• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

the Obamacare question dems can't aviod

Im not versed in the numbers, but arent we only in the first year of obamacare being fully active?

And the WH estimated that the $2,500 per year savings (relative to not passing the ACA) would materialize by 2019 (with savings starting at a lower level immediately). If the TS has some study suggesting that that's not going to happen, it's missing from the thread. So far, it looks like savings have exceeded expectations, but not to the extent necessary for recently implemented process changes to lead to immediate savings on that level.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/factchecking-pernicious-obamacare-claims/

Obama, May 13, 2009: On Monday I met with representatives of the insurance and the drug companies, doctors and hospitals, and labor unions, groups that included some of the strongest critics of past comprehensive reform proposals. We discussed how they
 
no, we are not the same person. I dont know how to prove this other than just hoping you take my word for it. i do tend to agree with him and he does seem to act mature considering im bringing a point forward and the majority of the replies on here have absolutely nothing to do with answering the question or anything relevant to the subject matter, but doesn't that what dems and liberals do when approached with facts that contradict their previous statements???

Beyond the repeating video of savings, do the repubs have some study or what not saying that americans havent saved with Obamacare yet. I have not seen anything from either side that really shows the numbers, be they good or bad.
 
Beyond the repeating video of savings, do the repubs have some study or what not saying that americans havent saved with Obamacare yet. I have not seen anything from either side that really shows the numbers, be they good or bad.

it's common sense and math that doesn't need to be explained because every member of the special olympics could do this math problem in their head..... i will help explain and dumb it down the best i can.....

little jimmy buys only 2 apples at a store......

later that day little jimmy goes back to the same store and buys 5 apples.....

which trip was the most expensive??? ANSWER = the 2nd trip because little jimmy bought more apples.....

this same logic applies to Obamacare, when you force insurance companies to cover more then the price increases..... this increase in price is paid for by the people.....

kinda like the free Obamaphones..... every person that calls you soliciting for you to get the phone will tell you its free and not understand why you cant take something thats free..... liberals and dems are the only ones who actually believe something can be free..... the REALITY of it is SOMEONE has to pay for that free phone, just because you're not paying for it doesn't mean that your neighbor isn't paying for it every 2 weeks when they look at how much taxes is taken out of their check



.
 
Beyond the repeating video of savings, do the repubs have some study or what not saying that americans havent saved with Obamacare yet. I have not seen anything from either side that really shows the numbers, be they good or bad.

It's sort of controversial at this point. Healthcare cost growth has undergone a massive slowing over the past few years, but it's debatable how much of that is due to the ACA. The article I cited cites Kaiser attributing about a quarter of the slowdown to the law, which would put the savings well under $2,500 so far, but more than on track for that by the given timeframe (because it compounds).

But really taking it all into account is very, very complicated (it requires projecting growth without the law and growth with the law and comparing it--and both projections, even if done in good faith are going to be highly questionable; there's also comparing unlike plans), and people on both sides are very biased, which is a bad mix. I don't think there's going to be a smoking gun that resolves this either way.

Here's the CBO in late 2009 (not sure if they've updated--they should have):

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf
 
it's common sense and math that doesn't need to be explained because every member of the special olympics could do this math problem in their head..... i will help explain and dumb it down the best i can.....

little jimmy buys only 2 apples at a store......

later that day little jimmy goes back to the same store and buys 5 apples.....

which trip was the most expensive??? ANSWER = the 2nd trip because little jimmy bought more apples.....

this same logic applies to Obamacare, when you force insurance companies to cover more then the price increases..... this increase in price is paid for by the people.....

kinda like the free Obamaphones..... every person that calls you soliciting for you to get the phone will tell you its free and not understand why you cant take something thats free..... liberals and dems are the only ones who actually believe something can be free..... the REALITY of it is SOMEONE has to pay for that free phone, just because you're not paying for it doesn't mean that your neighbor isn't paying for it every 2 weeks when they look at how much taxes is taken out of their check



.

So why is it republicans cant provide actual numbers if this apple counting is so easy.

Hint: its not quite that easy.
 
