How much will the ACA actually cost our Government?

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2015 20:34:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

90 to 10 is quite a bit different than the Gallup polls 27 to 16.

You really are clueless to the fact that the 90/10 wasn't the important message I was trying to impart.... aren't you?

[dondub]

Don't be so insulting. I'm simply calling bullshit on your exercise in over exaggeration with something that took 1 minute to find. It turned it into a non-important message

except for what it says about you. 27-16.

[tallguy]

You really are clueless to the fact that the 90/10 wasn't the important message I was trying to impart.... aren't you?

No more clueless than you are to the fact that exaggerating the claim (and apparently intentionally at that) detracted from whatever your point was supposed to be.  It's a lot tougher to dismiss a VALID point, you know.  Just sayin'     

[Virgil Showlion]

Notwithstanding the fact that Richard's Reply #117 is plainly hypothetical, why does the exact value of x in x : (100-x) even matter if x > 50? If we trust the poll data, the ACA has hurt more people than it's helped. That's the crux of his argument.

Don seems convinced it's because the Repos lie more than the Demos and the numbos are placebos, but given the near-certainty that he has no basis in evidence for asserting as much, let's assume the poll is accurate and roughly two times as many Americans were hurt by the law as helped by it. That still doesn't necessarily make it a bad law. Argue from that standpoint any maybe this conversation will go somewhere worth reading.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 6, 2015 6:28:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Notwithstanding the fact that Richard's Reply #117 is plainly hypothetical, why does the exact value of x in x : (100-x) even matter if x > 50? If we trust the poll data, the ACA has hurt more people than it's helped. That's the crux of his argument.

Don seems convinced it's because the Repos lie more than the Demos and the numbos are placebos, but given the near-certainty that he has no basis in evidence for asserting as much, let's assume the poll is accurate and roughly two times as many Americans were hurt by the law as helped by it. That still doesn't necessarily make it a bad law. Argue from that standpoint any maybe this conversation will go somewhere worth reading.

I am surmising that those who felt they were hurt by the law vs helped is mostly because of costs...Their new  insurance now costing more then it was before....

If so, are those folks who are feeling this way , are they factoring in the fact that the old costs of their coverage would have costed more even if there was no new law , new coverage , just because of the normal  yearly  increasing costs of  medical insurance that has been going up and up and up yearly...

Also to be considered are some new biggies , in my mind anyway, that under the old were not covered...Preconditioning medical problems keeping one from getting medical insurance in the first place...just one example being that  of being a diabetic...a automatic no no for being eligible and acceptable for coverage under the old ...Being able to be dropped by insurance companies for what ever medical conditions..The ability of Children being able to be covered up to age 26 under their parents plan too seems to be a biggie and very popular..especially with the employment conditions of today. While improving, still very touch  for many.

I know just about all today applaud , like and want these new  features but with out the forced insurance on all ,  these features would not be available under the old..just unable to be afforded.  

To me just those two new features are real biggies...worth the whole new program , but then again that's me..Others may feel differently....that is until they aquire one of those illnesses that makes on uninsurable or are dropped for coverage by their carrier..I will suggest when that happens they will   a different tune...but then again I am just surmising  on that score...

[dondub]

Well Virgil, the polls I have seen and posted  have it at 27-16 and not twice as many.  Not sure I claimed the Repos lie, per se, just find it interesting that 40% polled said it had hurt them. Doesn't quite jibe with the other poll result numbers but feel free to spin it any way you want. With 70% saying they are better off or the same, extrapolations can be made.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 5, 2015 20:34:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

90 to 10 is quite a bit different than the Gallup polls 27 to 16.  

or, to put it differently, 90 is a long way from 27.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 6, 2015 6:28:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Notwithstanding the fact that Richard's Reply #117 is plainly hypothetical, why does the exact value of x in x : (100-x) even matter if x > 50? If we trust the poll data, the ACA has hurt more people than it's helped. That's the crux of his argument.

Don seems convinced it's because the Repos lie more than the Demos and the numbos are placebos, but given the near-certainty that he has no basis in evidence for asserting as much, let's assume the poll is accurate and roughly two times as many Americans were hurt by the law as helped by it. That still doesn't necessarily make it a bad law. Argue from that standpoint any maybe this conversation will go somewhere worth reading.

i don't think it is relevant that it has not HELPED many people.  it was not designed to help the majority.  it was targeting the uninsured, which were a minority.

so, really what we should be looking at is the % of people it has helped.  depending on who you listened to 10-15% of America was uninsured.  if it helped 16%, it sounds to me like it did it's job.

i understand your perspective: that it was not supposed to hurt anyone.  but i am not sure that was a realistic perspective.

