• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by Texas judge

Greenbeard said:
The historical National Health Expenditure Accounts don't list year-by-year spending prior to 2000, which is why decadal growth is the only point of comparison. But the story isn't ambiguous: health care cost growth was 174% in the '60s, 242% in the '70s, 183% in the '80s, 90% in the '90s, and 82% in the aughts. We're currently at 34% growth through the first eight years of this decade. A dramatic slowdown.
Click to expand...
All of which is window chaff and smoke, immaterial to the point raised. The graph obscures the volatility of pre 2000 swings in medical inflation rates - and using equi-distant X-axis spacing to obscure that comparison. If it had not, one could see that dramatic swings in trendlines are endemic to medical inflation, giving informative perspective on natural swings that may, or may not, be due to ACA. Really, who would offer a chart on GDP growth over 30 years on two data points and then add a biannual trend as if they are useful for comparison?

(By the way, are you saying that there isn't any bi-annual data on expenditure OTHER than once every 10 years till 2000? Color me skeptical).

The era of the ACA has been the era of the lowest health care spending growth since they started tracking it in 1960.
Click to expand...
And the era of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s were the era of the lowest per person (and absolute) spending compared to the "era of aca". And they were the era's of white Presidents too, but I don't credit that to overall lowered spending. By the way, have you heard that association is not proof of causation? (Stat 101).

Really? It specifically calls out care coordination for duals, value-based payment initiatives under Medicare, and bundled payments as being "behind the successes in cost control." I'll give you one guess on where those all come from.
Click to expand...
And yet you missed the introductory paragraphs that explicitly said:
"Medicare officials had generally settled on a consensus explanation: The historic recession was causing a one-time drop in spending, and cost growth would soon return to historic trends. But as Buntin — then a staffer at the Congressional Budget Office — dug into the data, she developed a theory that challenged that conventional wisdom. It wasn’t the Great Recession, she concluded, nor was it Obamacare’s effects. Instead, a perfect storm of changes to how doctors got paid and how care was delivered, as well as broader effects to control costs, all hit at about the same time.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the article author's own claims, but you missed my point again. Why are you shot-gunning articles where-in you have to explain what the article should have said or what it really meant? Do you even read these things before you dangle them as evidence? Are you aware that the author's paper the article cited of the cause of lower costs says NOTHING about coordination for duals, value-based payment initiatives, or bundled payments "behind the successes in cost control"? Are you aware that the author ACTUALLY gave other reasons in that paper, and that she studied the period between (inclusive) 2007 and 2010, and as Obama only took office in 2009 (and it takes a longer time to make changes) it CANT be due to ACA?

Besides, how is it that in 2012 the CBO could right that coordinated care doesn't usually lower costs, and implies that to that date there were demonstration projects (not system wide changes) on that aspect?

The ACA went into operation in 2010. The duals care coordination was launched in 2010, the Medicare value-based purchasing initiatives began in 2011, and accountable care organizations and bundled payments kicked off in 2012.
Click to expand...
See above. Aside from care coordination demonstrations, do I need to research these too to find out your propaganda points disagree with you?

The redesign of the nation's care delivery system is a bigger factor in the cost growth slowdown than the exchanges (though one could easily make the argument that the record low health care price growth we've seen recently is more related to the latter) and that started long before the exchanges launched.

But yes, the future projection of continued 5% growth has already turned out to be wrong. The official 2017 numbers have since come out and cost growth has fallen back below 4%. So you've got me there.
Click to expand...
When the track record is longer than three years get back to me and we will compare "eras". Sssshhhh.

I'll be more than happy to read a paper that supports what you contend, and does so without inconsistent, disingeniious and unsupported claims. But please, no more manure - I don't have the time to debunk it all.

Cont.
 
Record low growth in health spending, record low growth in ESI premiums, record low health care price growth, record low Medicare cost growth. That's the actual story of the past decade. This has been an unprecedented stretch in the history of the American health care system.
Click to expand...

Ya, but its not the actual story of ACA. Record low cost growth is not unheard of, what is unheard of is making claims about "records" that can't be compared due to flawed charts and contradictory articles on the causes of Medicare's slower growth - let alone a program that when fully implemented seemingly pushed growth upward.

