Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

Are you at all worried that you're one of a very select number of people in America who believe that wasn't a lie?

I don't believe he was lying, lying implies intend.

He screwed up and had some wishful thinking there and he probably truly believed that more people would be able to keep what they already had. But I don't think he lied.

Although that argument can easyly devolve into semantics.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't believe he was lying, lying implies intend.

He screwed up and had some wishful thinking there and he probably truly believed that more people would be able to keep what they already had. But I don't think he lied.

Although that argument can easyly devolve into semantics.

A great many of those statements were made after the ink was dry on the law, though. Either he didn't know what was in it, or he did. Which one's worse?

And clearly you'd agree that this was a lie, right?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't believe he was lying, lying implies intend.

He screwed up and had some wishful thinking there and he probably truly believed that more people would be able to keep what they already had. But I don't think he lied.

Although that argument can easyly devolve into semantics.

A great many of those statements were made after the ink was dry on the law, though. Either he didn't know what was in it, or he did. Which one's worse?

Name me one single person that was aware of every single impact of any complex law that was passed and you might have a point.

And clearly you'd agree that this was a lie, right?

Politifact is right, as usual.

 d-usa wrote:
Name me one single person that was aware of every single impact of any complex law that was passed and you might have a point.

I think I've got a point regardless. This wasn't some obscure aspect that slipped through the cracks. It was mentioned in multiple speeches, it was on government website FAQs, the President alone said it at least 36 times. If your argument is, "Hey, the guy can't know everything about his signature law," then maybe the counterargument is, "Well, then he shouldn't frequently and repeatedly make the same assurance, over and over and over again, without bothering to check if he's telling the truth."

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Name me one single person that was aware of every single impact of any complex law that was passed and you might have a point.

I think I've got a point regardless. This wasn't some obscure aspect that slipped through the cracks. It was mentioned in multiple speeches, it was on government website FAQs, the President alone said it at least 36 times. If your argument is, "Hey, the guy can't know everything about his signature law," then maybe the counterargument is, "Well, then he shouldn't frequently and repeatedly make the same assurance, over and over and over again, without bothering to check if he's telling the truth."

You still don't get the point that he lied though.

Saying it while knowing that it's not true would be lying. Saying it while thinking he is right and not knowing he was wrong is not lying.

Seaward, your wasting your time. You are arguing with people who believe that politically generated statistics are verbatim truth when generated by the people they support and 100% wrong when generated by any group other than their own.

Its like trying to tell the emperor that his new suit doesn't provide the coverage he thinks while his sycophants drown out your words with shouts of praise for the tailor.


Lets get to the point. The ACA private and public enrollment numbers have been skewed. Certain cash strapped and/or left leaning states are using loopholes and exploits in the law to pass on existing state inmate healthcare costs to the public. Basically, creatong a Robin Hood effect where the fed provides direct coverage instead of it being a state budget issue(still partially funded by the fed gov).

First, These states and counties are enrolling people at the time of booking. This is allowed because they are awaiting sentencing/trial (a process that often takes up to a year). People not yet sentenced
are legally allowed...just the forcible enrolling here is a bit disconcerting.

Second, the expansion to medicaid created a loophole that allows the states to enroll convicts if they are hospitalized for more than 24 hours in an outside facility(pretty much all of the
most expensive care prison inmates receive).

And lastly, up to 80% of the current prison population could qualify for medicaid under the single and no dependents clause.

This is just one area that the numbers can be manipulated to distract from the basic stated goals that needed to be reached.
The add in how the goal posts keep getting moved.

Q: Was 7 million the original goal?
A: Sort of. It was supposed to be 7 million "new" enrollments
Of which 40% "had" to be in the 18-30 year old "healthy" demographic in order for the law to work "financially".

So while 7 million "new" enrollments might be argued, the failure to hit the 40% healthy young enrollee mark is not.

The up side to all of this is that the use of Obamacare to fund inmate care will most likely be a significant enough cause for rate hikes that it will probably provoke a much needed national debate on prison reform.