It's sort of controversial at this point. Healthcare cost growth has undergone a massive slowing over the past few years, but it's debatable how much of that is due to the ACA. The article I cited cites Kaiser attributing about a quarter of the slowdown to the law, which would put the savings well under $2,500 so far, but more than on track for that by the given timeframe (because it compounds).

But really taking it all into account is very, very complicated (it requires projecting growth without the law and growth with the law and comparing it--and both projections, even if done in good faith are going to be highly questionable; there's also comparing unlike plans), and people on both sides are very biased, which is a bad mix. I don't think there's going to be a smoking gun that resolves this either way.

Here's the CBO in late 2009 (not sure if they've updated--they should have):

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf

So in a nutshell we wont see hard numbers for a good while.
 
Last edited:
So why is it republicans cant provide actual numbers if this apple counting is so easy.

Hint: its not quite that easy.

its only difficult for people that want to make it that way. lets be honest here, if the republicans came up with a way of finding the numbers they would more than likely be biased..... if the democrats came up with a way of finding numbers they would also be biased..... if an independent firm came up with it im sure they would have special interest groups and they would also be biased.....

I dont think you're going to get an actual 100% truth in numbers either way you look at it..... however, i do know that this law makes more things mandatory for insurance companies to provide..... common sense says that more stuff means more cost..... smart people know nothing is free therefore that price is passed on.....

here's an example, my wife is an accountant/h.r. for a hospital so one would say she is more educated than the average joe when it comes to dealing with the new healthcare law considering she deals with it and hears about it for her job every day..... we just had a baby and because of the new healthcare law her insurance has to give her a breast pump, $300 value. Before the healthcare law her insurance wouldn't have provided a breast pump but now it's mandatory..... on one hand this is a good thing..... on the other, educated people know nothing is free and educated people are smart enough to know that insurance companies will not just provide something for free so we should all know this additional cost that the companies acquire will be passed onto the customer in one way or another..... just because they will not show it as a direct cost you bet your ass there will be an indirect cost added in there somewhere because nothing is free and it will be paid by someone.....

.
 
So in a nutshell we wont see hard numbers for a good while.

We're seeing a lot of numbers, but a lot of them are guesses (CBO, Kaiser) or propaganda (various sources on both sides). We'll get better numbers later, but I don't think we'll see a good resolution ever. It's like the Spanish Civil War. Here's Orwell:

I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish civil war. I know that some were committed by the Republicans, and far more (they are still continuing) by the Fascists. But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence. Recently I drew up a table of atrocities during the period between 1918 and the present; there was never a year when atrocities were not occurring somewhere or other, and there was hardly a single case when the Left and the Right believed in the same stories simultaneously. And stranger yet, at any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday's proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed.

In the present war we are in the curious situation that our ‘atrocity campaign’ was done largely before the war started, and done mostly by the Left, the people who normally pride themselves on their incredulity. In the same period the Right, the atrocity-mongers of 1914-18, were gazing at Nazi Germany and flatly refusing to see any evil in it. Then as soon as war broke out it was the pro-Nazis of yesterday who were repeating horror stories, while the anti-Nazis suddenly found themselves doubting whether the Gestapo really existed. Nor was this solely the result of the Russo-German Pact. It was partly because before the war the Left had wrongly believed that Britain and Germany would never fight and were therefore able to be anti-German and anti-British simultaneously; partly also because official war-propaganda, with its disgusting hypocrisy and self-righteousness, always tends to make thinking people sympathize with the enemy. Part of the price we paid for the systematic lying of 1914-17 was the exaggerated pro-German reaction which followed. During the years 1918-33 you were hooted at in left-wing circles if you suggested that Germany bore even a fraction of responsibility for the war. In all the denunciations of Versailles I listened to during those years I don't think I ever once heard the question, ‘What would have happened if Germany had won?’ even mentioned, let alone discussed. So also with atrocities. The truth, it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it. Recently I noticed that the very people who swallowed any and every horror story about the Japanese in Nanking in 1937 refused to believe exactly the same stories about Hong Kong in 1942. There was even a tendency to feel that the Nanking atrocities had become, as it were, retrospectively untrue because the British Government now drew attention to them.

