Obamacare = Smashing Success

Mycroft · Feb 22, 2015

jpn said:
Oh really? So you can drive around without a license in your conservative utopia? No regulating corporations (who are legally "persons" in many respects) from dumping sludge into our drinking water?

In the real world, just to let you know, most of us are nice people. So we aren't willing to let a person bleed out in an emergency room because they don't have health insurance. So we, the citizens of this nation, decided through our elected officials that we're sick and tired of paying for these freeloaders.

And now we all have a choice. We can:

1) Be insured (like reasonable, responsible adults)
2) Pay the penalty for not being insured
3) Move to another country (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out)

What do you choose?

I'll choose #4

4) Stop paying for other's irresponsibility

maxparrish · Feb 23, 2015

jpn said:
I wonder how you "increase premiums" and "reduce benefits," and yet somehow still manage to reduce the number of uninsured Americans to record lows?

And since I don't live in the alternate reality of Fox News, and therefore know what the facts actually are, I can say without hesitation that Obamacare is, in fact, what I had hoped:

Number of Uninsured Americans Near Historic Low

If all you wanted was more folks to obtain a government mandated product then you needn't have bothered to hope - what monopolist couldn't increase "sales" if they had the power to fine customer who did not buy, and to tax others who purchased elsewhere, in order to throw free product to the mob?

Anyone whose only hope was have more insured at any cost, without regard to others tax burden, product efficacy, and without regard to its effect on lowering the quality of insurance product for others is really not thinking. "More insured" is just a slogan, not a health improvement end.

Unfortunately, it requires but a few minutes of mud-gunning with alleged and self-serving "fict-facts" to create a disingenuous mess , one that takes time to to clean up with mop and bucket brigade of truth tellers. For example, JPN consults his talking points source and makes a single claim of unprecedented number of insured , but seems oblivious to the following:

1. The actual rate historically uninsured there are, as a percentage of Americans, dependent on which survey you consult. Gallup, which reported a rate of 12.9 percent uninsured in January 2015 (higher than your link) started its polling in 2008. Moreover different surveys, using different sampling methods and questions, have shown many lower historically rates than today (as recently as 1999 it was far below the current rate):

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...nsured-rate-lowest-ever-donny-deutsch-claims/

2001: 13.1 percent (Department of Health and Human Services National Health Survey)

2000: 13.1 percent (Census Population Survey), 13.3 percent (National Health Survey)

1999: 12.2 percent (National Health Survey)

1998: 13.3 percent (National Health Survey)

1988: 13.4 percent (Population Survey)

1987: 12.9 percent (Population Survey)

1980: 12 percent (Health and Human Services Medical Expenditure Panel Survey)

1978: 12 percent (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey)

2. Recent increases of the rate of the insured has been from several causes, not just free medicaid and low income subsidies. Even in the states that did not opt into expanded medicaid their enrollments in medicaid have been rising. The most important factor for recent increases, other than 'free' stuff, has been the economic recovery.

3. More insured does not necessarily mean better health care and/or better health care outcomes. If, as it seems, ACA changes health plans so that it discourages people from seeking health care for serious medical conditions, reduces the size and quality of health care networks, and increases the load on remaining providers, and closes hospitals and clinics then health outcomes, on average, may actually be worse.

For example, a study of Oregon's own pilot expansion of Medicaid (several years prior to ACA) showed no improvement in health outcomes. Apparently the prior system (typical of most pre-ACA states) of federally subsidized hospitals, subsidized primary health care clinics, county and university hospitals, and charitable organizations worked just as well (for less). The only difference, now, is that there is that expanded medicaid is just one more program needing funded.

What ACA giveth it taketh away.

jpn · Feb 23, 2015

Mycroft said:
Personal responsibility, eh? Do you even understand that concept?

God I love this. The whole idea of the individual mandate was originated by conservatives! Personal responsibility is supposed to be a conservative ideal!!! The far-right Heritage Foundation developed the basics of what eventually became Romneycare, and then Obamacare, and the individual mandate is at its core!

But because it was embraced by Democrats, now you guys now run from it, denigrate it, ridicule it. You're really quite funny to watch.

Bob Blaylock · Feb 24, 2015

jpn said:
God I love this. The whole idea of the individual mandate was originated by conservatives!
·
·
·
But because it was embraced by Democrats, now you guys now run from it, denigrate it, ridicule it. You're really quite funny to watch.