All that said, the irony is that just today you complained in another thread that ever since the ACA passed your providers have been focused on cost containment. Hmm!
Click to expand...

True, apparently their cost containment is cutting my quality of service and raising my rates to cover the "increased costs" of taking on the free-riders and subsidized moochers. Tell me again why I should like ACA?
 
marke said:
Just a few more good picks by Trump and maybe we can stem the flow of illegal immigration and enact stronger voter security laws by judicial fiat.
Click to expand...

Judges can’t stop migrants nor design voter laws. The executive deals with the former and states with the latter.
 
Nickyjo said:
Judges can’t stop migrants nor design voter laws. The executive deals with the former and states with the latter.
Click to expand...

No, but a few more judges could put the courts back in their place ("the resistance") and make a decision of our more democratic bodies...the one's that nominally represent us. (radical idea, I know).
 
There will no doubt be many loud proclamations in the next few days, and then a long wait for court rulings. The great irony potential is in the narrow path Chief Justice Roberts followed to find the law constitutional the first time: he decided the mandate was a tax. But if there's no more mandate can there still be a tax? And if there's no more tax, what happens to Roberts's rationale? I don't know.
 
maxparrish said:
No, but a few more judges could put the courts back in their place ("the resistance") and make a decision of our more democratic bodies...the one's that nominally represent us. (radical idea, I know).
Click to expand...

I really don’t understand. Would need to know what your view of what is wrong with the status quo to grasp it.
 
Nemiroff said:
Really? Unlike any of the GOP bills from 2017, which were all negotiated in secret and shown to everyone only the night before the vote, Obamacare was debated for months in open sessions with republicans making numerous alterations.

Why is the right so full of gullible amnesiacs? If you want to talk about a party acting ****ty and shutting people out, let's compare the dems during Obamacare to the repubs at any point in 2017. I challenge you!
Click to expand...


Yes, pretty much everything Republicans hyperbolically accused Democrats of doing during the Obama administration, Republicans have done it hard and heavy in the past two years. And this was after they spent the 8 years of the Obama administration refusing to pass helpful legislation even about things they claimed to care about because they didn't want Obama to get credit for accomplishing anything.

I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might try to find a middle ground with Obama after they took the Senate in 2014, but nothing doing. Their goal continued to be to do nothing so that Obama would get no credit. They even stonewalled efforts to help veterans. It was a sad and embarrassing time to be a Republican. And then Trump became the frontrunner for the nomination, which turned it into an excruciating time to be a Republican. So I got out.
 
trouble13 said:
Democrats broke healthcare when they unanimously passed Obamacare. Dems need to stop demanding Republicans fix their monumental F-up and repair what they broke.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

^ Not a "pro-life" position.
 
trouble13 said:
Do tell how what I said has anything to do with abortion

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Pro-life does not end at birth. Please stay on topic and explain why you want to effectively sentence hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, to unnecessary deaths.
 
Phys251 said:
Pro-life does not end at birth. Please stay on topic and explain why you want to effectively sentence hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, to unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...
I knew this was gonna be a doozy and you did not disappoint.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Nickyjo said:
I really don’t understand. Would need to know what your view of what is wrong with the status quo to grasp it.
Click to expand...

My view is that judges have a specific and narrow role in a democracy; they are not magisterial decision makers on policy, they are not individuals expected to "find" for specific classes, races, or sympathetic "victims", they are not mystics or philosophers who guess at the meaning of text, or to fix bad legislation, or make it work. They are JUDGES, whose sole role is to serve a single function; apply the law to cases brought before it.

However, during and since FDR the courts have become increasingly seizing power and now serve as an unaccountable third branch, that operates very much like ruling religious councils in theocracies - whatever democracy and rights they allow (e.g. in Iran) is purely what they grant. There is no appeal. Should any five legal Mullahs decide that need to change a law...they wait for a case and they do. They are now law-makers, not judges (not all of them are this cynical, but till I know at least five in Scotus are of this type).

The "resistance" to Trump has exposed what was always simmering, that judges are now political forces who decide to use their magisterial power to achieve political ends. Hence, the series of absurd opinions that have been repeatedly slapped down at SCOTUS. If Trump appoints at least one or two more judges, that likely will restrain lower courts mad forays into sophistry and imperial rulings. Should Ginsburg die or unable to do her duties, she may be the first replacement that is long overdo.
 
