BoatShoes;1527109 wrote:1). Do you not think that representative democracy and republican government are legitimate? We've already established that when people are asked if they like Obamacare vs. all of the things in Obamacare individually, they don't like the former and they like the latter. The Iraq War is unpopular and tax cuts for the rich are unpopular but because our society is bound by representative decisions by our agents in Congress it is nevertheless true in our country that our society decided to engage in those actions.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Part D all had troubling roll outs and all ended up wildly popular.

2). It is not blatantly false. The horror stories of those 3% having to get "better" but more expensive coverage is in the news now while the website is down. Let's see what happens when its fixed. Also, as Ron Johnson's bill shows, we can tweak the law and allow individuals to continue on their cheaper plans while still retaining the affordability and new coverage for other individuals.

1. I love when liberals move the goalposts. The statement was that we as a society decided. You then move it to our elected representatives decided. The Iraq war and Bush tax cuts were popular at the beginning so those are terrible examples. They became unpopular years later when the war dragged on and the media spun the tax cuts to be "for the rich" when they were for all.

2. Only a liberal would automatically assume ACA plans are automatically better than a catastrophic plan. More coverage is not automatically better for a given individual. A new Cadillac is more of a car than a 1992 focus but we don't force young kids buy a Cadillac.

You want proof Americans didn't want the ACA from the beginning? One of the most liberal states voted in a republican just to be a fillibuster vote in the senate.

BoatShoes;1527007 wrote: FWIW, I see no reason why we couldn't have continued to allow ...

For the lover of god READ an economics book!!!! Don't just read it, understand it.

One fallacy among many is that the 83% labelled as "unaffected" aren't close to actually being that. They as a group will pay more, at a higher rate of increase than if the law had not been implemented.

To sum up the chart, it says this entire fiasco exists to help 14% of the population at enormous expense to 3%, and substantial expense to 83%. And the architect of this back alley abortion defends it because the majority of Americans aren't hurt THAT badly.

queencitybuckeye;1527290 wrote:One fallacy among many is that the 83% labelled as "unaffected" aren't close to actually being that. They as a group will pay more, at a higher rate of increase than if the law had not been implemented.

To sum up the chart, it says this entire fiasco exists to help 14% of the population at enormous expense to 3%, and substantial expense to 83%. And the architect of this back alley abortion defends it because the majority of Americans aren't hurt THAT badly.

Exactly right and BS will not admit this fact, no way would he admit this.

His fancy graph is 100% hogwash as 3% are financially killed by the law and 83% are most definitely paying more due to the law.

majorspark;1527118 wrote:Low risk young and healthy people who would be attracted those plans are instead forced to pony up more cash. Calling it "worse" coverage is deceptive. A low risk individual purchasing high deductible insurance at lower premiums is smart coverage. But anyways there is a reason and we all know what it is. And yes Obama lied.

I agree "worse" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why I put worse in quotes. I agree Obama lied.

"Some older folks in the individual market will lose your plan if your insurance company changes it while young people will still be able to buy high deductible, catastrophic plans and people with group insurance will be able to keep your plans"

doesn't sell as well as

"If you like your plan you can keep it"

jmog;1527283 wrote:1. I love when liberals move the goalposts. The statement was that we as a society decided. You then move it to our elected representatives decided. The Iraq war and Bush tax cuts were popular at the beginning so those are terrible examples. They became unpopular years later when the war dragged on and the media spun the tax cuts to be "for the rich" when they were for all.

2. Only a liberal would automatically assume ACA plans are automatically better than a catastrophic plan. More coverage is not automatically better for a given individual. A new Cadillac is more of a car than a 1992 focus but we don't force young kids buy a Cadillac.

You want proof Americans didn't want the ACA from the beginning? One of the most liberal states voted in a republican just to be a fillibuster vote in the senate.

1. Our elected representatives decided means our society decided in our country. period.

2. I didn't say they were "automatically better". That's why I used quotes. Better is in the eye of the beholder and agree that people should be able to choose other, cheaper plans in the exchanges.

3. LoL if Scott Brown is proof Americans didn't want it than using similar reasoning re-electing Barack Obama is proof that we want it. It will be popular when all is said and done.

gut;1527287 wrote:For the lover of god READ an economics book!!!! Don't just read it, understand it.

LOL why don't you just put me on ignore if you're incapable of having a civil discussion with me/librulz? It was unnecessary for the Obama administration to restrict the types of plans permissible in the individual market that necessitate higher premiums above and beyond however much higher they may have been with the implementation of guaranteed issue. A perfect example of liberal overreach when it would have been satisfactory to have the tax on free-loading,guaranteed issue and subsidies.

queencitybuckeye;1527290 wrote:One fallacy among many is that the 83% labelled as "unaffected" aren't close to actually being that. They as a group will pay more, at a higher rate of increase than if the law had not been implemented.

To sum up the chart, it says this entire fiasco exists to help 14% of the population at enormous expense to 3%, and substantial expense to 83%. And the architect of this back alley abortion defends it because the majority of Americans aren't hurt THAT badly.

I think he would also argue that a substantial majority of that 83% also benefits in a lot of ways as well. That, again is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

Six......

BoatShoes;1527347 wrote:I think he would also argue that a substantial majority of that 83% also benefits in a lot of ways as well. That, again is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

I sure he would. When one has nothing left but stupid arguments, that's the card one plays, I guess.

How hard is this to understand? For 83%, nothing changes EXCEPT THE COST. There is no benefit to that.

BoatShoes;1527343 wrote:1. Our elected representatives decided means our society decided in our country. period.