Basically, while I disagree with the law, the angle of decline that it sets for self determination and the horrific legal precedent it sets for government sponsored/mandated use of corporate entities......at least the chicago-ification of the health industry might lead to prison reform.

Don't agree that the trade off is good, just looking for some sunshine in a hurricane.

 dogma wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

When did Obama say he wouldn't support gay marriage?

Here ya go dog:

In 2008, he said: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-answer-your-question.jhtml

I'm not in favor =/= I won't support it.

If changing your mind makes you a liar, then this is just a whole board full of liars.

 d-usa wrote:

 dogma wrote:



When did Obama say he wouldn't support gay marriage?

I'm also trying to remember the "If you like your healthcare" quote...

And the deficit is now half of what it was in FY 2009...

Clearly math isnt a strong suit for some:

"President Obama likes to say that raising the nation’s borrowing limit “won’t add a dime” to the federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office.

When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent."

Means it got BIGGER d.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not in favor =/= I won't support it.

If changing your mind makes you a liar, then this is just a whole board full of liars.

Bravo d! Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery!

Unless of course, youre just lying?

Dunn dunn dunnnnnn

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 dogma wrote:



When did Obama say he wouldn't support gay marriage?

I'm also trying to remember the "If you like your healthcare" quote...

And the deficit is now half of what it was in FY 2009...

Clearly math isnt a strong suit for some:

"President Obama likes to say that raising the nation’s borrowing limit “won’t add a dime” to the federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office.

When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent."

Means it got BIGGER d.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/

1) Go to Wikipedia.
2) Look up Federal Debt
3) Look up Budged Deficit
4) Realize that those two things are completely different things.
5) Look at your own picture.
6) Realize that it says "I will lower the deficit by half".
7) Look at the deficit:

8) Realize that the Deficit is now lowered by half.
9) Think of another funny name to call Obama.
10) ???

Edit:

11) I realize that this is totally unreladed to Obamacare and an off-topic discussion of an unproductive picture posted as some sort of response to what is actually happening. So I'll go ahead and stop this tangent.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

In 2008, he said: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-answer-your-question.jhtml

As I already said: not being in favor of X does not mean that you oppose X, or will not be in favor of X in the future.

Shocking though it may be, people's minds and political situations change over time.

 Seaward wrote:
The numbers are likely accurate, from at least one point of view or another. And that's not terribly surprising. Make it illegal not to own something, and people will own it. The goalposts have been moved half a dozen times regarding what constitutes "victory" for Obamacare, and now we're apparently at getting a lot of people to sign up for it while we desperately postpone everything else about it in the hope of keeping Congress.

Mission accomplished. Wait for the 2015 premium hikes. Wait for the employer mandate. Wait until you see just how much money we're going to be throwing down this hole in subsidies.

yeah thats the thing... they are doing the whole "mission accomplished" thing a bit early on this. IMO, a mandatory law, that only sees 12 out of 40 million people follow it, miiiight have issues still, even if the # went from 8mill previously uninsured to 12 mill (it didnt, so far none of the polls will accurately disclose how much of their #'s is NEW previously uninsured people)

It wont be known until after people have been making claims for a while if this thing is sustainable.

The whole ACA seems to have been changing laws/dates at a whim though, I mean, its not a coincidence that certain parts of the law were pushed back past the election date.

I really hope someone with the power to change things smartens up and adopts a model of social health care that is proven to work, instead, we wait and see if this franken-health system lives, or starts eating our faces and wallets.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Are you at all worried that you're one of a very select number of people in America who believe that wasn't a lie?

I don't believe he was lying, lying implies intend.

He screwed up and had some wishful thinking there and he probably truly believed that more people would be able to keep what they already had. But I don't think he lied.

Although that argument can easyly devolve into semantics.

Honest question...

Do you think that's the same way as the "Bush's lies"??

I think there were some lies in the lead-up to Iraq, I don't think they came from Bush though.

 d-usa wrote:
I think there were some lies in the lead-up to Iraq, I don't think they came from Bush though.

Okay...

So, is it fair to say that there was no maleficent intent to mislead by both Bush / Obama?