Phys251 said:
Pro-life does not end at birth. Please stay on topic and explain why you want to effectively sentence hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, to unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...

If there was ever a "ROFLOL", that post was it.
 
Vern said:
I'm not sure anybody explained it to you but this latest ruling is a direct result of republicans removing the mandate. and you used to spam up the Obamacare forum pretty good so I'm pretty sure you're aware of republicans sabotaging the risk corridors, encouraging people to not sign up, not expanding Medicaid in numerous states so I can help but think you are being dishonest.
Click to expand...

I am sure its been explained to you but absolutely no one on this board wants your opinion. You make liberals look bad and just annoy conservatives.

Don't accuse me of being a liar and I won't accuse you of being incapable of making a fact based argument.
 
Greenbeard said:
Wow, speculation from five years ago that tens of millions were about to get dropped from employer-sponsored insurance! Great find.

Let's see how that worked out:

  • ESI enrollment when that article was written: 148.8 million
  • ESI enrollment last year: 156.2 million

Swing and a miss.

Makes me wonder, though, how many things that never happened you guys think actually did happen, either because you don't know how to read timestamps on the things you Google or don't know how to follow up and see how the insane predictions you gave credence to turned out (spoiler alert: they were wrong).
Click to expand...

So you start with an assumption I didn't read the date on the article, that's asinine.

Here, more comprehensive: https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_policy_cancellations_since_Obamacare

  • NBC News reported that between 50 percent and 75 percent of the 14 million who buy individual health insurance would likely receive a cancellation notice over 2014 because their plans did not meet the requirements of the ACA.[3]
  • CBS News reported that more than two million Americans were told they could not renew their insurance policies for 2014.[11]
  • According to NBC News, the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 percent to 67 percent of people in the individual market would likely not be able to keep their existing policies.[3]
  • Health policy consultant Robert Laszewski estimated 80 percent of individual insurance buyers would have to find new policies.[3]
Click to expand...
 
Nemiroff said:
Really? Unlike any of the GOP bills from 2017, which were all negotiated in secret and shown to everyone only the night before the vote, Obamacare was debated for months in open sessions with republicans making numerous alterations.

Why is the right so full of gullible amnesiacs? If you want to talk about a party acting ****ty and shutting people out, let's compare the dems during Obamacare to the repubs at any point in 2017. I challenge you!
Click to expand...

I read the published legislative history, have you? There was no substantive compromise or alteration by the GOP; Obama's attitude was "you Republicans can suggest something" but "I won" so he didn't support anything suggested.

This was not, and never intended to be, a bi-partisan compromise. And when forcing it through quickly became essential (having lost the 2010 elections), Harry Reid did so with a rube Goldberg strategy that by-passed procedures and full reconciliation of text, and delivered a deeply flawed document - one that "you have to pass to see what's in it".

I'm not going to gripe about these hard-ball politics, but I won't tolerate ignorant regurgitation of talking point meme's either.
 
Atomic Kid said:
That's why people loved McCain. He was a stand up guy and apparently was one of the few left in the GOP with a conscience.
Click to expand...

WTF? How is a politician who campaigns on repeal and replace for years and then after elected does a 180 on the eve of the vote a "stand up guy"? Where I come from we call that a back-stabbing lying snake with ethics of a Democrat (or a RINO).
 
danarhea said:
Actually, striking down the mandate was a necessary step to killing Obamacare completely. Roberts called it a tax, and it no longer exists, due to a provision in last year's GOP tax law. That was the only reason Roberts kept Obamacare alive. This time Roberts could rule either way. Personally, I think Obamacare going down the drain will be a good thing, as it will eventually be replaced by single payer. Obamacare actually originated as a the template of a plan that Republicans in Massachusetts had passed in their state. It was better than what had existed before, which was nothing, but was far from perfect. If Obamacare goes down, Congresscritters will either have to get on board with single payer, or just admit that they don't give 2 ****s if people die because they are not insured, which will end the careers of many.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that they have a good case for ruling Obamacare unconstitutional since it no longer has the mandate. But if they do, I'd be happy to see Single Payer on the table as well.
 
maxparrish said:
I read the published legislative history, have you? There was no substantive compromise or alteration by the GOP; Obama's attitude was "you Republicans can suggest something" but "I won" so he didn't support anything suggested.

