2017

PeterZ wrote:https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

Here is where stats can be used to obfuscate.

If you mean what you are doing right here with this post, yes.

The charts shows that premiums have gone up if one disregards the tax credit.

And on what grounds are you arguing we should just ignore part of the law that lowers costs so that we can say that if that wasn't there the costs are higher?


That's like looking at an item in a store that is marked 50% off and saying "that item isn't really on sale because if you disregard the 50% discount from the sale the price would be the same as in that other store! AHA!"

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

Here is where stats can be used to obfuscate.

If you mean what you are doing right here with this post, yes.

The charts shows that premiums have gone up if one disregards the tax credit.

And on what grounds are you arguing we should just ignore part of the law that lowers costs so that we can say that if that wasn't there the costs are higher?


That's like looking at an item in a store that is marked 50% off and saying "that item isn't really on sale because if you disregard the 50% discount from the sale the price would be the same as in that other store! AHA!"

No, that the impact to people who vote may be better reflected by the changes in premiums unadjusted by any subsidies.

Also, how many receive subsidies compared to how many pay higher premiums? What is the weighted average of premiums paid year of year? All those questions better descriptors of the ACA's impact than either your chart or mine alone.

My initial assertion reflected that enough people believed from personal experience that they were harmed by the ACA to vote against the party that game us that law. That is a data point...a significant one to my way of thinking.

Actually, that's not a data point. That's an opinion.

Now, point to some real* poling data on that question and you might be getting somewhere. I'm sure it's out there.

*Real, as in large sample. This Gallop shit of poling 2,000 people at random and extrapoling to the opinion of 300,000,000 don't count

Annachie wrote:Actually, that's not a data point. That's an opinion.

Now, point to some real* poling data on that question and you might be getting somewhere. I'm sure it's out there.

*Real, as in large sample. This Gallop shit of poling 2,000 people at random and extrapoling to the opinion of 300,000,000 don't count

You pocking guys from pocking downunder are a pain. Although, you are correct.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And on what grounds are you arguing we should just ignore part of the law that lowers costs so that we can say that if that wasn't there the costs are higher?


That's like looking at an item in a store that is marked 50% off and saying "that item isn't really on sale because if you disregard the 50% discount from the sale the price would be the same as in that other store! AHA!"

No, that the impact to people who vote may be better reflected by the changes in premiums unadjusted by any subsidies.

But the premiums AREN'T unadjusted by subsidies! So you are arguing that a situation that does not exist should be the metric we use to evaluate the impact of the law.

Also, how many receive subsidies compared to how many pay higher premiums? What is the weighted average of premiums paid year of year? All those questions better descriptors of the ACA's impact than either your chart or mine alone.

My initial assertion reflected that enough people believed from personal experience that they were harmed by the ACA to vote against the party that game us that law. That is a data point...a significant one to my way of thinking.

That is, even if you were correct about those voters motivations, a data point about other people sharing your OPINION.

You are never able to provide data that your or their opinion is grounded in REALITY. And you don't seem to care, all you care about is that your opinion is shared by enough people to reassure you and that's good enough for you.

PeterZ wrote:..snip..
My initial assertion reflected that enough people believed from personal experience that they were harmed by the ACA to vote against the party that game us that law. That is a data point...a significant one to my way of thinking.

There where also a bunch of people who voted for Trump because he was going to repeal "Obamacare" and they where kind of surprised when they realized that they would lose their ACA coverage. That's a significant data point indicating that the average voter in the US has no clue and that their beliefs has little to do with reality.

The rest of the world looks upon the US healthcare system as a joke and a warning how not to do it. It's amazing how much the average person in the US has been f*cked over by both the unions and the insurance industry with the help of politicians getting bribed (oh sorry - campaign contributions) by the former. They both opposed any form of nationalized healthcare because the unions feared a loss of power and the insurance companies a loss of profit. Throw in the private hospitals and physicians who saw that a regulated healthcare would mean regulated prices and you have the perfect ingredients for a dysfunctional healthcare system where the people really needing the care can't afford it.

This has been going on for a f*cking 100 years in the US now while the majority of the western countries have had a functioning national healthcare system during the same time.

The US are rotten and the rot is going to get a lot worse before any change can happen.

I do apologise again for insulting you Peter, and don't think I called you an alt right. To someone outside the US you come across a bit that way, but I suppose in the US context you are a moderate conservative. You are demonstrably intelligent and well mannered, but I do believe that you have such firm convictions that you just can't see past them.
From a distance Obamacare seems to be an attempt to build a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Basically just tweaking your highly complicated and profit orientated private system with a new set of rules.
Not politically viable, but the ultimate solution would be to research all the similar national systems run by the developed countries, design your own using that information plus knowledge of your needs and implement it. Possibly a quarter of those running your current mishmash could be brought in to staff the new system, and the rest sent off to get real productive jobs.

Daryl wrote:I do apologise again for insulting you Peter, and don't think I called you an alt right. To someone outside the US you come across a bit that way, but I suppose in the US context you are a moderate conservative. You are demonstrably intelligent and well mannered, but I do believe that you have such firm convictions that you just can't see past them.
From a distance Obamacare seems to be an attempt to build a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Basically just tweaking your highly complicated and profit orientated private system with a new set of rules.
Not politically viable, but the ultimate solution would be to research all the similar national systems run by the developed countries, design your own using that information plus knowledge of your needs and implement it. Possibly a quarter of those running your current mishmash could be brought in to staff the new system, and the rest sent off to get real productive jobs.

Daryl, I have no issues being called conservative or even rabidly conservative. The Alt.Right is a minute fraction of the population that retains their civil war Democrat roots regarding the superiority of Caucasians. You effectively refer to anyone you describe as Alt.Right as primarily motivated by racism of the worst sort.

You reference in this thread was more general but the post referred a prior post of mine. My background makes even such passing reference very insulting. I try not to indulge in vitriol but also push back on posts with uncivil or condescending tones. I would appreciate being called out if I fail to maintain appropriate civility.

Daryl wrote:From a distance Obamacare seems to be an attempt to build a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Basically just tweaking your highly complicated and profit orientated private system with a new set of rules.
Not politically viable, but the ultimate solution would be to research all the similar national systems run by the developed countries, design your own using that information plus knowledge of your needs and implement it. Possibly a quarter of those running your current mishmash could be brought in to staff the new system, and the rest sent off to get real productive jobs.

We have something called PEOs here. They are Professional Employment Organizaions. They serve to provide much of the administrative support for small companies by acting as the employer of record for insurance purposes. My company uses one of them. Well, we were recently sun off from a larger company. We are 58 employees and were part of a company employing about 500. Our health insurance cost were significant less with the PEO than it was with the self insured larger company. Our PEO "employs" over 300,000 employees.

If the government just offers people a chance to join a heavily regulated private/public organization that can offer a selection of catastrophic health insurance (in the traditional sense of insurance) as well as a variety of health maintenance plans, the problems would have been better addressed. The plan would gather enrolled as they grew larger and costs would have fallen to its members as membership increased. Eliminate the issues restricting plans being sold across state lines and receive the benefit of drawing from the larger national pool potential members. Anyone who was self employed could find a plan they can afford. The government could offer to subsidize those who needed it.

But that' not what was legislated.

PeterZ wrote:Daryl, I have no issues being called conservative or even rabidly conservative. The Alt.Right is a minute fraction of the population that retains their civil war Democrat roots regarding the superiority of Caucasians. You effectively refer to anyone you describe as Alt.Right as primarily motivated by racism of the worst sort.

You still haven't fully come to terms with the fact that "rabidly conservative" and "racist" are heavily overlapping these days, have you.