That they both were fed with slanted information? (for different reasons of course...)

That's my mindset... as much as I would love to ding Obama, I truly believe he believed he was doing the right thing. And that's all we should really ask for out of our leaders. Much like Bush's decision to engage Iraq.

If anything... our frustration really should be aimed towards the Congress-critters who drafted/passed the ACA.

Alas... I really don't think anything will change for the better until we hit rock bottom... and that may only happen once the employer mandate hits (if it's not delayed again). In some weird sense, (because it's the industry that I work in), I'm hoping that the republicans DON'T win the Senate in '14... that way, the employer mandate will definitely be around... which will cause serious upheaval in the insurance market affecting even more folks...and thus hitting this "rock bottom" in healthcare. Which I'm seriously rooting for the Canadian model to arise. (which really, is just expanded Medicare for everyone).

 whembly wrote:
Which I'm seriously rooting for the Canadian model to arise. (which really, is just expanded Medicare for everyone).

You mean the system that most people critical of the ACA on this board seem to support?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Which I'm seriously rooting for the Canadian model to arise. (which really, is just expanded Medicare for everyone).

You mean the system that most people critical of the ACA on this board seem to support?

That's the one.

If the Republicans were smart (go ahead, laugh... I'm laughing too)...

They'd say, hey: let us repeal ACA. We'll then put to the floor to expand Medicare to all citizens (with the debates on how to pay for it).

In return: You must also pass reforms to tax codes (simplify that monstrosity).

It's a win-win.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Which I'm seriously rooting for the Canadian model to arise. (which really, is just expanded Medicare for everyone).

You mean the system that most people critical of the ACA on this board seem to support?

That's the one.

If the Republicans were smart (go ahead, laugh... I'm laughing too)...

They'd say, hey: let us repeal ACA. We'll then put to the floor to expand Medicare to all citizens (with the debates on how to pay for it).

In return: You must also pass reforms to tax codes (simplify that monstrosity).

It's a win-win.

It'll never happen.

The Repube-icans never miss an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The establishment GOP (Karl Rove lead) are too smart to follow "common sensical" stuff like you propose Whembly.

Does anyone see any issues with this?
HHS Solicitations of Support for Enroll America

Keep in mind that HHS regulates these markets in major ways since the passage of the ACA.

This wasn’t just a case of working the phones for a charity...

This was a cabinet official with the most impact on these businesses praising the efforts of a supposedly "independent" group launched by a close adviser to the President.

It's no wonder why insurers began complaining loudly enough about the pressure for Congress and the media to take notice.

It was a shakedown, pure and simple, to wring more money and assistance out of industry players in order to bypass Congress on funding operations within the executive branch.

What HHS basically said was... "nice business you've got there... it would be a shame if something happened to it".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I know you excel at missing the point at times in this topic so perhaps a refresher is in order;
You asked "What made you even think there was going to be some vast mass of people who would never make the first payment?"
And the answer as shown above was: people with a lot of experience and with a background in insurance voiced concerns about the website not passing along information so that people who registered may not get enrolled because of missing, incomplete data.

You're honestly trying to claim that the errors in the website from months ago might somehow impact the default rate now? First up, if that were true then we'd see an unpaid rate that is larger on the federal exchange than on the state exchanges, but we don't so that's just a non-starter.

Second up, the the issues with enrollees who's information was corrupted or not passed on are months old, and solved now. If they had any impact on counted enrollments that were then not paid, then we would have seen material defaults months ago. But we see nothing of the sort, telling us that speculation that past website issues might impact current default rates is nothing more than wishful thinking by people who really want to believe ACA has a problem.

So we do have that data.

Yes. We have that data. It's been known for months and repeated dozens of times in the this thread. It was the piece of data that sparked the original '15% haven't paid claim'.

This was the question that sparked our current exchange, see how easy it would have been to maybe just address that instead of going down your usual invective laded rants?
Maybe it is because I'm tired but if we know that 85% have made their first payment (and the source for this please), what does your second sentence (about reaching the first payment and making it) mean?