This was not, and never intended to be, a bi-partisan compromise. And when forcing it through quickly became essential (having lost the 2010 elections), Harry Reid did so with a rube Goldberg strategy that by-passed procedures and full reconciliation of text, and delivered a deeply flawed document - one that "you have to pass to see what's in it".

I'm not going to gripe about these hard-ball politics, but I won't tolerate ignorant regurgitation of talking point meme's either.
Click to expand...
I agree, lets do away with talking point memes and look at the facts.

1. The Democrats debated it for months in open session where everyone was able to take their time to carefully examine the bill. Compared with republicans crafting their bills 100% in secret revealing them within hours of the vote.

I never said it was a bipartisan effort. That's just you putting words in my mouth to pretend you defeated the strawman. I was responding to someone claiming the dems just forced this through by pointing out how much of an amnesiac hypocrite he was by ignoring that the GOP tax plan was passed just as partisanly... BUT ALSO CRAFTED IN COMPLETE SECRET, REVEALED ONLY WITHIN HOURS OF A VOTE.

I think when you consider what I was *actually saying*, the hypocrisy is undeniable. The dems followed all rules and standards of Congress, the repubs simply lost the vote. The dems didnt craft a secret bill and forced the other party to vote in the blind.
 
maxparrish said:
All of which is window chaff and smoke, immaterial to the point raised. The graph obscures the volatility of pre 2000 swings in medical inflation rates - and using equi-distant X-axis spacing to obscure that comparison. If it had not, one could see that dramatic swings in trendlines are endemic to medical inflation, giving informative perspective on natural swings that may, or may not, be due to ACA.
Click to expand...

Dramatic swings in trendlines aren't endemic to NHE. The magnitude of the slowdown we've experienced for the past decade is not usual and hasn't happened before, aside from a brief period during the short-lived managed care experiments of the mid-90s.

By the way, have you heard that association is not proof of causation? (Stat 101).
Click to expand...

I don't mind the "it's a coincidence" argument, as it's hard enough to get rightwingers to even acknowledge the historic cost growth slowdown we've experienced in the first place.

Health reform passed, maybe it's a coincidence that health care cost growth, health price inflation, and ESI growth subsequently hit all-time lows. Medicare reform was implemented, maybe it's a coincidence per capita Medicare cost growth started falling. It's been a decade of happy coincidences!

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the article author's own claims, but you missed my point again. Why are you shot-gunning articles where-in you have to explain what the article should have said or what it really meant? Do you even read these things before you dangle them as evidence?
Click to expand...

Because it's a discussion board and I'm happy to take the time to explain anything you need explained. Take advantage!
 
OpportunityCost said:
So you start with an assumption I didn't read the date on the article, that's asinine.
Click to expand...

You intentionally posted an article from 2014 positing a coming erosion of ESI that never actually occurred? Okay, I'll bite: why?
 
TurtleDude said:
because the commerce clause was not sufficient grounds to authorize it
Click to expand...
I don't see the significance.
The fact remains that the free market is a failure in providing health care to large portions of the population. So rather then allowing people to die and hurting our national productivity, health, and happiness (aka shooting ourselves in the foot because of ideology), we can do something to improve our situation.
 
maxparrish said:
True, apparently their cost containment is cutting my quality of service and raising my rates to cover the "increased costs" of taking on the free-riders and subsidized moochers. Tell me again why I should like ACA?
Click to expand...

I don't care whether you like it. I'm just pointing out that your own anecdotes align with what system-level data is telling us: it's containing cost growth. Hence the record-low cost growth that seems so mysterious and coincidental to you (when you're not attributing it to the ACA for the purposes of complaining, that is).
 
Greenbeard said:
You intentionally posted an article from 2014 positing a coming erosion of ESI that never actually occurred? Okay, I'll bite: why?
Click to expand...

...aaaaaannnnnddd you ignore the rest of the new post, must have been inconvenient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom