a fact uninsured are rising, but have you looked at the table properly? In concentrating only on the uninsured, the 10-year increase is only 3m people, whereas, if you look at the insured, it increases by 12m people.

    And note, that the top part is for "Insurance Coverage without ACA". The section below, showing "The Change in Insurance Coverage Under the ACA" shows a 12-26m decrease in uninsured. So do you support ACA now that we can both read the table properly (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil..._Estimates.pdf - table 2)

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________


    First, you disagree with my interpretation of table 2, but only because you believe the footnote has more significance than I do.
    You continue to misunderstand that the footnote explains where the numbers are coming from! It doesn't refute the table, it doesn't deny the table, but it explains it and places part of the blame for the rise squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. I do not disagree with your 'interpretation', the rise is clearly shown there - there's no other interpretation to make.

    Our disagreement lies in the fact that you are using the table to show ACA is failing whereas those numbers are showing those people that ACA have no authority over (i.e. immigrants and people that won't get insurance) and those Republican states that refuse to increase their Medicaid roles.


    (drawn from later in your response)
    Those groups are included. Do you know how significant those numbers are? You have no idea. You just jumped on a footnote. Do you know why its a footnote and not its own statistic?
    They are significant enough to mention as being the largest contributing factors, that's why its in the footnote! It's not in its own statistic because the table is a summary of their findings and the footnote indicating where the numbers come from! That is, they do not come from 'failures in ACA' but people who are not or choose not to or are being forbidden from contributing to ACA. If anything, this table just points out where ACA needs to do more, not less! You've totally misread the intent of this table - it should be taken as read that there is much more work to do. Repealing ACA would just making the numbers go higher!

    (drawn from later in your response)
    Where do you get this from? More people will be uninsured post-ACA than after. I am not assigning blame. I am just pointing out a very simple number.
    Yes, in a very simplistic way that masks that Republicans are partially to blame for the rise! Nice own goal there. Love it.

    (drawn from your conclusion)
    2. No, you are taking the footnote and giving it attributes without any support. The numbers in the table include the subgroups listed. It is not limited to those subgroups. Nor does it indicate how large a percentage those subgroups make of the total. You are just lying if you claim otherwise.
    Again, you show a total misunderstanding of what the footnote means. It is not 'limited' to these subgroups but any others that might contribute do so insignificantly - that's why they are not mentioned. Do you think that there's some weird magic number that proves your point and somehow doesn't get mentioned?

    Just to be clear - the attribute I am giving those groups in the footnote are the same reasons why they are mentioned in the first place: that they're a significant contribution to the overall totals for the authors to mention. Do you actually disagree with that?


    This is precisely the kind of right-wing reasoning that exposes the weakness of the arguments against ACA. That you choose an incomplete explanation for political purposes (as you last gloated over the attack ads) that are so easily rebutted over more substantive arguments shows the level of straw grasping that is proving my point.

    Rather than honestly recognizing the facts behind the numbers and addressing them, you blatantly point out the political advantages of the table and blathering about the Rand evidence that seems more important now that you've been exposed on your failure to the CBO table.

    Nope. Nothing was ignored. The people who signed up for Medicaid were already qualified. In other words, they were not helped by the ACA. If you have some statistic about children, please share, otherwise you are just making an unsupported claim. If you want to quote the next sentence, please do. We don't do link warz in here.
    But we're not talking about those Medicaid people that were already qualified - your table of increasing uninsured are directly as a result of those that aren't able to sign up due to Republicans not expanding their medicaid roles.


    Let's not get lost through the weeds here. The point is, and always has been, that the ACA can be repealed and it wouldn't hurt very many people.
    That may well be your original point but your treatment of the table and your subsequent use of deliberately obfuscating the facts behind them is taking a bit of a precedence in my mind since it largely points to why Republicans don't really have repeal as an option. These are the tactics that have been continuously exposed throughout the entire process - a few stories that appear to be negative until you look into it a little and find out that these "failures of ACA" are no such thing and have Republican obstruction all over them!


