This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Interesting metrics for success. You're using the number of people buying insurance and the number of jobs created. Whatever happened to better and more affordable care?
As for more affordable I get the impression that pretty much everybody agrees the inflationary curve for health care has been bent lower. But I may only get the impression due to self-selected source material.
As for better care, I'm going to go out on a limb and say some care is better than no care, which is what people without insurance were getting before.
This may be one of those cases where the GUBMINT BAD!!!1! types take it in the butt from the facts. Doesn't happen very often but it does happen.
Otherwise it was a "Job Killer" which I think was the name of an actual repeal bill that The Impotent Boner and crew passed in the House. Funny when job growth went UP post implementation. I guess it didn't kill very many jobs, and those death panels haven't actually started operating yet. That we know of.....Did you used to work in agriculture? I haven't seen cherry-picking skills like those in years!Holding conservatives to their own predictions Lynah. The only jobs the ACA was supposed to create was on the death panels.
Next, righties also said more people would LOSE insurance than would gain it. Well, I guess that one's swirling the bowl too right now.
Finally, it was supposed to blow a whole in the deficit. Deficit's going down and according to CBO repeal would increase the deficit.
So, for cons, its three strikes and you're out. More people are insured. The cost increases have slowed. It hasn't prevented job growth. Apologies for holding people to their word, but I am getting a little older and didn't realize that's no longer allowed.
Did you used to work in agriculture? I haven't seen cherry-picking skills like those in years!
We're to compare costs to where they "would have been", but jobs to where they were - is that how it goes? Also, the article was referring only to health care jobs, not jobs over all. I don't think anyone doubted that handing a captive revenue stream to insurers would increase *their* payrolls. Speaking of net effects, the net uninsured rate does not shed any light on the number of people who liked their policies but couldn't keep them. I liked mine, but it no longer exists. Sure, I have a completely new policy, so I am a net zero (one policy lost, one policy gained) in the uninsured math. Doesn't mean that the loss didn't happen.
Talk about swinging and missing....
So, unless someone decides to survey every single person who has an insurance policy, find out how they feel before and after, and then eliminate the people who's insurance either hasn't changed over that time even if they've changed their opinion, or those who have changed but not because of the law (job change, birth of a child, etc) this whole exercise is useless. I expect this kind of impossible to verify nonsense out of Fishy. Are you sure he hasn't stolen your password? 
Depends on who controls the Legislature. R keeps control they'll cut anything and everything to the bone. D gets a majority? 2017.
Sadly, with the way our Legislature is gerrymandered, that's what will probably happen.
Problem is I'm talking about things you can quantify, while you are oddly trying to judge the law based on anecdotal evidence, which is all knuckledraggers have left! Fortunately for you, I've been consistent on this as I had two criteria for judging its success. 1) Did the uninsured rate go down. 2) Did the growth in cost increases slow down. Yes and Yes to both. No offense, but WHO CARES how you personally feel about your policy? I know I don't.