2. I didn't say they were "automatically better". That's why I used quotes. Better is in the eye of the beholder and agree that people should be able to choose other, cheaper plans in the exchanges.

3. LoL if Scott Brown is proof Americans didn't want it than using similar reasoning re-electing Barack Obama is proof that we want it. It will be popular when all is said and done.

So by your logic our society as a whole decided to spy on foreign leaders, spy on ourselves, and completely agreed with the patriot act?

Come on Boat, you can not possibly believe everything you write.

BoatShoes;1527347 wrote:I think he would also argue that a substantial majority of that 83% also benefits in a lot of ways as well. That, again is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

So in other words, his chart is all opinion and no fact since it is "in the eye of the beholder"?

Interesting that his statistics are opinion instead of fact, typical for someone trying to defend the ACA.

queencitybuckeye;1527358 wrote:I sure he would. When one has nothing left but stupid arguments, that's the card one plays, I guess.

How hard is this to understand? For 83%, nothing changes EXCEPT THE COST. There is no benefit to that.

Well that's not entirely true. Even on employer-based grandfathered plans the insurance companies are limited in how they can drop coverage and there aren't lifetime, caps, etc. I'm sure Mr. Gruber would argue that in the face of the initial rate shock those additional benefits outweigh increase costs.

jmog;1527372 wrote:So by your logic our society as a whole decided to spy on foreign leaders, spy on ourselves, and completely agreed with the patriot act?

Come on Boat, you can not possibly believe everything you write.

Yes. That is how representative democracy and principal-agency works. I personally disagree with those things but my acceptance and consent is a begrudging acceptance and consent. I could emigrate but I choose to stay and be a part of a partnership that spies on people and murders innocents with drones because the benefits of this partnership outweigh the negatives. Good thing I have the opportunity to vote for an agent who can change those laws and repeal our collective consent with regard to things that my partnership does that I don't personally like.

BoatShoes;1527384 wrote:Well that's not entirely true. Even on employer-based grandfathered plans the insurance companies are limited in how they can drop coverage and there aren't lifetime, caps, etc. I'm sure Mr. Gruber would argue that in the face of the initial rate shock those additional benefits outweigh increase costs.

I'm sure that the majority of those actually in the boat would disagree with that cost/benefit analysis.

jmog;1527374 wrote:So in other words, his chart is all opinion and no fact since it is "in the eye of the beholder"?

Interesting that his statistics are opinion instead of fact, typical for someone trying to defend the ACA.

You have similarly offered your opinions that it will be overall "worse". There is no definitive moral standard in the universe that determines as a matter of fact whether or not the social outcomes of this law are "worse" or "better".

queencitybuckeye;1527389 wrote:I'm sure that the majority of those actually in the boat would disagree with that cost/benefit analysis.

You may indeed be right. As the law is implemented and we find out more if that is the case than democrats will suffer mightily.

BoatShoes;1527391 wrote:You have similarly offered your opinions that it will be overall "worse". There is no definitive moral standard in the universe that determines as a matter of fact whether or not the social outcomes of this law are "worse" or "better".

Then why do it?

BoatShoes;1527392 wrote:You may indeed be right. As the law is implemented and we find out more if that is the case than democrats will suffer mightily.

Far more important to most of us, the people as a whole will suffer.

queencitybuckeye;1527393 wrote:Then why do it?

Well I think people who support the Affordable Care Act in their political and moral philosophies believe, in their opinion, that the net benefits to society as a whole would be greater with the Affordable Care Act as implemented.

queencitybuckeye;1527396 wrote:Far more important to most of us, the people as a whole will suffer.

Well that is the point isn't it? If we accept that Obamacare was a good faith attempt to make things better and it, in actuality, turns out to be a miserable failure and if the people as a whole actually suffer, the democrats will be punished for imposing mass suffering on the people with their miserable failure, they will be replaced by people who have better ideas and the Affordable Care Act which was actually not affordable and made things worse for more people than it made things better for will be repealed and replaced.

BoatShoes;1527408 wrote:If we accept that Obamacare was a good faith attempt to make things better

There's far move evidence to reject this premise than to accept it.

Boat, you have yet to admit to one fact.

The majority of American's do not want, and have never since the beginning wanted, the ACA/Obamacare. Polls have showed this from the beginning, please dispute this fact if you can.

queencitybuckeye;1527426 wrote:There's far move evidence to reject this premise than to accept it.

I disagree. Maybe the ACA will turn out to be wrong and make society worse off but I don't think it was enacted in bad faith with the intent to make society worse off.

jmog;1527450 wrote:Boat, you have yet to admit to one fact.

The majority of American's do not want, and have never since the beginning wanted, the ACA/Obamacare. Polls have showed this from the beginning, please dispute this fact if you can.

Because it's not a "fact". It all depends on the questions.

If you ask people, "Do you support Obamacare" most of them say no. If you say "Do you support the Affordable Care Act" It's 50/50.

If you say, "Do you support preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people who are old, women, people who are sick, etc." a majority say yes.

If you say, "Do you support subsidies for purchasing individual health insurance" people say yes.

If you say, "Do you support preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people get sick" people say yes.

If you say, "Do you support preventing insurance companies from capping how much they will pay for you in your lifetime if you get sick" People say yes.

If you say, "Do you think people should have to pay a fine or a tax if they don't buy health insurance" People Say No.

If you say, "Do you think employers should be required to provide health insurance to their employees" people say yes.

When you ask people about Obamacare's component parts they support it overwhelmingly except for the so-called "mandate". People support 2/3 of the 3 essential components of the ACA regime, subsidies and guaranteed issue. When you include the dreaded word Obamacare, it is not supported.