The invective filled rants are there because you and others in this thread just haven't fething been listening for fething months. There is literally nothing left to do but criticise your efforts until you start doing better.

But if you really are interested in how this 'problem' works... of the total enrollments, 15% haven't yet paid. This is not surprising, because people who enrolled from mid-march up to the end of April won't have their coverage start until May 1st, and in most cases their first payment won't be due until 6 weeks after that.

So it isn't absolutely not surprising or interesting at all to see in a system where well over 15% of enrollments have happened in the last month and a half and haven't fallen due for payment yet, then 15% of people haven't yet made a payment.

What that says about some underlying default rate is exactly nothing. And to sensible people, when there is no evidence that a number will be any different to what it normally is, then the basic assumption is to assume it is no different to what it normally is.

But 85% of enrolees have made their first payment according to you, so if the numbers are not there how did we arrive at 85% figure for people who have made their first payment?

You take the total number who've made their first payment and divide by the total number who've enrolled. And you get 85%. And then you watch and wait as the vast majority of the rest of that 15% make their payments when they fall due.

I don't know whether the insurance companies are, or are not absorbing unpaid claims.

We know they aren't, because we know they aren't lunatics.

Coming from the person who demanded to know if I was conceding a point in the exchange just prior to this?

I try to get people to concede points so the conversation can move on. Debate something, if there is a clear correct answer then all sides recognise that and move on the next point. Constructive dialogue.

What I wanted is healthcare reform that works, whether or not that is the ACA remains to be seen - especially given the rocky start

I am curious by what you mean by 'rocky start'. I was never a huge fan of the rube goldberg machine they built to give universal coverage by doing everything other than actually giving universal coverage, but in terms of how the whole thing has worked I've been quite surprised it has delivered as it has. They've met their enrolment targets, and even gotten a better than expected ratio of young invincibles.

Do you have reasons to believe there has been a rocky start other than the heated political debate and the website that sucked for a while?

"Oh look, I have egg on my face because I was determined to take a comment out of context and it backfired. Guess I'd better double down and try and pretend I have the moral high ground"

Repeating a bad argument, and then claiming it was just a joke is complete and total bs. Don't do it unless you want people to think you're an ass.

It appears that you've been linking to a site that only stands by a figure of 75% overall being fully paid compared to your 85% figure. Funny enough the 85% figure only seems to be mentioned in direct relation to Wisconsin (http://acasignups.net/14/02/13/how-many-have-actually-paid-revisited), not the entire country.

You're looking at an old blog post. People settled on the 85% rate when Kaiser Permanente reported 13 percent unpaid, while Anthem Blue Cross of California, Blue Shield and Health Net said it was closer to 15 percent. Which is information you can find on that same website.

And note the reason it moved from 75% to 85% was due to time moving on, as more and more people steadily moved from 'enrolled but no payment yet due' to 'enrolled and payment due and made' the number drifted up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Though the broader question at play here is why this discussion even matters at this point. The people against it aren't going to magically turn into being for it because massive delays and expenditures just might have gotten enough people to sign up to hit the low target, because the program doesn't suddenly start working cheaply once that target's hit. What's going to happen to premiums next year? And, as a result, what's going to happen to our liability as tax payers to subsidize everybody when their premiums skyrocket?

So it turns out the broader question is just a fact free assertion that it won't work because it isn't going to work because it isn't going to work.

Well that's about par for the course for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What gets me is people claiming that the discussion is over, that because the ACA hit the low low figure of 7 million sign ups (after numerous deferments) it is a success. The true impact has yet to be felt. And provisions like the forever delayed employer mandate have yet to go into effect. Not to mention the various law suits still pending.

No, the discussion isn't over. Even if ACA was perfect, and it is miles away from that, then it'd still be part of the healthcare system and constantly needing updating and amending.

What's over is the conservative fantasy that ACA is going to crash and burn. It is in place, it is stable, and it is the reason millions of people have insurance who wouldn't have it otherwise, and that number is set to increase every year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Can't we just do simple math?

At one point, 40 million people were w/o insurance.

