• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
stormkroe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sneer at anyone who came to a different conclusion than the CBO so long as they approached the process in an objective and statistically rigorous manner. The thing is that all of those people 'daring to read news sources the ACA proponents don't like' never, ever do this. The CBO is not always right, but they are right-er and more often than people who are coming up with convenient theories based on their personal political opinions.

TL;DR: CBO isn't perfect but they are vastly more accurate than listening to partisan news sources. People who do that should be sneered at.

Tl; dr
'Still pretty good' doesn't mean we should ignore missing not only the bullseye, but the whole dart board.
Click to expand...

This hardly qualifies as anything close to missing the dart board.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
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 (2 years if the current CBO estimate is to be taken at face value). 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.
Click to expand...

Now you quote your sources, right?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
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 (i.e. 2 years). Also, 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.
Click to expand...

If you were just going to ignore the analysis anyway why did you ask for it?

By the way it is very amusing to watch your evaluation of the CBO's work change depending on whether it's telling you what you want to hear or not:

ACA expenses go up? "LOOK AT THE CBO REPORT".

ACA reduces deficits? "WHAT DOES THE CBO KNOW ANYWAY."
 
Not sure if it is related or not, but since the ACA went into effect my employer health insurance options have gotten significantly worse.
 
My employer's health insurance has gotten more diverse and cheaper since ACA.
I now pay $0.01 per pay period instead of $87 for the same BCBS PPO.
 
You guys are exaggerating...ACA is awesome! Those projected "savings" will be coming in any time now...so much so that it'll be reducing our deficits soon...just as soon as those Cadillac taxes savings start kicking in!
 
ACA didnt actually fix anything. The medical monopolies, racketeering, and fraud still exist in full force. Yet you have all these liberal commies stretching out their dirty tongues to lick the boots of Obama regardless of any facts you might give. The only consolation in all of this is that we get to watch all these dumbed down morons get raped and broken by the system they keep supporting.
 
Ketchup said:
Same here. I think everybody's has.
Click to expand...
I doubt that statistically, everyone's did. In every big government program there are winners and losers, right?

We had to step down a notch to a cheaper plan to handle the cost increase, and our yearly deductible went up a grand. This was given as a requirement of Obamacare, yet when someone questioned it I could not find anything anywhere stating this; I am now assuming that "Obama made us do it" actually means "we went up a grand to pay for the new freebies but we want to make sure you understand it's not our fault" in BCBS-ese. Also, there were other things, like a huge increase in prescription drugs, which were initially blamed on the cheaper but ACA-compliant plan, but after some checking turned out to be errors by BCBS and CVS. The cheaper plan is also, well, a bit cheaper, so overall I'm out roughly an extra $700 per year. Assuming they hit their targets of new Americans insured, I consider that a reasonable cost to me. Only an idiot ever thought we could have more free shit and cover more people at a lower cost; only a dishonest politician (or politician's tool) would even claim that. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

sm625 said:
ACA didnt actually fix anything. The medical monopolies, racketeering, and fraud still exist in full force. Yet you have all these liberal commies stretching out their dirty tongues to lick the boots of Obama regardless of any facts you might give. The only consolation in all of this is that we get to watch all these dumbed down morons get raped and broken by the system they keep supporting.
Click to expand...
So . . . pro-ACA or anti-ACA? Getting some mixed signals here . . . 😉
 
Fayd said:
So you pull out Krugman's blog, as though that's better.
Click to expand...

Paul Krugman's blog is most certainly better. What he writes should always be taken with a grain of salt as it is one man's opinion. Contrast that with Breitbart who just faced mass resignations due to staff's unwillingness to give in to the demands of management to unethically promote a political candidate under the guise of journalism.
 
We should all just give in and use the VA government run health care system. Problem solved. If it's good enough for our best and bravest that gave up life and limb then why not us?
 
Premiums are going up for everyone (more than double for many), because the majority of people signing up for "Obamacare" are most likely those who cannot get insurance elsewhere, many with per-existing conditions, so of course the cost is going to go up for everyone.

My question is, is there really a better option? I mean, my thought about "Obamacare" has always been "this is awful" because I am paying twice as much for worse coverage, even though I am doing nothing more than continuing the coverage though my employer (been there 6 years).

But if we were to scrap "Obamacare" and find a way to make existing insurers cover these same people, who is to say we wouldn't encounter pretty much the same thing cost-wise?

BTW, this is a genuine question. I would love to scrap "Obamacare".
 
The only better option is single payer. You don't hear many complains about Medicaid expansion of Obamacare, just the private insurance mandate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top