DescentBB

So while the left wants you to think that Obamacare has been a big help for those who were uninsured, the question is at what cost. Perhaps here is the answer (note to slick, this is a NPR poll):

Most Americans — a total of 56 percent — say they haven’t felt directly affected by the Affordable Care Act. Among those who have felt affected, more people say the law has hurt them than helped them, according to polling by National Public Radio and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Twenty-six percent of U.S. adults say they have been personally harmed by the healthcare law since its passage — a fraction that likely reflects those in the poll who said they have noticed rising healthcare costs in the last several years.

So to insure the 10%, the plan harms 26%. And you wonder why we don't want another commie/socialist/ progressive in the top job.

how much anectdotal bull★■◆● do you feel you need to sling on this subject? It's been well documented that most of those who say they were 'harmed by the ACA' in truth were not harmed, but in fact, generally helped. All that article points to is perceptions. Wait for 10 years, and folks will have less such stories, assuming the GOP continues to enable Hillary to be elected. Bernie will be another story.

Either way, you all have set up a Dem to be the next President. You can always put in a wager on your boy, if you wish to lose money along with face on this board,

woodchip wrote:And you wonder why we don't want another commie/socialist/ progressive in the top job.

Is there any point in your life when you're going to start attempting to use these goddamn terms properly?

What NPR poll are you referring to, woodchip?

From the most recent one (dated today, 2/29/2016):

article wrote:About a third (35 percent) of adults say the law has directly helped the people of their state, while a quarter (27 percent) say it has directly hurt people.

That article goes on to describe mixed results in a number of other areas, but I don't see the one you're referring to.

Foil, might try looking at this one:

Thirty-four percent of U.S. adults believe their health care services are harder to afford now than they used to be, while just nine percent believe they are more affordable. When it comes to prescription drug costs, about one in five adults(22%) believe sprescription drugs have become harder to afford in the past two years,while just 10 percent believe they have become more affordable.

http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2016/02/2 ... ctives.pdf

Also dated Feb 2016

woodchip wrote:Foil, might try looking at this one:

Thirty-four percent of U.S. adults believe their health care services are harder to afford now than they used to be, while just nine percent believe they are more affordable.

gee, when the premiums keep rising(albeit at a far slower rate than they did from 1995-2010), it would seem logical that people find it less affordable, coupled with stagnant wages. Sanders has been pointing that fact out.


Likewise with pharmas, no commentary upon the ACA, really, but great reasons for even more people to look favorably upon universal health care.

I guess you missed the part about being harder to afford than they used to be. Nice try at parsing tho. Glad to see you can't disparage the report.

woodchip wrote:I guess you missed the part about being harder to afford than they used to be.

ok, let's go through this slowly. Prices are rising, their income is stagnant. Thus, it is harder to afford than it 'used to be'. Nothing about the ACA was designed to address that reality. The report says ZERO about the ACA, or any effects of it. Frankly, price rises, overall are down over the past 4 years, from the rates of increase we'd been seeing. As I've tried to state a few times here to you, the ACA was designed to accomplish three things, and not cost the federal budget doing so: End the practice of not insuring middle aged citizens due to 'pre-existing conditions'. Allow access to minimum coverage to those who couldn't previously afford it and demand catastrophic coverage for the younger people, to keep hospital costs in check. That's really about it, and it's done every bit of all of those, and is actually SAVING the federal budget a few bucks.

Here, let me give you a little piece of info that you don't seem to know. Prices have always been rising. And the stagnant part is due solely and exclusively on Obama.

woodchip wrote:Here, let me give you a little piece of info that you don't seem to know. Prices have always been rising. And the stagnant part is due solely and exclusively on Obama.

well, what you 'don't seem to know' is basic economics. The stagnation started around the time of Reagan, so hardly Obama's watch. However, without the President and Congress working together, we'll not reverse the trend, now put in place.

No, the stagflation started in the Carter years. Stop trying to protect your party.

woodchip wrote:No, the stagflation started in the Carter years. Stop trying to protect your party.

once again, you get economics all screwed up. Stagflation was the (pretty common) result of a major postwar transition after Vietnam. Nothing to do with anything or anyone, merely a common occurance. Now, inflation, coupled with wage stagnation over a long term was started into motion by some of Reagan's policies, but was frankly a bipartisan effort, by wealthy investor class types paying both sides of the aisle to totally rewrite investment, tax and political contribution laws over the period 1981-2001 that kept pushing the gap between haves and have-nots in the US ever wider. Your boy Trump won't address that, except maybe to undo Obama's very minor corrections. Neither will Hillary, in the interest of fairness, nor a single other soul on the GOP stage.

Started by Regan eh? Won't embarrass you by linking otherwise.

woodchip wrote:Started by Regan eh? Won't embarrass you by linking otherwise.

actually, please note I use the Reagan admin as a timeline marker, not a source of blame. For that, I clearly wrote the word 'bipartisan', as both sides are up for sale.

I love when you are wrong and start prevaricating.

woodchip wrote:I love when you are wrong and start prevaricating.

prevaricating and pointing out my exact words aren't the same thing. Try using big words you grasp next time.

You would of appeared more intelligent if you used Nixon as a time line.

woodchip wrote:You would of appeared more intelligent if you used Nixon as a time line.

no, because the major changes to the tax code, and discouragement of personal thrift along with most egregious deregulation hadn't started then. I'm pretty straight on the start point, and if you actually went out and read books on the subject of our national economy, you'd understand. As it is, I am, as you noted, trying to preach to the ignorant, so your absorbtion is limited by brainpower or lack thereof. Or, as you put it, you can't absorb something, if there is nothing there.