Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-14-2018, 11:16 AM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.

Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.
Yes, numbers of uninsured dropped. Problem was, sick people had huge incentives to join, and healthy people had incentives not to join. That's why the math didn't work. Too many healthy people were better off paying the fine/penalty, rather than enrolling.

If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket? The ACA got a lot more people insured, sure. But the pooling of risk between healthy people and sick people, wasn't nearly sufficient. You can't prove that wrong by pointing out how many people signed up. The problem wasn't that too few signed up, the problem was too few healthy people signed up.

I think we need a system where the young/healthy people cannot opt out. We need their money to help pay for people who are sick through no fault of their own. The ACA attempted to do this. It gave an easy out to the healthy.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 11:31 AM   #2
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket?
You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.
spence is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 12:24 PM   #3
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.
You're right, people in the exchanges didn't see triple digit increases, I'm making it up. Companies didn't drop out of Obamacare when they realized they couldn't avoid big losses, nope, I made that up too.

"the rate of increase slowed as was expected"

Now who is making stuff up? Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 12:39 PM   #4
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.
The $2500 figure was a calculation around total savings. He may have misspoke by attributing it to premiums but was likely just reciting a talking point that wasn't clear.

Regardless, under the health care act actual savings have been estimated at closer to $3300 besting even the original $2500 mark.
spence is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 01:27 PM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The $2500 figure was a calculation around total savings. He may have misspoke by attributing it to premiums but was likely just reciting a talking point that wasn't clear.

Regardless, under the health care act actual savings have been estimated at closer to $3300 besting even the original $2500 mark.
Sure, the average family is seeing price decreases for comparable coverage. Right. Price savings that exceed the $2,500 estimate, because as usual, Obama under-estimated his own brilliance.

My insurance company doesn't sell health insurance, but we sell liability insurance to companies that sell health insurance. Costs are up, not down. You don't cover more people, and cover more health-related risks like pre-existing conditions, while seeing costs decrease. I'm not making that up, that's arithmetic.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 01:33 PM   #6
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Sure, the average family is seeing price decreases for comparable coverage. Right. Price savings that exceed the $2,500 estimate, because as usual, Obama under-estimated his own brilliance.
The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.
spence is offline  
Old 05-14-2018, 02:12 PM   #7
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.
That sounds like the same logic my wife uses when she says she “Saved” us money when she bought chit we didn’t need because it was “ On Sale”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 05-15-2018, 06:17 AM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The savings is net. If costs are estimated to rise 5 thousand and they only rise 2-1/2 thousand you would see a savings even though costs are still increasing.
Out of curiosity, what are you afraid would happen to you, exactly, if you just admitted what everybody knows, that Obama was wrong? That he was simply wrong? I don't think he lied, I think he genuinely believed that the ACA would bring costs down by $2500 a year, just as he said the stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% (it rose over 10%). But he was wrong.

There's no spin, no context, nothing immoral...these guys are charged with looking at the data to make predictions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong (like Bush with WMDs).

I promise you, that if you said "Obama blew that one", nothing bad will happen to you, no harm will come to either you or Obama.
Jim in CT is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com