Conceived, and rejected by conservatives.

You know liberals are getting desperate, when they go picking through the conservatives' trashpiles for rejected ideas, try to put those ideas into practice, and then try to blame the results thereof on the conservatives who had the sense to throw the idea in the trash in the first place.

jpn said:
Personal responsibility is supposed to be a conservative ideal!!! The far-right Heritage Foundation developed the basics of what eventually became Romneycare, and then Obamacare, and the individual mandate is at its core!

Which only goes to show, as you've already demonstrated, that liberals have no understanding of the concept of personal responsibility, and think that abusive government force is the same thing.

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

jpn said:
God I love this. The whole idea of the individual mandate was originated by conservatives!

Yes.

Personal responsibility is supposed to be a conservative ideal!!!

It is.

The far-right Heritage Foundation developed the basics of what eventually became Romneycare, and then Obamacare, and the individual mandate is at its core!

Yes.

But because it was embraced by Democrats, now you guys now run from it, denigrate it, ridicule it.

No.

We don't run away from it. We don't denigrate it. We don't ridicule it.

We simply do not accept it.

Maybe you will have a hard time understanding this, but I will make one attempt to explain it to you. If you don't get it...so it goes.

1. Just because some people in a think tank come up with an idea and just because they call themselves conservatives doesn't mean I, a conservative who advocates personal responsibility, must agree with them. It doesn't mean that you, as a liberal who has taken that idea and put it into practice...who shoved it down my throat...have done a good thing.

2. The fact that you have shoved this down my throat doesn't mean I need to accept your attempts to justify that action by spinning, lying and manipulating. After all, as a person who accepts my own personal responsibility, I have a choice.

3. "We would rather die on our feet, than live on our knees."

Henrin · Feb 24, 2015

Mycroft said:
3. "We would rather die on our feet, than live on our knees."

Great quote. My favorite from him:

"Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny"

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

Henrin said:
Great quote. My favorite from him:

"Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny"

My quote, or something very similar has been spoken by many people...not just Zapata. I paraphrased a line from a video that Conservative posted in another thread. In that video it is attributed to the survivors of the British bombardment of Ft. McHenry. Franklin D. Roosevelt also said something very similar: “We, and all others who believe in freedom as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."

Vern · Feb 24, 2015

Mycroft said:
No.

We don't run away from it. We don't denigrate it. We don't ridicule it.

We simply do not accept it.

Oh, you simply don’t accept it. Mmmmm, the problem is that you simply not accepting it doesn’t explain why republicans thought of it, accepted it and promoted it for over a decade and then simply no longer accepted it only after President Obama accepted it. Not one conservative has been able to honestly explain that conundrum.

Anyhoo, the best part is if republicans still simply accepted it, you would have been told to accept it and you would have complied quite obediently. So MC, please get off your knees and think for yourself. And MC, conservatives running around frantically screaming and foaming at the mouth that Obamacare has death panels, it’s a govt takeover of health care, will destroy the economy, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance is simply not “simply not accepting it”.

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

Vern said:
Oh, you simply don’t accept it. Mmmmm, the problem is that you simply not accepting it doesn’t explain why republicans thought of it, accepted it and promoted it for over a decade and then simply no longer accepted it only after President Obama accepted it. Not one conservative has been able to honestly explain that conundrum.

Since I'm not a Republican, you are asking the wrong person to explain why the Republicans have done anything.

Anyhoo, the best part is if republicans still simply accepted it, you would have been told to accept it and you would have complied quite obediently. So MC, please get off your knees and think for yourself.

I don't think you really know me as well as you think you do.

And MC, conservatives running around frantically screaming and foaming at the mouth that Obamacare has death panels,

I haven't done that.

it’s a govt takeover of health care,

I have said that...or, to be more specific, it is a government takeover of health care insurance with more controls over health care providers.

will destroy the economy,

I'm not one for hyperbole and I've never said it would "destroy" the economy, but it is undeniable that Obamacare has damaged the economy.

SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance is simply not “simply not accepting it”.

More hyperbole...because of that, you deserve less attention from me than you've already gotten so I'll just leave it at that.

Vern · Feb 24, 2015

Mycroft said:
Since I'm not a Republican, you are asking the wrong person to explain why the Republicans have done anything.

I didn't call you a republican. I simply pointed out that when republicans speak, you obey.

