Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[Sun Devil 92]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

“There’s some debate about how much the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow health spending, but there's no doubt the slowdown in health spending helps the Affordable Care Act,” Levitt said.

While the main reason for the law’s lower cost is the slowdown in health spending, the CBO also says some is due to slightly fewer people signing up.

The CBO now projects 22 million people will have signed up through ObamaCare’s marketplaces in 2025, two million fewer than previously thought.

Fewer people will sign up because new data shows that more people than previously thought already had health insurance before the law, and because fewer people are losing employer-provided coverage.

ObamaCare costs go down TheHill

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

If we're not talking about costs, quality, coverage, and access, what are we talking about? Those are the metrics that matter from a systemic perspective (is the health system performing better than it was five years ago? signs point to yes).

If the standard is whether Obamacare forbids aging Baby Boomers from retiring if they happen to be doctors, then I suppose it fails. Because no, it doesn't do that.

Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

Do you just make this stuff up off the cuff? Med school enrollment did indeed just hit an all-time high, and has grown by 15% over the past 7 years, but it's not because of a surge in foreign students. Only 300 of the 20,343 students (1.5%) entering med school last year were foreign. That compares with 326 students out of 17,759 (1.8%) back in 2007.

The data you refer to is in fact publicly available from the Association of American Medical Colleges:

This is the point I made above: you've done this all throughout the thread. Brazen, demonstrably false assertions that you've apparently just made up on the spot.

What assertions did you just demonstrate to be false ?

Medical school enrollments being up does NOT equate to greater availability of doctors.

And this is my great frustration.

The article that Fox cited acknowledges that enrollments are up.

Having doctors around and having doctors available are not the same thing.

 

[Greenbeard]

What assertions did you just demonstrate to be false ?

Medical school enrollments being up does NOT equate to greater availability of doctors.

I already pointed out in post #68 that the number of active licensed physicians has grown from 850,085 when the law passed in 2010 to 878,194 in 2012 to and 897,420 as of March 2015. The availability of active doctors isn't the issue. (Nor, as it turns out, is the capsizing of the medical system under a wave of uncontrollable utilization.).

I was talking about the newest BS narrative FoxFyre is pushing about an increase in foreign-born med students propping the med school enrollment numbers up as Americans look interest in going into medicine. Entirely false--med school enrollment has been growing, yet enrollment by foreign-born students hasn't. Medicine is still an extremely attractive career (it's isn't just enrollments that have been hitting record highs, it's med school applications as well).

But even that isn't really my point. Rather it's just the casual way she'll simply make up "facts" to support a narrative that she's also made up out of cloth. What's more concerning to me is that I don't doubt that she believes these fabrications.

 

[Greenbeard]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

You still end up with the fact of the law being 30% cheaper than advertised (as per person spending falls far below what was budgeted) as it covers millions, restores market dynamics to the health sector, and helps redesign care delivery to be smarter and better. That's a pretty good deal. And a very happy birthday.

 

[Foxfyre]

What assertions did you just demonstrate to be false ?

Medical school enrollments being up does NOT equate to greater availability of doctors.

I already pointed out in post #68 that the number of active licensed physicians has grown from 850,085 when the law passed in 2010 to 878,194 in 2012 to and 897,420 as of March 2015. The availability of active doctors isn't the issue. (Nor, as it turns out, is the capsizing of the medical system under a wave of uncontrollable utilization.).

I was talking about the newest BS narrative FoxFyre is pushing about an increase in foreign-born med students propping the med school enrollment numbers up as Americans look interest in going into medicine. Entirely false--med school enrollment has been growing, yet enrollment by foreign-born students hasn't. Medicine is still an extremely attractive career (it's isn't just enrollments that have been hitting record highs, it's med school applications as well).

But even that isn't really my point. Rather it's just the casual way she'll simply make up "facts" to support a narrative that she's also made up out of cloth. What's more concerning to me is that I don't doubt that she believes these fabrications.

And the FACT that I conceded your statement about the foreign enrollment and did not PUSH it counts for nothing? Where are YOUR FACTS that that the number of doctors the medical schools are graduating are keeping up with the need for doctors? Where are YOUR FACTS that inability to see a doctor as a result of Obamacare is not a problem for many? Where are YOUR FACTS that emergency rooms are not more crowded than ever? Where are YOUR FACTS that the unavailability of active doctors is not the issue?

Your post engages in ad hominem that is expressly against the thread rules. A credible argument of why my arguments are wrong is fair game and is appreciated. Stating that I am making up facts out of whole cloth is not.

I am arguing that Obamacare has improved some things for some people in some areas--most at the expense of others--but for most of us, it has not improved things and has made healthcare delivery worse.

Dispute that if you can.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

You still end up with the fact of the law being 30% cheaper than advertised (as per person spending falls far below what was budgeted) as it covers millions, restores market dynamics to the health sector, and helps redesign care delivery to be smarter and better. That's a pretty good deal. And a very happy birthday.

This, again, makes some pretty broad assumptions.

Your statement would very true about someone if they:

1. Wanted Obamacare to begin with
2. Thought the original pricetag was a good deal
3. Agreed with the metrics you've identified as being "important".

This thread is a mess.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What assertions did you just demonstrate to be false ?

Medical school enrollments being up does NOT equate to greater availability of doctors.

I already pointed out in post #68 that the number of active licensed physicians has grown from 850,085 when the law passed in 2010 to 878,194 in 2012 to and 897,420 as of March 2015. The availability of active doctors isn't the issue. (Nor, as it turns out, is the capsizing of the medical system under a wave of uncontrollable utilization.).

I was talking about the newest BS narrative FoxFyre is pushing about an increase in foreign-born med students propping the med school enrollment numbers up as Americans look interest in going into medicine. Entirely false--med school enrollment has been growing, yet enrollment by foreign-born students hasn't. Medicine is still an extremely attractive career (it's isn't just enrollments that have been hitting record highs, it's med school applications as well).

But even that isn't really my point. Rather it's just the casual way she'll simply make up "facts" to support a narrative that she's also made up out of cloth. What's more concerning to me is that I don't doubt that she believes these fabrications.

Agreed that there are myths out there that get tossed about as facts.

I just wasn't sure which ones you were calling a myth.

The myths exist on both sides.

It isn't saving many of us money (in fact it is costing us more).

We could not keep our doctors in some cases.

We could not keep our plans in some cases.

 

[Foxfyre]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

You still end up with the fact of the law being 30% cheaper than advertised (as per person spending falls far below what was budgeted) as it covers millions, restores market dynamics to the health sector, and helps redesign care delivery to be smarter and better. That's a pretty good deal. And a very happy birthday.

This, again, makes some pretty broad assumptions.

Your statement would very true about someone if they:

1. Wanted Obamacare to begin with
2. Thought the original pricetag was a good deal
3. Agreed with the metrics you've identified as being "important".

This thread is a mess.

I think it would be much less of a mess if members would actually debate the thread topic or members posts instead of playing the 'gotcha' game or trying to make it about the members instead of what they post.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

You still end up with the fact of the law being 30% cheaper than advertised (as per person spending falls far below what was budgeted) as it covers millions, restores market dynamics to the health sector, and helps redesign care delivery to be smarter and better. That's a pretty good deal. And a very happy birthday.

This, again, makes some pretty broad assumptions.

Your statement would very true about someone if they:

1. Wanted Obamacare to begin with
2. Thought the original pricetag was a good deal
3. Agreed with the metrics you've identified as being "important".

This thread is a mess.

I think it would be much less of a mess if members would actually debate the thread topic or members posts instead of playing the 'gotcha' game or trying to make it about the members instead of what they post.

Your thread assumes that anyone posting is going to admit that Obamacare is a failure.

You cited several metrics you feel show it is a failure.

Clearly, the argument against this is in the premises used to define it as worthy of repeal.

That opens up pretty much the entire law and consequences of the law for review.

As I've said before, there has to be an agreement on metrics.

Let's start with your statement

- Obama had promised the average American family would be paying $2500 less for healthcare, but the reality is that in 2014 the average American family was paying 24.4% more. (from the OP).

Then look at Greenbeard's claim:

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

One of you is clearly wrong...or you are not talking the same thing (which I think is the case).

Failure to get this on the table is what makes threads like this a mess.

If someone can claim an average increase...they must have actual numbers. I'd love to see the numbers they used for their computations.

 

[Foxfyre]

It remains a matter of debate how much this slower rise in health costs is due to ObamaCare. The CBO says it is “unclear” how much is due to the effects of the recession and how much is due to other factors.

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

You still end up with the fact of the law being 30% cheaper than advertised (as per person spending falls far below what was budgeted) as it covers millions, restores market dynamics to the health sector, and helps redesign care delivery to be smarter and better. That's a pretty good deal. And a very happy birthday.

This, again, makes some pretty broad assumptions.

Your statement would very true about someone if they:

1. Wanted Obamacare to begin with
2. Thought the original pricetag was a good deal
3. Agreed with the metrics you've identified as being "important".

This thread is a mess.

I think it would be much less of a mess if members would actually debate the thread topic or members posts instead of playing the 'gotcha' game or trying to make it about the members instead of what they post.

Your thread assumes that anyone posting is going to admit that Obamacare is a failure.

You cited several metrics you feel show it is a failure.

Clearly, the argument against this is in the premises used to define it as worthy of repeal.

That opens up pretty much the entire law and consequences of the law for review.

As I've said before, there has to be an agreement on metrics.

Let's start with your statement

- Obama had promised the average American family would be paying $2500 less for healthcare, but the reality is that in 2014 the average American family was paying 24.4% more. (from the OP).

Then look at Greenbeard's claim:

Let's imagine you give the largest overhaul of the health care system in recent history no credit for the unprecedented slowdown in rising health spending that followed its passage.

One of you is clearly wrong...or you are not talking the same thing (which I think is the case).

Failure to get this on the table is what makes threads like this a mess.

If someone can claim an average increase...they must have actual numbers. I'd love to see the numbers they used for their computations.

I can substantiate my claim of the promises made.

youtube obama s promises about obamacare - Bing Videos





Greenbeard has provided no evidence that Obamacare is in part or wholly responsible for any slow down in rise of healthcare costs or that the crappy economy, at least partly exacerbated by Obamacare, is not just as responsible for any slow down in rise of healthcare costs.

So instead of trying to point fingers at what somebody assumed or intended or makes up or has not substantiated or whatever, the grown up method of debate is to argue one's own point of view and support it as necessary.

I think asking questions is fine. I think pointing out that something doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny is fine. I think dealing with the variables and nuances of cause and effect is fine. Certanly if we are all on the same page from the beginning, there is little to discuss at all.

But when the focus is trying to discredit other members instead of making an argument for one's own point of view, no matter how civilly that is done, the thread will always become a 'mess'.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

Look at the poll options. Do those look like the OP assumed anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

Look at the question that was to be discussed in this thread:

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Do you still support Obamacare in its entirety or are you ready to support those who want to repeal it in favor of a different and potentially better system? Why or why not? If you choose to repeal, what would a better system look like?

Does that look like an assumption that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

And yes, the video posted has numbers in it. Whether it has numbers that you want to see, I have no clue.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

Look at the poll options. Do those look like the OP assumed anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

Look at the question that was to be discussed in this thread:

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Do you still support Obamacare in its entirety or are you ready to support those who want to repeal it in favor of a different and potentially better system? Why or why not? If you choose to repeal, what would a better system look like?

Does that look like an assumption that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

And yes, the video posted has numbers in it. Whether it has numbers that you want to see, I have no clue.

Yes, it reads that way to me.

Your choice is to support it in it's entirety or go for repeal.

 

[BlueGin]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

Well considering it has a built in escape hatch not really. Come 2017 congress will be saved by waivers to appease the states and that will give them funding to rebuild their individual insurance structure.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

Well considering it has a built in escape hatch not really. Come 2017 congress will be saved by waivers to appease the states and that will give them funding to rebuild their individual insurance structure.

How does this forgive the lies Foxfyre is calling out ?

I don't get the logic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

Well considering it has a built in escape hatch not really. Come 2017 congress will be saved by waivers to appease the states and that will give them funding to rebuild their individual insurance structure.

How does this forgive the lies Foxfyre is calling out ?

I don't get the logic.

I hope you mean the lies that I have posted told to us by Obama and others and not lies I am telling myself.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

I will go back to my point that the OP assumes that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised.

The question was whether or not they were ready to hop on board the repeal-wagon.

Before I watch the youtube video cited in post #110, I'll ask if it has numbers.

Look at the poll options. Do those look like the OP assumed anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

Look at the question that was to be discussed in this thread:

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Do you still support Obamacare in its entirety or are you ready to support those who want to repeal it in favor of a different and potentially better system? Why or why not? If you choose to repeal, what would a better system look like?

Does that look like an assumption that anyone who responds already agrees Obamacare is not as advertised?

And yes, the video posted has numbers in it. Whether it has numbers that you want to see, I have no clue.

Yes, it reads that way to me.

Your choice is to support it in it's entirety or go for repeal.

Options #3 and #4 in the poll options are definitely different than repeal in its entirety. And there is nothing in the thread topic that suggests a member can't say he/she wouldn't repeal it in entirety but that this or that should be fixed or repealed or replaced.

And while the sampling is far too small to suggest any kind of a trend, I find it interesting that as of this hour, those who checked #2 and #3 mostly supporting Obamacare are exactly the same number as those who checked #5 and #6 mostly opposing it. And I found it interesting that as yet, nobody had approved of it in entirety.

And while I would be the first to agree that in retrospect I wished I had phrased this or that differently, It makes for a much better discussion to discuss the actual topic rather than make it a discussion of how the topic was presented.

 

[BlueGin]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

Well considering it has a built in escape hatch not really. Come 2017 congress will be saved by waivers to appease the states and that will give them funding to rebuild their individual insurance structure.

How does this forgive the lies Foxfyre is calling out ?

I don't get the logic.

It's not. I was agreeing. But may have worded that badly. I also don't think the Repblicans really want to repeal and are just paying lip service to that . They... As well as the rest if congress know they have a trap door built in... If they can hold out until 2017.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I would further say that if somebody is objective and looks at the blatant misrepresentations of Obamacare that were employed by the President (and others) to sell it--see post #110--I think nobody can honestly say that the plan was not misrepresented from the get go. And I wonder how anybody who realizes how dishonestly the plan was sold to Congress and the American public can think that the government is being honest and truthful in reporting the results of it now.

Well considering it has a built in escape hatch not really. Come 2017 congress will be saved by waivers to appease the states and that will give them funding to rebuild their individual insurance structure.

How does this forgive the lies Foxfyre is calling out ?

I don't get the logic.

I hope you mean the lies that I have posted told to us by Obama and others and not lies I am telling myself.

Yes it does.