I remember reading an study (I believe by RAND) that 1.7 million of the 7.1 millions "signups" didn't have insurance prior to the ACA.

1.7 out of 40 million...

Actually fething read the fething study, please. It states there are 9.3 million people who are insured who weren't otherwise insured.

Here is the rand site giving you their finding explicitly;
"we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014."

http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html

The figure you quoted, as I've already explained to you, is gotten through statistical silliness, focusing in purely on exchange insured people, then discounting people who were replacing other insurance, and people who were enrolled but not yet paid, and doing this with a mid-February figure, without accounting for anyone who got insurance off exchange, or anyone who got insurance through expansion of existing policies etc.

The figure was shameless, contentless pundit bs, don't fething fall for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
(Seb, please note that this is a joke and not a debating point)

It isn't really either. Debating points have to include content, and jokes need to be funny.

I like that the 2% delinquency for "Deadbeat/Procrastinating customers" you refer to manages to ignore the figures above it, namely the 5% [u]npaid due to Exchange technical/paperwork issues, and those unpaid due to the confusion over payment (3%) which may in part be due to the complexity of the ACA.

Remind me again Seb who was picking and choosing what again?

Please fething read what you are quoting. Holy fething gak how do you not get that Charles Gaba is just completely fething making those numbers up when he says ""I think it's safe to assume that the breakdown is probably along the lines of:" "

He is doing it for illustrative purposes - here are all the possible kinds of reasons that someone might not pay, with his own guess at their weightings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
ACA is wildly unpopular right now so I don't see how a constant reminder of the screw up leading into midterm elections is a good thing..

ACA is now in place, operating and means health insurance for 9 million people who wouldn't otherwise have it. This is why its appeal is steadily moving upwards (an ABC poll even reported it was more popular than not, though that's certainly an outlier).

Now it is the Republicans who face the problem of a fearful general public, in order to remove ACA they will have to offer up something of their own, offer up their own kind of change. The idea that that would be a vote winner is very, very weak.

Honestly, in terms of policy this is a lost battle for Republicans. Their best chance at this point is to play up dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democrats in general terms, talk about Washington interference and all that stuff, and reap the electoral gain, but don't actually talk about ACA in any real specifics, because that means having to come up with a viable alternative to ACA and then trying to sell it to the people, and as everyone should have figured out by now trying to reform healthcare is a surefire vote loser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The numbers are suspect, as are many members of his administration, and the Jpeg is only using direct quotes from him, so, yeah pretty much. So has the program extended benefits to Australia or are you just an Americaphile?

I don't like or trust Obama, therefore numbers reported from an independent body that are favourable to ACA are also deemed untrustworthy.

You are a walking parody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Those numbers are very suspect mo...

Even then, not sure crowing about the 12 million number is successful when we're seeing these massive disruption in healthcare industry. THere's still over 30 million uninsured...

"It's only solved a quarter of the issue, while the Republican plan that doesn't exist will surely solve 100% of the problem".


In other news, have you seen how ACA is forecast to roll out? No-one said the uninsured would be completely covered immediately. Exchange enrollments are forecast to steadily grow over a decade, to eventually reach just short of 30 million.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
from the above article
"Gallup's latest data, which parallel recent findings from Rand Corp. and the Urban Institute, lump together all coverage gains, including those on the marketplaces, as well as through other forms of insurance, such as Medicaid, employer-provided coverage and health plans purchased directly from insurers. "

so open market insurance from non OB insurers is being counted? well I guess that would up the #'s a bit. Pretty wide net they are casting there, and thats just what is disclosed, that may not be an exhaustive list.

Why wouldn't you include it? The issue is simply 'people who were insured before, and people who are insured now'. And that number is 9 million according to RAND, and 12 million according to Gallup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Seaward, your wasting your time. You are arguing with people who believe that politically generated statistics are verbatim truth when generated by the people they support and 100% wrong when generated by any group other than their own.

Yeah, we're taking multiple reports from various government and non-government agencies, while you're talking loose fantasies about prisoners getting enrolled.