I have said that...or, to be more specific, it is a government takeover of health care insurance with more controls over health care providers.

Its not a takeover of anything. yea, you need to work on that narrative a little bit more if you're going to confuse "regulation" with "takeover".

I'm not one for hyperbole and I've never said it would "destroy" the economy, but it is undeniable that Obamacare has damaged the economy.

undeniable? didn't you just say you're not one for hyperbole? and on a side note, I found it funny you contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

More hyperbole...because of that, you deserve less attention from me than you've already gotten so I'll just leave it at that.

wait MC, before you cut and run again, its not my hyperbole. its hyperbole from conservatives just like you. so don't whine at me for repeating it. Go whine at your fellow conservatives for believing it.

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

Vern said:
I didn't call you a republican. I simply pointed out that when republicans speak, you obey.

Its not a takeover of anything. yea, you need to work on that narrative a little bit more if you're going to confuse "regulation" with "takeover".

undeniable? didn't you just say you're not one for hyperbole? and on a side note, I found it funny you contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

wait MC, before you cut and run again, its not my hyperbole. its hyperbole from conservatives just like you. so don't whine at me for repeating it. Go whine at your fellow conservatives for believing it.

Blah, blah, blah...

You have nothing left except to talk about me. Quite pathetic for you to be in that position, don't you think?

Vern · Feb 24, 2015

Mycroft said:
Blah, blah, blah...

You have nothing left except to talk about me. Quite pathetic for you to be in that position, don't you think?

er uh MC, if you're going to cut and run its customary to actually leave. Anyhoo I was more than happy to discuss your "undeniable" claim or even you being fed up with the conservative hyperbole. So that just shows you cant post in an honest and intelligent fashion.

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

Vern said:
er uh MC, if you're going to cut and run its customary to actually leave. Anyhoo I was more than happy to discuss your "undeniable" claim or even you being fed up with the conservative hyperbole. So that just shows you cant post in an honest and intelligent fashion.

Actually, you didn't want to discuss my "undeniable" claim...you just flat out implied that it was hyperbole. And, I said nothing about being "fed up with conservative hyperbole"...I only dismissed "your" hyperbole.

So, no...I'm not going to "cut and run"...rather I'll just wait till you post something that isn't hyperbole or about me. Waiting on you, dude.

Vern · Feb 24, 2015

Mycroft said:
Actually, you didn't want to discuss my "undeniable" claim...you just flat out implied that it was hyperbole. And, I said nothing about being "fed up with conservative hyperbole"...I only dismissed "your" hyperbole.

So, no...I'm not going to "cut and run"...rather I'll just wait till you post something that isn't hyperbole or about me. Waiting on you, dude.

no silly, "Obamacare has death panels, it’s a govt takeover of health care, will destroy the economy, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance " is conservative hyperbole. If you want to call "conservatives running around frantically screaming and foaming at the mouth " go right ahead. Maybe you and yours weren't foaming at the mouth, maybe. So please feel free to comment on

Obamacare has death panels, it’s a govt takeover of health care, will destroy the economy, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance

or

government takeover of health care insurance

or

it is undeniable that Obamacare has damaged the economy.

Or you can make it about me and cut and run again.

Mycroft · Feb 24, 2015

Vern said:
no silly, "Obamacare has death panels, it’s a govt takeover of health care, will destroy the economy, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance " is conservative hyperbole. If you want to call "conservatives running around frantically screaming and foaming at the mouth " go right ahead. Maybe you and yours weren't foaming at the mouth, maybe. So please feel free to comment on

Obamacare has death panels, it’s a govt takeover of health care, will destroy the economy, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM, hundreds of thousands of doctors will quit, 100 million people will lose their insurance

or

government takeover of health care insurance

or

it is undeniable that Obamacare has damaged the economy.

Or you can make it about me and cut and run again.

shrug...

If you want to know what I think about all that, just look at my previous post.

Still waiting...

jpn · Feb 24, 2015

Oh lookie here, more good news (for those of you rooting for America, and more specifically, Americans, that is):

Conservatives promised us that Obamacare was going to result in SKYROCKETING insurance premiums! Really! Only Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and maybe a few Russian billionaires were going to be able to afford insurance after that evil Obamacare laid waste to the health insurance industry!

And what's really happening? Well, let's just say, nothing that you're going to see on Fox "News"

So far in 2015, premiums for Obamacare's mid-level plans rose by an average of...2 percent. Wow. And get this: in 48 major cities, prices for these benchmark plans actually fell by 0.2 percent.

