• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

...Obamacare comes up 24 million enrollees short.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yep, they don't have one, which is kind of shameful, since their constituents are dying off prematurely at third world rates.
 
Sonikku said:
I haven't heard of any alternative by the GoP.
Click to expand...

jackstar7 said:
Someone will show up soon to link to all of the plans put forward by conservatives...which all promptly went nowhere.

Wait for it...
Click to expand...

mysticjbyrd said:
Where are the democrats plans to improve it?
Click to expand...

Nope, just some lame attempt at deflection. Maybe mysticjbyrd will be able to link us to at least some GOP plans to improve it beyond "repeal it all".

Mysticjbyrd are you up to the challenge?
 
werepossum said:
That's total bullshit. Health insurance is very tightly regulated, so to get ANY increase approved, the insurer must justify it to the state government.

Nobody knew how Obamacare was going to work. There is significant wealth sharing/shifting, and the degree to which healthy young people sign up to pay far above their actual cost of providing service determines what rates must be charged to keep it going. Right now it's still very much in the initial shakedown period, and the blend of rates versus freebies versus services is necessarily in flux. If you want this system to work, you have to accept this. If on the other hand you want to crush the private health insurance industry so that a desperate populace demands government health care, by all means continue to make excuses. After all, the suffering inflicted is justified by the end, right?
Click to expand...

Everything reset for insurance companies when the ACA became law. The new models/networks required a starting basis and thus the gambling/gaming began. If you don't think these insurance companies have some big guns on hand who told them their best options in going forward with the ACA then I don't know what to tell you. If you want, just because you think it's bullshit then just keep thinking that if you wish because I don't give a shit if you want to remain ignorant. This is why I just don't care to bring up information for some people; I long ago tired of ignorant assholes who refuse to even look into what is claimed and instead just smugly proclaim "Bullshit!".

Now fire back and win the argumant! :thumbsup:
 
There is a republican alternative for Obamacare.
The Powerball.
And it's up to $148 mill.
$148 mill can take care of any health catastrophe.
So, what the F*** is the problem?
 
brycejones said:
Nope, just some lame attempt at deflection. Maybe mysticjbyrd will be able to link us to at least some GOP plans to improve it beyond "repeal it all".

Mysticjbyrd are you up to the challenge?
Click to expand...
I usually ignore the GOPs articles regarding the ACA, as it's not substantive, so I can't help you there.

Again, where is the democrats plan to improve it?
 
if less people are using ACA than projected, then why are the naysayers complaining?

Isn't that exactly what the right wants?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Please quote that part of the CBO report previously cited.
Click to expand...

The CBO report previously cited did not discuss the ACA's total contribution or reduction to the deficit, it only discussed coverage parts. The CBO's most recent estimate would put the ACA substantially in the black even with updated costs.

The coverage provisions increased their cost by $136 billion over 10 years, but the ACA has a net reduction of approximately $353 billion from deficits over a ten year period using standard CBO methodology. $353 > $136.

I understand that the author of that piece might have wanted you to think otherwise, but that's why I keep telling you that you shouldn't read right wing editorials.
 
eskimospy said:
The CBO report previously cited did not discuss the ACA's total contribution or reduction to the deficit, it only discussed coverage parts. The CBO's most recent estimate would put the ACA substantially in the black even with updated costs.

The coverage provisions increased their cost by $136 billion over 10 years, but the ACA has a net reduction of approximately $353 billion from deficits over a ten year period using standard CBO methodology. $353 > $136.

I understand that the author of that piece might have wanted you to think otherwise, but that's why I keep telling you that you shouldn't read right wing editorials.
Click to expand...
Please link and quote your source(s).
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Please link and quote your source(s).
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.
Click to expand...

Now I'll await your attempt to claim that we should be utilizing the nonstandard dynamic scoring estimate despite that being a dramatic departure from standard CBO methodology (and how the ACA and all other expenditures have been scored in the past). We definitely shouldn't be.

Serious question, why do you ever believe what these right wing editorials tell you? I mean can you even count how many times they've duped you in the past? When are you going to learn?
 
eskimospy said:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252



Now I'll await your attempt to claim that we should be utilizing the nonstandard dynamic scoring estimate despite that being a dramatic departure from standard CBO methodology (and how the ACA and all other expenditures have been scored in the past). We definitely shouldn't be.

Serious question, why do you ever believe what these right wing editorials tell you? I mean can you even count how many times they've duped you in the past? When are you going to learn?
Click to expand...

Every news source has a biased spin these days, yes some WAAAY more than others. But taking away the spin, are the actual numbers incorrect? To the armchair captain it looks like they were off by an amount equal to 40%+ of this deficit number in just 1 year's time. What if they continue to be this optimistic? Think of all the people quoting 2015 massively incorrect projections for an entire year, all the while snearing at those who dared to read news sources the aca proponents don't like.

Tl; dr
'Still pretty good' doesn't mean we should ignore missing not only the bullseye, but the whole dart board.
 
eskimospy said:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252



Now I'll await your attempt to claim that we should be utilizing the nonstandard dynamic scoring estimate despite that being a dramatic departure from standard CBO methodology (and how the ACA and all other expenditures have been scored in the past). We definitely shouldn't be.

Serious question, why do you ever believe what these right wing editorials tell you? I mean can you even count how many times they've duped you in the past? When are you going to learn?
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that ACA has been running at deficit levels since it's implementation and these deficits are expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Every year the CBO projections of eventual deficit reduction must be revised downward as ACA failures mount with each passing year. Let's just put it this way....I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top