Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her
That simplifies things.Debts don't matter.
That simplifies things.Debts don't matter.
That simplifies things.
There will be endless anecdotes both ways on this. My benchmark for the "success" of Obamacare is 1) near universal coverage, with 2) lower percentage of GDP spent on healthcare. If you don't have #2, then average costs went up, plain and simple.I know of a bunch of folks/friends that saved on their health insurance...including a friend's family who's annual premium dropped from 6k to 2k while his deductible went down. Not sure if you have a unique situation or just didn't do homework...but I'd say I've seen no evidence to say that healthcare costs for the average American will go up.
There will be endless anecdotes both ways on this. My benchmark for the "success" of Obamacare is 1) near universal coverage, with 2) lower percentage of GDP spent on healthcare. If you don't have #2, then average costs went up, plain and simple.
Republicans intended to get WMDs out of Iraq (they didn't) just as Democrats intend to reduce healthcare costs (they won't).
but you're evidence is not even anecdotal...its nonexistent.
First, I never mentioned anything about my standards for what I would have considered "success" in Iraq, so you're jumping to conclusions there. You do get that I'm holding Iraq up as an example of a failure, right? I also never said the results were similar - losing a dollar is bad, losing a million dollars is bad, but they are not similar. My only point is that good intentions alone are not sufficient to claim success - in any endeavor. I hope we agree on that.The difference is that you compared Iraq and healthcare as similarly 'bad results'. But your standards are much, much higher for Obamacare than they are the results of Iraq.
Except that's a lower standard than we were repeatedly promised by the framers of the PPACA - bending the cost curve downward was supposed to be part and parcel of the deal.If you have increased coverage with approximately the same percentage spent on healthcare...then you should have success. Additionally you're already assuming that Obamacare has failed but you're evidence is not even anecdotal...its nonexistent.
First, I never mentioned anything about my standards for what I would have considered "success" in Iraq, so you're jumping to conclusions there. You do get that I'm holding Iraq up as an example of a failure, right? I also never said the results were similar - losing a dollar is bad, losing a million dollars is bad, but they are not similar. My only point is that good intentions alone are not sufficient to claim success - in any endeavor. I hope we agree on that.
Except that's a lower standard than we were repeatedly promised by the framers of the PPACA - bending the cost curve downward was supposed to be part and parcel of the deal.
I'm most definitely not claiming that Obamacare *has* failed - merely my prediction. That's why I used future tense.
Sticking with the strategy of putting words in my mouth, I see. Believe it or not, there are other possible positions besides 100% for/against Obamacare, so don't feel like you have to keep trying to cram me into one of those boxes.Although you compared Iraq and Obamacare as similar failures before, it looks like now you're saying in essence:
Iraq was a complete and utter failure...and you believe Obamacare will not achieve its stated goals but still could well improve American healthcare overall.
What an amazing observation of a spelling mistake you have made.
<img src=http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m821jiT8pd1rcvpexo1_500.gif></img>
Sticking with the strategy of putting words in my mouth, I see. Believe it or not, there are other possible positions besides 100% for/against Obamacare, so don't feel like you have to keep trying to cram me into one of those boxes.
Hey, I own up when I make a mistake. Can't say that for most of the folks around here.
I demand an apology good sir. I only neg rep people posting neg reps in the neg rep thread so I can see my neg reps posted in the neg rep thread by the people I neg repped.
And to whomever is signing neg reps in my name....please do so more often! I invite everyone to sign their neg reps using my name.
And to whomever is signing neg reps in my name....please do so more often! I invite everyone to sign their neg reps using my name.
What don't you understand about my post #523? I really don't know how I could be more clear: "My benchmark for the 'success' of Obamacare is 1) near universal coverage, with 2) lower percentage of GDP spent on healthcare."You were just giving your opinion in the last several posts and I'm to clarify/understand it. I restated what you said (which is different than what you said before)...and now you're not saying that. Can you state what you do believe about what constitutes success for Obamacare or is it 'too complicated'?
We're doomed. Doomed, I say.
Your apology is accepted. Just don't do it again!I demand an apology good sir. I only neg rep people posting neg reps in the neg rep thread so I can see my neg reps posted in the neg rep thread by the people I neg repped.
And to whomever is signing neg reps in my name....please do so more often! I invite everyone to sign their neg reps using my name.
What don't you understand about my post #523? I really don't know how I could be more clear: "My benchmark for the 'success' of Obamacare is 1) near universal coverage, with 2) lower percentage of GDP spent on healthcare."