But you well-informed conservatives already knew that, right? You were just hoping no one else was going to be told, right? Because reducing the rate of increase in health care expenses is just too big of a win for America for you guys to let stand, right? Repeal that bill now!

I know, why not call the next Obamacare repeal bill the "Return America to Skyrocketing Healthcare Costs and Obscene Profits at the Expense of Everyday Americans Because Anything Would be Better than Seeing President Obama Win" bill!

Oh, I know. Such honesty would upset you conservatives and make you cry.

There there. Never mind.

maxparrish · Feb 25, 2015

jpn said:
Oh lookie here, more good news (for those of you rooting for America, and more specifically, Americans, that is):

Conservatives promised us that Obamacare was going to result in SKYROCKETING insurance premiums! Really! Only Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and maybe a few Russian billionaires were going to be able to afford insurance after that evil Obamacare laid waste to the health insurance industry!

And what's really happening? Well, let's just say, nothing that you're going to see on Fox "News"...

But you well-informed conservatives already knew that, right? (emphasis added) You were just hoping no one else was going to be told, right? Because reducing the rate of increase in health care expenses is just too big of a win for America for you guys to let stand, right? Repeal that bill now!

I know, why not call the next Obamacare repeal bill the "Return America to Skyrocketing Healthcare Costs and Obscene Profits at the Expense of Everyday Americans Because Anything Would be Better than Seeing President Obama Win" bill!

Oh, I know. Such honesty would upset you conservatives and make you cry.

There there. Never mind.

I assure you, "Well informed conservatives" know many things, not the least of which is that liberals aren't that far from the “Arab street.” As you reminded us, to challenge an idea held by the left of center is certain to provoke a rant of personal rage and an accusation (projection?) of sinister and insincere motives. Tell a liberal their ideas are daffy, and in a nano-second you will be called dishonest (or liar) and held up as a consort to one or more of the demons of racism, sexism, hatred of 'the one' etc. Heck, you might even be given a street performance something like the one you just made.

That said, while we are on the topic of honesty why not be fully honest? What you did not bother to mention was that the first year of obamacare (2014) saw independent policy rates balloon or explode in most states, out of pocket deductibles go way up, networks and medical providers shrink, etc. The average rate rise in the 5 percent of the non-market affected was in the double digits - some absurdly high.

the Society of Actuaries estimated spring 2013 that the ACA would result in increasing claims costs by an average of 32 percent nationally by 2017, such estimates could be dismissed as “projections” since at the time of this study, actual premiums in the Exchanges had not yet been announced. A subsequent plethora of studies showed there had been double-digit increases in premiums (when comparing actual Exchange premiums to previously-prevailing premiums in the non-group market).

and:

...a new study from the well-respected and non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research (and published by Brookings Institution), overcomes the limitations of these prior studies by examining what happened to premiums in the entire non-group market. The bottom line? In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare. Of equal importance, this careful state-by-state assessment showed that premiums rose in all but 6 states (including Washington DC). It’s worth unpacking this study a bit to understand the ramification of these findings.

So if rates moderated this year it is no surprise. But it will take 6 or more years of zero rate increase to get back what was lost by Obamacare's first year explosion.

How's that for 'crying out loud' honesty?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ease-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/

jpn · Feb 25, 2015

maxparrish said:
So if rates moderated this year it is no surprise. But it will take 6 or more years of zero rate increase to get back what was lost by Obamacare's first year explosion.

Hardly. But first, kudos to you for citing an actual study by a respected and centrist source, not some one-off anecdotes you scraped off the internet.

However, the "explosion" you cite is not documented. You cite a 32% figure, but that's merely a pre-ACA estimate. Then you quote Forbes saying that: "A subsequent plethora of studies showed there had been double-digit increases in premiums (when comparing actual Exchange premiums to previously-prevailing premiums in the non-group market)." But for some reason you failed to note that the very same Forbes article, only a few sentences later, admitted that as a consequence of flaws in these studies, "...Obamacare proponents tended to dismiss these studies either as partisan attacks or methodologically limited, making what amounts to apples-to-oranges comparisons."

So far into your response, you have shown us exactly...nothing. Wasted space.