[Deleted]

It's not that it didn't help the majority that's at issue... It's that it hurt more than it helped.

The people that have had "no change" can be statistically discarded OR if they MUST be included, since there's a cost for the service, if there's no change then spending the extra is actually wasteful, and they should be counted in the "hurt" column... because wasting that money hurts the bottom line (even if it has no effect on the people, themselves).

I don't understand why anyone would even consider including "no change" in the "helped" column. How is "no change" equal to "helped"? 

[dondub]

  It's ok if you want to pretend that the Repos that say, at 40%, that it hurt them, be my guest. Sounds to me like a political bias that leads folks to make incorrect conclusions about the ACA.

 In fact, I think it's possible that for every 10 Repos that it did hurt that 90 of them lied about it.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2015 3:11:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You really are clueless to the fact that the 90/10 wasn't the important message I was trying to impart.... aren't you?

No more clueless than you are to the fact that exaggerating the claim (and apparently intentionally at that) detracted from whatever your point was supposed to be.  It's a lot tougher to dismiss a VALID point, you know.  Just sayin'     

Depends on the person... several members dismiss valid points all the time.

Like here, in this thread, a few people have dismissed that Obamacare hurt more people than it helped. They also dismissed that it's a bad thing to hurt more than help.

Since they weren't getting the point, I tried exaggeration.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2015 20:32:21 GMT -5 dondub said:

  It's ok if you want to pretend that the Repos that say, at 40%, that it hurt them, be my guest. Sounds to me like a political bias that leads folks to make incorrect conclusions about the ACA.

 In fact, I think it's possible that for every 10 Repos that it did hurt that 90 of them lied about it.

There's nothing "incorrect" about the fact that Obamacare hurt more people than it helped.

That's just a simple fact. Deal with it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I don't understand - if this law is so great why dont we solve hunger with a mandate to purchase food, and solve homelessness with a mandate to obtain shelter? Sounds stupid, I know, but it was the stupidity of the average Democrat that got us the mandate to obtain health insurance.

[dondub]

All who believe the ACA actually hurt 40% of all repos say aye.

Nay.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2015 21:09:25 GMT -5 dondub said:

All who believe the ACA actually hurt 40% of all repos say aye.

Nay.

All who believe that Obamacare helped more people that it hurt, say "aye"...


Nay.



A link to that "40%" would be nice though...

ETA: for the record though, it's quite possible for that 40% to be true... Republicans tend to be in the higher income category, and less needing of (or wanting/willing-to-use) assistance.

[dondub]

I have already provided that poll result in a previous posting and have further referenced that same posting. Try and keep up and you won't appear "clueless".

And your for the record...exactly. Why would the ACA have hurt those in the higher income categories. Those are the one where it has had no impact at all. Just adds

more credence to the concept that they say it hurts simply because they are opposed to it. I'm so glad you clarified that!

[djAdvocate]

Feb 6, 2015 19:50:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's not that it didn't help the majority that's at issue... It's that it hurt more than it helped.

.....as is the case with most social programs.....

again, i don't find that very surprising.

do you?

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 1:50:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 6, 2015 19:50:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's not that it didn't help the majority that's at issue... It's that it hurt more than it helped.

.....as is the case with most social programs.....

again, i don't find that very surprising.

do you?

No. What I find surprising is the amount of people that support hurting more than helping.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 19:04:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 1:50:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

.....as is the case with most social programs.....

again, i don't find that very surprising.

do you?

No. What I find surprising is the amount of people that support hurting more than helping.

huh.  ok.

so, the support of social security surprises you?

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 19:22:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 7, 2015 19:04:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No. What I find surprising is the amount of people that support hurting more than helping.

huh.  ok.

so, the support of social security surprises you?

Remind me, because I must have forgotten... who is hurt by Social Security?


ETA: and even if there are ANY that are hurt... are there more hurt than helped? Remember, my gripe with Obamacare isn't that SOME are hurt... it's that MORE are hurt than are helped. It's all about balance.

ETA II: Well... my "gripe" other than it being illegally implemented/altered, unconstitutional, and a waste of around 2 Trillion dollars (over 10 years, projected)... that is 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 19:22:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

huh.  ok.

so, the support of social security surprises you?