This is the 2012 election all over again, a straight up set of numbers telling a straight up story, countered by a bunch of conservative pundits telling the audience of true believers silly little anecdotes so they don't have to accept the reality of the situation.

Q: Was 7 million the original goal?
A: Sort of. It was supposed to be 7 million "new" enrollments
Of which 40% "had" to be in the 18-30 year old "healthy" demographic in order for the law to work "financially".

That 40% figure is junk. 40% is just the proportion of the uninsured population who are young invincibles. It was never needed for an exact demographic match, and never anticipated. ACA wanted 25%, set premiums for 25%, and that's what they got.

And, as I've explained multiple times now, even if ACA had missed the enrollment targets by half then overall premiums would have pushed up about 2 to 3%. The idea that a 2 to 3% increase in premiums would have collapsed the plan is just nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Clearly math isnt a strong suit for some:

"President Obama likes to say that raising the nation’s borrowing limit “won’t add a dime” to the federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office.

When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent."

Means it got BIGGER d.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/

You're missing a few important bits of economic understanding. There is an annual deficit, the yearly amount by which revenues fall short of expenditures. That is what Obama pledged to cut in half, and what he managed to do (though given the economic recovery it was basically inevitable, his promise was a bit like pledging for the sun to rise tomorrow). This is different to the total deficit, which is the total accumulated debt of the federal government over its life, which is what you were showing.

The other thing you need to understand is that quoting the total movement in deficit figures is totally meaningless nonsense. Most movement in deficit figures is due to underlying economic conditions, which the President has zero control over - elected in a boom and your budgets will appear healthy, elected in the midst of depression and they will look terrible. This means that you have to look at the underlying position, which unfortunately makes things a lot more complex and subjective, but is the only necessary way of assessing how things are really working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
They'd say, hey: let us repeal ACA. We'll then put to the floor to expand Medicare to all citizens (with the debates on how to pay for it).

It isn't a lack of intelligence that stops Republicans attempting something like that, but the same basic party platforms that led to the current situation. Republicans think any expansion of government is socialism, so much so that they hated the expansion of medicaid, removal of the pre-existing condition clause, subsidies and indiviual mandate that is ACA. They called it socialism, remember? So the idea that they'd look to replace it with an even greater expansion of government involvement in healthcare is a basic misunderstanding of what the Republican party is. It's a bit like saying 'if Democrats were smart they'd have used their loans to the car industry to remove union representation' - it just isn't how the party works.

Basic reality is that Republicans will only look at market based solutions, and the only thing out there that's like that is ACA. That's why their mantra of repeal and replace hasn't so far come up with an actual 'replace' thing.

But don't believe me, listen to the party insiders themselves.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-new-obamacare-reality-no-repeal-without-replace

In return: You must also pass reforms to tax codes (simplify that monstrosity).

Republicans don't want serious tax code simplification. It's an easy line to throw out there, but the reality is that most of those complexities are in there because vested interests want their benefits, and those vested interests still control both parties.

 sebster wrote:
I try to get people to concede points so the conversation can move on. Debate something, if there is a clear correct answer then all sides recognise that and move on the next point. Constructive dialogue.

I'm sorry, I wasn't even going to reply to you until I read that. You say constructive dialogue, and then moments later you're back to swearing at people

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The Repube-icans never miss an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Repube-icans?

If you wish to be taken seriously it would be best to not make forced and puerile puns.

 whembly wrote:

They'd say, hey: let us repeal ACA. We'll then put to the floor to expand Medicare to all citizens (with the debates on how to pay for it).

In return: You must also pass reforms to tax codes (simplify that monstrosity).

It's a win-win.

Medicare already applies to all citizens, what you're talking about is the integration of Medicare and Medicaid; with the intent of creating a de facto single-payer system. That's "evil socialism".

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Seaward, your wasting your time. You are arguing with people who believe that politically generated statistics are verbatim truth when generated by the people they support and 100% wrong when generated by any group other than their own.

All political statistics are politically generated, even the ones that contravene the ones you don't like.