Then you finally get to a reasonable item, which is the Brookings study covering the first half of 2014, the very beginning of the actual ACA coverage. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the premiums so far in 2015 for medium plans have risen a whole 2%, and that includes all plans, individual and group. But the study does indeed show that premiums have indeed risen for many. What does this mean? Well, it means that the people who are now receiving care needed a lot of it and it was pretty expensive--in other words, they were really sick and probably pretty desperate and now many are finally receiving the care they would have been receiving all along as a right of citizenship had they been born in any other developed nation on Earth.

Looked at in this way, the ACA is supplying an even bigger social benefit that expected. We should all feel really good about that--unless we're Scrooges.

Meanwhile, check this out:

Ezra Klein: "The simple fact is that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than it expected to spend without Obamacare. That's remarkable."

mpg · Feb 26, 2015

jpn said:
It looks like Obamacare will cover about 20 million people this year. That includes 11.4 million who signed up for private coverage, plus 9 million covered via Medicaid expansion.

Wow. What a success! And, unbelievably, the government's cost of health care coverage with all those new people is projected to actually be less this year than the year before Obamacare was enacted!

View attachment 67180681
source: Obamacare-Hater Can?t Find Single True Fact -- NYMag

Friggin' amazing triumph. No other legislation passed in decades will have the positive effect in people's lives that this is already having.

If forcing people to buy something = success, then yeah, Obamacare is a success.

Vern · Feb 26, 2015

mpg said:
If forcing people to buy something = success, then yeah, Obamacare is a success.

sorry mpg, the problem with your 'after the fact' narrative of "of course if you force people to sign up, people will" is the mandate existed when you were told and obediently believed that Obamacare would fail. I don't remember conservatives saying "of course if you force people to sign up, people will" before the first enrollment. I remember cons (and con like posters) obediently parroting "death spiral", "not enough young people will sign up" "job killer/ destroy the economy" and of course the bumper sticker compliant "Obamacare will fail". Shouldn't you address the previous false conservative narratives before obediently posting the new one?

mpg · Feb 26, 2015

Vern said:
sorry mpg, the problem with your 'after the fact' narrative of "of course if you force people to sign up, people will" is the mandate existed when you were told and obediently believed that Obamacare would fail. I don't remember conservatives saying "of course if you force people to sign up, people will" before the first enrollment. I remember cons (and con like posters) obediently parroting "death spiral", "not enough young people will sign up" "job killer/ destroy the economy" and of course the bumper sticker compliant "Obamacare will fail". Shouldn't you address the previous false conservative narratives before obediently posting the new one?

"Death spiral" was/is one of the Democrats' narratives.

job/killer? That has yet to be proven, but it seems logical.

Criticism of the individual mandate isn't a new narrative.

Like I said, there's different ways of defining success. Some of us don't define it as forcing people to buy something that they don't want to buy.

Bob Blaylock · Feb 26, 2015

mpg said:
If forcing people to buy something = success, then yeah, Obamacare is a success.

Not really. In spite of the abuse of the force of law, it appears that there will be a great many people who still will not buy the coverage. Requiring someone by law to buy something does not magically cause the money to appear in his budget to pay for it. In fact, it appears that there is a credible chance that the ObamaCare scam will result in fewer people having proper medical coverage than before.

As an exercise in overreaching abuse of government force, I think the ObamaCare scam can honestly be described as a colossal failure.

maxparrish · Feb 26, 2015

jpn said:
Hardly. But first, kudos to you for citing an actual study by a respected and centrist source, not some one-off anecdotes you scraped off the internet.

However, the "explosion" you cite is not documented. You cite a 32% figure, but that's merely a pre-ACA estimate. Then you quote Forbes saying that: "A subsequent plethora of studies showed there had been double-digit increases in premiums (when comparing actual Exchange premiums to previously-prevailing premiums in the non-group market)." But for some reason you failed to note that the very same Forbes article, only a few sentences later, admitted that as a consequence of flaws in these studies, "...Obamacare proponents tended to dismiss these studies either as partisan attacks or methodologically limited, making what amounts to apples-to-oranges comparisons."

So far into your response, you have shown us exactly...nothing. Wasted space.

It's only a waste of space if those shown remain willfully ignorant or in denial over premium increases. So a part of that education begins with your acknowledgement that predictive modeling, studies of exchange premiums, and now a comprehensive study of both exchange and nonexchange pricing show a consistent line of evidence - they showed explosive increases the first year for non-group premiums (both exchange and nonexchange) created under ACA (excluding those for grandfathered policies ).