For the record, our previous system was so bad, and so obviously so, that I think it's impossible to argue that the ACA isn't a huge improvement on it, but on these precise points of dispute (how much, exactly, is it cutting costs), I don't see an answer on the horizon. The right used to argue that the ACA would cause costs to rise much higher, and I think we can all agree that it's good that instead of arguing about what's to blame for soaring costs we're arguing if falling costs are just a coincidence or were actually caused by the ACA. And it's also a huge positive that millions of Americans have access to affordable care that didn't before the law was passed.
 
Dems are going to win big in the midterm elections simply by Obama thwarting that False Flag Attack at the London Olympics that you were sure was going to happen.
 
Dems are going to win big in the midterm elections simply by Obama thwarting that False Flag Attack at the London Olympics that you were sure was going to happen.

People actually took that shit seriously?
 
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare

scroll down to see a chart or pre vs post insurance cost.

and if anyone doesn't like the source, why don't we cut to the chase and you post any proof of MOST AMERICANS saving $2500 like the president said.

Source shouldn't matter, but it doesn't give a lot of the information (at least to me) that needs to be seen in how they reached the numbers. Or show in-depth information on the model that's used. Hard to take it seriously.

I do believe the 2500 is probably an exaggeration like usual with politicians though. Regardless if it offers savings at all it will have been worth it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I can't believe Ruthless Robert was so certain it would happen. Crazy, huh?

More relevant to this thread, Robert was also among the right-wingers freaking out over the early enrollment numbers on the exchanges:

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f54/obamacare-enrollment-only-50-000-people-3-target-2602661/

Of course, none of them have acknowledged that they were wrong or changed their views after seeing final enrollment numbers for the first year exceed expectations. Just like they didn't admit their errors when the polls turned out to be accurate in the election, when QE3 didn't cause inflation or gold and silver prices to rise, etc. It's actually pretty funny the way these guys are wrong about everything and never learn anything from it.
 
Source shouldn't matter, but it doesn't give a lot of the information (at least to me) that needs to be seen in how they reached the numbers. Or show in-depth information on model that's used. Hard to take it seriously.

If you are so sure that people are saving $2500, then post some sources. It is past or almost past the deadline to sign up, so the numbers should be available. I know they talk about 7 million people signing up, so show me how much the 7 million people were paying versus what they are paying now.

You know dang good and well, that if it was saving people $2500, The media and the administration would be touting that all over the news.
 
More relevant to this thread, Robert was also among the right-wingers freaking out over the early enrollment numbers on the exchanges:

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f54/obamacare-enrollment-only-50-000-people-3-target-2602661/

Of course, none of them have acknowledged that they were wrong or changed their views after seeing final enrollment numbers for the first year exceed expectations. Just like they didn't admit their errors when the polls turned out to be accurate in the election, when QE3 didn't cause inflation or gold and silver prices to rise, etc. It's actually pretty funny the way these guys are wrong about everything and never learn anything from it.

Jack, that is because you only read liberal news sources. If you read breitbart.com or listened to Limbaugh you would know the truth (even if it never comes to pass in real life).

At this point Obamacare is a cornerstone of the conservative attack plan and admitting it has succeeded in ANY capacity it tantamount to surrender.
 
If you are so sure that people are saving $2500, then post some sources. It is past or almost past the deadline to sign up, so the numbers should be available. I know they talk about 7 million people signing up, so show me how much the 7 million people were paying versus what they are paying now.

You know dang good and well, that if it was saving people $2500, The media and the administration would be touting that all over the news.

Feel free to point where I said I was sure it would result in that amount. Good or bad it's going to take more time than repubs are demanding to get the answer.
 
If you are so sure that people are saving $2500, then post some sources. It is past or almost past the deadline to sign up, so the numbers should be available. I know they talk about 7 million people signing up, so show me how much the 7 million people were paying versus what they are paying now.

You know dang good and well, that if it was saving people $2500, The media and the administration would be touting that all over the news.

If you are so sure they aren't actually saving that amount then post some sources with some solid calculations and subsequent methodology refuting the point.

We'll all be waiting.
 
Feel free to point where I said I was sure it would result in that amount. Good or bad it's going to take more time than repubs are demanding to get the answer.

what part of nothing is free do you not understand? the nothing OR the free?

.
 
Back
Top