 Seaward wrote:

Are you at all worried that you're one of a very select number of people in America who believe that wasn't a lie?

Is that a closeted threat?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I try to get people to concede points so the conversation can move on. Debate something, if there is a clear correct answer then all sides recognise that and move on the next point. Constructive dialogue.

I'm sorry, I wasn't even going to reply to you until I read that. You say constructive dialogue, and then moments later you're back to swearing at people

I would say his statements about actually reading his posts and/or sources rather than misrepresenting and/or ignoring them is constructive dialogue. Or you can get caught up on his "salty" language (because he bruised your ego) instead, which would probably stop occurring if you just

followed the constructive dialogue in the first place.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I would say his statements about actually reading his posts and/or sources rather than misrepresenting and/or ignoring them is constructive dialogue.

It certainly would be if it were genuine. Argue against the points in his post, or point out the flaws in his sources, and you don't get much back beyond rage.

I think you have the least ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing others lack of sincerity, considering the countless times people have had to correct you on misrepresenting what they've said.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think you have the least ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing others lack of sincerity, considering the countless times people have had to correct you on misrepresenting what they've said.

I usually respond to what they said before they edited the post a few times.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think you have the least ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing others lack of sincerity, considering the countless times people have had to correct you on misrepresenting what they've said.

I usually respond to what they said before they edited the post a few times.

That's a good practice to have but that doesn't mean the words written were fully understood or read properly.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sorry, I wasn't even going to reply to you until I read that. You say constructive dialogue, and then moments later you're back to swearing at people

"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking."

John Maynard Keynes


If you're not quite sure what that means, it means I'll keep saying rude words, and keep telling you how terrible your arguments are in the most pointed manner, until you finally start posting in a thoughtful manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I would say his statements about actually reading his posts and/or sources rather than misrepresenting and/or ignoring them is constructive dialogue. Or you can get caught up on his "salty" language (because he bruised your ego) instead, which would probably stop occurring if you just

followed the constructive dialogue in the first place.

Yep. He always goes back to complaining about my language when his arguments become really obviously flawed. Mind you, a couple of other times I've made an effort to use no rude words, or even mean words, and he just finds some other stupid nonsense to complain about, rather than actually concede that his argument was really, really crappy.

And that's basically what we're seeing here. An attempt to complain about how mean I'm being, in an effort to avoid conceding that his arguments are simply wrong.

It shouldn't be any surprise that Seaward's jumped in on the issue as well, he's another one who quickly looks to piss and moan about anything else once his argument has run out to nothing.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyhow, getting away from the people who've stopped trying to debate the issue and are just complaining that an Australian is being mean to them, here's a really interesting piece on how ACA will impact future elections, and what that ends up meaning for ACA's future chances at survival.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-21/no-obamacare-won-t-win-elections-for-democrats

"After Medicare passed in 1965, voters “rewarded” Democrats for Medicare with big midterm losses in 1966 and then by putting Republicans in the White House in five of the next six presidential elections."

"Successful programs guarantee their own success, regardless of subsequent elections. That’s very likely to be the case with health-care reform, no matter how people feel about "Obamacare." It’s hard for politicians to take away benefits people like. What successful programs almost never do -- especially those that are targeted widely and don’t put pressure on specific groups to realign -- is win elections. "



It's a short piece, but it captures exactly what I've been thinking about ACA for a while now - Democrat hopes of a electoral whirlwind once people realised ACA gave them security were always silly, but at the same Republican hopes that a strong showing in the mid-terms would give them a platform to repeal ACA were even sillier - it simply isn't electorally viable to tell people that their access to healthcare and the subsidies they rely on to afford it are going to be taken away.

 dogma wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The Repube-icans never miss an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Repube-icans?

If you wish to be taken seriously it would be best to not make forced and puerile puns.

I myself appreciate them; as I find them to be a real time-saver. When I come across one of those clever witticisms I know that I can immediately stop reading that post and skip to the next, utterly secure in knowing I've missed absolutely nothing of value.

I'll be honest, I don't get "repube-ican" is it a reference to something?