The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare [W:71]

[eohrnberger]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Obamacare saved consumers $1.5 billion

Opinion: Cancer survivor: Obamacare got me covered - CNN.com

First article is by Sarah Kliff. An unabashed ObamaCare cheerleader.

• Sarah Kliff | NewsBusters
• WaPo's Kliff Lets Obamacare Architect Who Promised Cost Savings Totally Change His Tune - not holding those in charge accountable.
• Politico Buries Crucial Caveats in Happy Talk Obamacare 'Surge' Story - obscuring any bad part of ObamaCare, i.e. not talk about it
• WashPost Offers a Liberal 'Guide to Surviving Obamacare Debates at Thanksgiving' - “A guide to surviving Obamacare debates at Thanksgiving.” That’s assuming you’re getting armed to defend Obamacare just like a good Postie.
• Sarah Kliff: Hooray! D.C. Obamacare Enrollments Not as Pathetic as Thought
• WashPost Idea of an Obamacare Myth? 'Americans Will Be Forced to Buy Health Insurance'
• Sarah Kliff Forced to Perform Another ObamaCare 'Oops!'

• Sarah Kliff Skips P-Word in Article Hailing 'December Deluge' of ObamaCare Enrollments | NewsBusters
• Sarah Kliff Skips P-Word in Article Hailing 'December Deluge' of ObamaCare Enrollments
  Sarah Kliff could barely contain her joy while exclaiming unto all the world in her Washington Post article about a supposed "December Deluge" in which "1.1 million have enrolled in healthcare.gov" since the beginning of October. However, a very important word is missing in her story. The P-Word as in "PAID." Yes, according to Sarah, over a million "enrollees" have deluged the federal exchange website but is it unreasonable to wonder how they could have paid their premiums since, as yet, that website has no payment system set up.

I remain unconvinced. Surely there must be something a bit more unbiased to ObamaCare out there than the word of an unabashed ObamaCare cheerleader.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

First article is by Sarah Kliff. An unabashed ObamaCare cheerleader.

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious

I could just as easily dismiss everything you've said by claiming that you're an "unabashed Obamacare basher", but that would be wrong.

Why don't you try making a substantive response instead of engaging in such childish forms of argumentation. I'm sure you can do better than ad homs.

 

[Hard Truth]

People seem to be overlooking the fundamental problem of ObamaCare.

The whole concept of universal health insurance is cost spreading. However, the real problem is health cost inflation. ObamaCare does nothing substantial to reduce costs in healthcare.

ObamaCare will fail because it will not reduce costs. They will continue to increase because the root problems have not been addressed.

I suppose it does fit in with the "we're all in it together" talking point from this administration. Only what isn't mentioned is that we will all fail together.

Obamacare attempts to address the problem of people being unable to afford insurance or being disqualified due to a pre-existing condition. Since that was the intent, that is the criteria by which it should be judged.

 

[polgara]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

The right was very involved in writing the bill. It was written by six Senators, three of whom were republicans

Then why did Pelosi state that one had to pass the bill/law to know what was in it? Were there that many additions/subtractions to the original, and why didn't those three Repub Senators speak up??

I was not aware that any Republicans were involved in writing the bill that became Obamacare. I'm not being snarky; I honestly really didn't know that. I've read that it was supposedly modeled on what Massachusetts has, but no input was asked of Repubs on what became the law.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Then why did Pelosi state that one had to pass the bill/law to know what was in it? Were there that many additions/subtractions to the original, and why didn't those three Repub Senators speak up??

You will have to ask Pelosi why she said that.

I was not aware that any Republicans were involved in writing the bill that became Obamacare. I'm not being snarky; I honestly really didn't know that. I've read that it was supposedly modeled on what Massachusetts has, but no input was asked of Repubs on what became the law.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 his intent to work with Congress to construct a plan for healthcare reform.[70][71] By July, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[72] On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill.[73][74][75]

 

[polgara]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

You will have to ask Pelosi why she said that.




Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the information, Sangha. :thumbs:

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious

I could just as easily dismiss everything you've said by claiming that you're an "unabashed Obamacare basher", but that would be wrong.

Why don't you try making a substantive response instead of engaging in such childish forms of argumentation. I'm sure you can do better than ad homs.

I clearly laid out the author's previous history to demonstrate their track record of being distinctly pro ObamaCare rather than objective. Calling her an ObamaCare cheerleader is not is not an ad hominem attack. There is nothing personal about asserting her pro-ObamaCare position. It's a statement of fact.

Lest we not forget what an ad hominem attack really is:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[SUP][1][/SUP]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[SUP][2][/SUP] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[SUP][6][/SUP] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[SUP][7][/SUP] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remain unconvinced, by the citation that you provided, that ObamaCare has saved anyone any money.

The author being very pro-ObamaCare is hardly an "irrelevant fact about the author", so my statement about the author's position is most certainly NOT an ad hominem attack, and is very pertinent.

Just calling it an ad hominem attack because her obvious pro-ObamaCare position as a bearing in a discussion about ObamaCare, doesn't make it one, regardless of much this inconvenient fact may aggravate you. Sorry.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

I clearly laid out the author's previous history to demonstrate their track record of being distinctly pro ObamaCare rather than objective. Calling her an ObamaCare cheerleader is not is not an ad hominem attack. There is nothing personal about asserting her pro-ObamaCare position. It's a statement of fact.

The fact that she is pro-ACA does nothing to refute the facts she posted. I could just as easily say that everything you say about the subject because you are anti-ACA, but that would be intellectually dishonest.

Lest we not forget what an ad hominem attack really is:
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remain unconvinced, by the citation that you provided, that ObamaCare has saved anyone any money.