(By the way, contrary to your mangled reading, "the very same Forbes article" does NOT ADMIT say these studies were flawed, BUT that folks like you have used various pretexts to deem the studies as insufficient - all of which is no longer possible with the Brookings policy. (None of this should be a surprise, actuarial theory predicts this sort of outcome from mandates and risk pooling).

Then you finally get to a reasonable item, which is the Brookings study covering the first half of 2014, the very beginning of the actual ACA coverage. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the premiums so far in 2015 for medium plans have risen a whole 2%, and that includes all plans, individual and group. But the study does indeed show that premiums have indeed risen for many. What does this mean? Well, it means that the people who are now receiving care needed a lot of it and it was pretty expensive--in other words, they were really sick and probably pretty desperate and now many are finally receiving the care they would have been receiving all along as a right of citizenship had they been born in any other developed nation on Earth.

Still finding pretexts for denial? The Brookings study covered the approved rates applied throughout the first year of operation. It compared (as much as possible) apples to apples and found an average increase of more than 24%. "What does that mean?"; it means exactly the opposite of your rationalization. The first year rates were based on a prediction based on assumptions regarding who would buy, what payouts would be made, etc. After that, second year rates were based on the actual first year experience (which suggests less care than anticipated and/or rates kept down due to (illicit?) use of builtin subsidies).

Looked at in this way, the ACA is supplying an even bigger social benefit that expected. We should all feel really good about that--unless we're Scrooges.

Look at it in this way, ACA will supply an even less social benefit than promised, harms millions of innocent modest income insurance buyers unfairly, and makes it easy to preach altruism and promote guilt on someone elses dime. We should all feel really bad about that--unless we only care about those with their hand out.

Meanwhile, check this out:

Ezra Klein: "The simple fact is that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than it expected to spend without Obamacare. That's remarkable."
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/1-28-15bud.png

What's to check out? You do remember having rejected cost "projections" as irrelevant (see your hand-waving over the 32 percent prediction)? Now you are proffering TWO projections as "evidence" of what? Changed predictions of total program costs to the federal budget because of a smaller number of predicted signups and the majority of states refusing to expand Medicaid is meaningless - it is irrelevant to the increased cost of insurance for non-group policy holders.

(More to follow)...

imagep · Feb 26, 2015

Obamacare doesn't actually have to work well to be a "smashing success" because conservative talking heads set the bar soooo low by exagerating the consequences of it.

Basically, if Obamacare doesn't cause everyone to lose their insurance, and doesn't cause every doctor to change professions, and doesn't collapse our economy, it will be viewed and a relative (compared to many conservative dire predictions) success.

I suspect that we are far enough into Obamacare to pretty much prove these conservative predictions wrong.

If democrats are able to hang on to the white house in the next presidential election, it will mostly be the fault of the conservative talking heads who's predictions have been woefully wrong. People don't like to be made a fool, and many conservatives have been made a fool for believing in and repeating these conservative talking head predictions.

And just for full disclosure, I am not a fan of Obamacare and have never supported it.

Fenton · Feb 26, 2015

imagep said:
Obamacare doesn't actually have to work well to be a "smashing success" because conservative talking heads set the bar soooo low by exagerating the consequences of it.

Basically, if Obamacare doesn't cause everyone to lose their insurance, and doesn't cause every doctor to change professions, and doesn't collapse our economy, it will be viewed and a relative (compared to many conservative dire predictions) success.

I suspect that we are far enough into Obamacare to pretty much prove these conservative predictions wrong.

If democrats are able to hang on to the white house in the next presidential election, it will mostly be the fault of the conservative talking heads who's predictions have been woefully wrong. People don't like to be made a fool, and many conservatives have been made a fool for believing in and repeating these conservative talking head predictions.

And just for full disclosure, I am not a fan of Obamacare and have never supported it.

Both sides exaggerate, including those " in the middle " who claim to be objective.

But I don't remember any Conservative saying ObamaCare was going to cause " everyone " to lose their insurance, or that it was going to cause our economy to collapse.

Obamacare = Smashing Success

Genius is where you find it.

Conservatarian

Retired Navy Commander

Electrician

Genius is where you find it.

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

Retired Navy Commander

Conservatarian

Retired Navy Commander

back from Vegas

Electrician

Conservatarian

Villiage Idiot