Remind me, because I must have forgotten... who is hurt by Social Security?

everyone who is not on it, obviously.

is that NOT the case you are making for ObamaCare?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

ETA II: Well... my "gripe" other than it being illegally implemented/altered, unconstitutional, and a waste of around 2 Trillion dollars (over 10 years, projected)... that is 

your $2T number is totally bogus.  you yourself pointed it out.  the more accurate figure is $1.4T, if you only consider the cost, and if you actually believe 10 year projections.  but let's just stick with the help/hurt thing for a moment, as i am not clear what you mean.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 20:43:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 7, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

ETA II: Well... my "gripe" other than it being illegally implemented/altered, unconstitutional, and a waste of around 2 Trillion dollars (over 10 years, projected)... that is 

your $2T number is totally bogus.  you yourself pointed it out.  the more accurate figure is $1.4T, if you only consider the cost, and if you actually believe 10 year projections.  but let's just stick with the help/hurt thing for a moment, as i am not clear what you mean.

Oh, I know it's not $2T NET... But the savings that were implemented that lower the NET to $1.4T could have been done without the rest of Obamacare... so... it's still $2T of waste... even if it's not a net cost of $2T.

Does that make sense spelled out that way? It made sense as I was trying to decide how to type it.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 20:41:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 7, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Remind me, because I must have forgotten... who is hurt by Social Security?

everyone who is not on it, obviously.

is that NOT the case you are making for ObamaCare?

Nope. The case I make isn't about those left out. It's about those that are harmed by it.

Curiosity requires me to ask: Who is left out of Social Security? If you pay into it, you get to collect it (assuming it gets fixed soon anyway... Which "they" could easily do, I suggested how, a while ago, on a different thread).

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 21:54:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 20:43:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your $2T number is totally bogus.  you yourself pointed it out.  the more accurate figure is $1.4T, if you only consider the cost, and if you actually believe 10 year projections.  but let's just stick with the help/hurt thing for a moment, as i am not clear what you mean.

Oh, I know it's not $2T NET... But the savings that were implemented that lower the NET to $1.4T could have been done without the rest of Obamacare... so... it's still $2T of waste... even if it's not a net cost of $2T.

Does that make sense spelled out that way? It made sense as I was trying to decide how to type it.

no.  the mythical savings, which i was careful to not even MENTION, bring the cost to $0.  the $1.4T includes the taxes.

you know that.  you posted the chart.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 21:57:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 20:41:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

everyone who is not on it, obviously.

is that NOT the case you are making for ObamaCare?

Nope. The case I make isn't about those left out. It's about those that are harmed by it.

Curiosity requires me to ask: Who is left out of Social Security? If you pay into it, you get to collect it (assuming it gets fixed soon anyway... Which "they" could easily do, I suggested how, a while ago, on a different thread).

harmed in what way?

everyone under 59 is left out of social security, barring special cases.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 22:22:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 7, 2015 21:54:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oh, I know it's not $2T NET... But the savings that were implemented that lower the NET to $1.4T could have been done without the rest of Obamacare... so... it's still $2T of waste... even if it's not a net cost of $2T.

Does that make sense spelled out that way? It made sense as I was trying to decide how to type it.

no.  the mythical savings, which i was careful to not even MENTION, bring the cost to $0.  the $1.4T includes the taxes.

you know that.  you posted the chart.

The chart I posted showed 1.4T NET... it also showed about 2T in spending. check it out again.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2015 22:23:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 7, 2015 21:57:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nope. The case I make isn't about those left out. It's about those that are harmed by it.

Curiosity requires me to ask: Who is left out of Social Security? If you pay into it, you get to collect it (assuming it gets fixed soon anyway... Which "they" could easily do, I suggested how, a while ago, on a different thread).

harmed in what way?

everyone under 59 is left out of social security, barring special cases.

And when they get to 59, they can get it. So.... they aren't "left out".

There's a difference between "not old enough" and "left out"

By your standard, 18 year olds are "left out" of drinking... 12 year olds are "left out" of driving... 35 year olds are "left out" of possibly being drafted... 34 year olds are "left out" of being Presidential Candidates... legal aliens are "left out" of voting... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 22:39:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 22:23:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

harmed in what way?

everyone under 59 is left out of social security, barring special cases.

And when they get to 59, they can get it. So.... they aren't "left out".

i was thinking of the people that never reach age 59.  how are they not "left out"?

furthermore, if you get less benefit than you paid into SS, you are "harmed", right?

this analogy can be extended to food stamps with much greater success, if this example is not serving me.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 7, 2015 22:35:32 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Feb 7, 2015 22:22:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no.  the mythical savings, which i was careful to not even MENTION, bring the cost to $0.  the $1.4T includes the taxes.

you know that.  you posted the chart.

The chart I posted showed 1.4T NET... it also showed about 2T in spending. check it out again.

Richard, i DID look at the chart.  "other" does not include the mythical savings.

why do you always do this to me?  you make me go back and look at stuff i have looked at 20x just so i can get the wording right?

(groan)