The author being very pro-ObamaCare is hardly an "irrelevant fact about the author", so my statement about the author's position is most certainly NOT an ad hominem attack, and is very pertinent.

Just calling it an ad hominem attack because her obvious pro-ObamaCare position as a bearing in a discussion about ObamaCare, doesn't make it one, regardless of much this inconvenient fact may aggravate you. Sorry.

Her pro-ACA position does not, in any way, reduce her credibility, just as your hostility to it doesn't reduce your credibility

However, your use of ad homs does reduce your credibility

 

[Smartmouthwoman]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Low information voters? You mean corporate tools? Austrian-soaked neo-libertarian losers? Heritage Foundation trained-seals? Victims of CATO and the Mises Institute? People who think and vote on the basis of race? Those who believe that social media commenters know their asses from a hole in the ground? Yeah, that's quite a group there alright! Everyone should want to be like them!

Whatever you do, don't read what real Americans are going thru. Reality filtered thru OFA paints a much prettier pic than the official govt website.

https://m.facebook.com/Healthcare.g...://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php&_rdr

Sample comment:

" Make sure you don't miss that deadline for the biggest mess ever! my daughter is in a high risk pregnancy, has brought her to 2 specialists this year, has overpaid her premium & still has no coverage!!! She has spent hours on the phone with insurance issues. Did I mention she couldn't get her $250 prescription filled for her pregnancy b/c the say she has no coverage? Or that she has bounced checks b/c they took out the premiums so many times??? Jan 16"

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Well, the op projects wrong.

Possibly though healthcare inflation is a real thing and when you have more demand with the same number of providers you tend to get higher costs.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

The Times concludes that we don't have enough doctors, and we aren't producing new ones fast enough to keep pace. Maybe they have it wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

If you have an average of 1 doctor for every1,000 people and you add 40 million new patients you need 40,000 new doctors. Obamacare went into effect 2 two years ago. Anyone know how long it takes to become a doctor?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

They passed the law (nearly four years ago now) and you STILL haven't found out what's in it. There are provisions in PPACA for increasing the simple numbers of MDs

Then I'm sure after 4 years you can tell me how many new healthcare providers Obamacare has 'created'.

 

[Samhain]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

If you have an average of 1 doctor for every1,000 people and you add 40 million new patients you need 40,000 new doctors. Obamacare went into effect 2 two years ago. Anyone know how long it takes to become a doctor?

Anywhere between 11 and 13 years, before you can practice on your own.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

How many changes in the legislation were made between 1965 and 1990? Did you expect projections done in 1965 to have been able to see into the future??? Seriously???

And you expect Obamacare to reduce costs and create all sorts of great things? It's been in operation about 3 months and there have already been numerous 'changes' to it. Yet you continue to post nonsense about it.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Ok, that's it! Recess is over. Get to class!

Yes times a wasting!

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Obamacare saved consumers $1.5 billion

Wow $1.5 billion saved in less than 3 months. I bet they calculated that the same way they calculated how many jobs the stimulus created from all those shovel ready projects!

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Anywhere between 11 and 13 years, before you can practice on your own.

And yet we have people claiming Obamacare has created thousands of new providers in just a mere 2 years.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Thanks for the information, Sangha. :thumbs:

Pol ... Republicans opposed Obamacare from the get-go when the individual mandate was known to be the goal.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

And yet we have people claiming Obamacare has created thousands of new providers in just a mere 2 years.

It's a miracle. I think miracles were a provision in Obamacare also.

 

[Samhain]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Obamacare saved consumers $1.5 billion

The Commonwealth Fund report that provided that figure came to the conclusion that the majority of these rebates were in the individual insurance market. Insurers increased profits to offset that 1.5 billion by cutting jobs in their individual market plan areas. Because of that, the insurers ended up making the same as they did prior to the rebates.

However, they also concluded that because insurers will not be able to continue cutting costs, they will have to start dropping out of the individual market all together or they will go bankrupt. They suggest that if the government mandates them to offer those plans anyway, their premium costs must increase.

So while 1.5 billion in rebates sounds nice, those that saw the rebates will see either loss of coverage or increased premiums in the coming years.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Wow $1.5 billion saved in less than 3 months. I bet they calculated that the same way they calculated how many jobs the stimulus created from all those shovel ready projects!

It's all so depressing to watch a couple of normally, make that, marginally, reasonable Left of Center posters repeat such preposterous claims just because they read it somewhere and apparently believed it.

 

[humbolt]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

Gee, that article says that ACA helps relieve the shortage



Now tell me about you think the problem with ACA is that it didn't do enough

The article says the shortage is likely to worsen. Somehow you managed to miss both the title and the conclusion.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

The Commonwealth Fund report that provided that figure came to the conclusion that the majority of these rebates were in the individual insurance market. Insurers increased profits to offset that 1.5 billion by cutting jobs in their individual market plan areas. Because of that, the insurers ended up making the same as they did prior to the rebates.

However, they also concluded that because insurers will not be able to continue cutting costs, they will have to start dropping out of the individual market all together or they will go bankrupt. They suggest that if the government mandates them to offer those plans anyway, their premium costs must increase.

So while 1.5 billion in rebates sounds nice, those that saw the rebates will see either loss of coverage or increased premiums in the coming years.

The lesson to be learned is that if a thing sounds too preposterous to be true there's a reason.
And with this crowd in DC they're really good at manipulation of numbers.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

The article says the shortage is likely to worsen. Somehow you managed to miss both the title and the conclusion.

I think he feels he's in too deep to get out now.
Pity.
It didn't have to be this way.

 

[humbolt]

Re: The Fundamental Problem With ObamaCare

I think he feels he's in too deep to get out now.
Pity.
It didn't have to be this way.

It's a shame. Backing out the door should always be an option available. I think ideology is the rub that fastens them firmly to a fixed spot.