    The thing is, just because the GOP does not have a plan today, does not mean it won't have one tomorrow. Since any possible repeal cannot take place until 2016, any such lack of plan is pretty meaningless and since neither of us can see into the future, it is a futile argument.
    Yes, the GOP position is futile. That has been my point all along and the reason it's been futile, as is rapidly being recognized is that the GOP has no position.


    I have made the argument that the GOP would have no trouble repealing a large portion of the ACA. I have backed this up.
    Yes, I agree that you have backed it up. But you have done so by merely saying "Again, my position is that the Republican party will be encouraged to gut the ACA if not repeal it outright. This will be encouraged by the voters according to the polls I offered. Nothing you have provided refutes this." and "I think I am making it clear that so long as Republicans do not repeal certain popular provisions of the ACA, then there would be little uproar over repealing the remainder of the law."

    That is through a few (likely biased) Gallop polls and a rather unrealistic view that only the good stuff be kept, you believe that is a substantive argument. Which is fine - that kind of argument is convincing to a certain group of people that don't require much detail, which is why the Republicans have been repeating it so often. But for those swing voters, the ones that really count in the grand scheme of things, it is the alternatives that really count.


    While this is your claim, you have not supported your claim very well. Why are you even bringing up Fox News? What is your obsession with them? I have not quoted from them. I have not left anything open for interpretation. The only person in this thread who has actually quoted from a partisan news source is you. I am just reading the reports and demonstrating how wrong you are. But if railing about Fox News makes you feel better, have at it.
    I Googled the number and Fox News, or rather debunking Fox News, was one of the top links. It's not an obsession but Fox News is an important source on right-wing thinking and GOP talking points. It reaches millions of people and is not an insignificant source of popular opinion. That you seem to share the same numbers and conclusions and obfuscation of facts doesn't seem to be a coincidence considering your own admission that it is one of your sources of information.


    Sure, I guess I could just take quotes from Beitbart, as you do with Media Matters, but I prefer to link primary sources, look at the actual numbers and try to make a logical argument based on facts. Have fun in your Media Matters/John Stewart fantasy land.
    I'm sure you do link primary sources but that doesn't mean that your opinion doesn't originate from Breitbart or Fox and possibly (sometimes) reworded as if it were your own. I quote the way I do because that is where I initially get the information and whatever perception of bias that you have, it certainly hasn't been backed up by facts; whereas Fox are regularly exposed and Breitbart never got to redeem his polluted name as a liar before he died (some of which are detailed here).

    You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe that you are a mini political think tank or particularly astute or detailed on these matters. You've exposed yourself with the blatantly political reading of the Rand table already and delighted in how it will help in a future election, so you'll have to excuse my skepticism at your motivations. I'm sure the logic is fine (anyone can read a list of rising numbers) but when you stop your reasoning process when you feel you have made your political point then you have automatically excluded yourself from substantive discussions. When you continue to ignore the significance behind the numbers, then that speaks to your level of detail that you want to discuss things at, so you exclude yourself from substantive discussions again.

    All you have left then are the usual anti-left-wing insults and vague hand-waving masking as policy.


    1. We are debating on whether the Republicans could politically repeal the ACA. How is my argument uncivil?
    See your little snide and unsubstantiated remarks about Media Matters and Jon Stewart. I've responded in kind and you can continue down that route if you want but please back up your opinions about my sources with facts.


    This is where you'd be wise to learn how to debate and where you'd be wise to learn what debate means.
    This is where you'd be wise to read tables properly and learn how to read footnotes.


    Since you cannot predict what plans may emerge in the future, you really cannot intelligently discuss whether Republicans will have a plan or not
    I'm not saying that they won't have a plan. I am saying they don't have one now, which has always been a weakness.

 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If you go to Mars, stay there
    By Aspoestertjie in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 04:07 PM
  2. Why should we stay?
    By manise in forum Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 12:54 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
  •