How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

It was an omission, not a lie

I'll admit it's possible he was just horrendously, hilariously ignorant of even the most basic aspects of recent economic history, and thus his false claim was made innocently. It's possible it wasn't a deliberate falsehood. But, it was clearly false. And my point was to clear up that untruth. You're welcome.

How does it change the argument?

The argument was only Obama and Bush doubled debt. If you don't see how the history of people like Reagan and FDR changes that argument.... well, try harder.

does not include the massive subsidies American taxpayers are being forced to pay, as well as, much higher premiums.

Actually, healthcare inflation calculations include all spending on healthcare, regardless of where the financing comes from. So, you're wrong. Obviously.

You're attempts to statistically suggest that premiums MIGHT have been even higher are speculative and dumb

It's speculative, but not dumb. Again, keep in mind we're not talking about growth rates that were just a bit below average, in which case an assumption that they would have been higher if not for the change is warranted, but is hardly a slam dunk. Instead, we're talking about growth rates that were BY A SIZABLE MARGIN, the lowest in all of history for a period of that length. Is it possible that they would have been just as low if not for the big change? Yes, I suppose it's possible. It's a bit like arguing that if the New England Patriots hadn't drafted Tom Brady, they'd have won just as many Super Bowls. It's possible. You can't disprove it. But since no QB has ever won as many Super Bowls as Brady, it sure doesn't look likely.

 

[Truth Detector]

And it was. I'm starting to suspect you don't know what the term "real GDP growth" means. What is it that you think that refers to, specifically?

I posted the REAL GDP growth dumbass., You're the one attempting to argue that total growth for each decade is a meaningful statistic. It is actually laughably stupid. But that is what you do; engage in laughably stupid and meaningless claims using specious methodology to prop up a failed ideology built on lies.

Social Fascist Democrats are not good for any economy. Their ideology is built around victims and the idea that people are too stupid to make it without massive Government intrusions into their lives.

Democrats held the purse strings for four decades with nothing to show for it but deficits and wars. Here you stand like a moron declaring it was great. STFU seriously. You're an arrogant, pompous idiot. That's makes you the worst kind of fool.

 

[Oneuli]

you're delusional and arrogant. your sense of correctness is actually a mental impairment.

If you can find anything I've said that is incorrect, simply identify my incorrect statement and point to the evidence that it's wrong. Why should that be so hard?

 

[Truth Detector]

Agreed. CBO estimates are a ruse to dupe the uninformed.

By statute, the CBO can only score what Congress gives them.

Congress knows how to front load taxes and backload expenses to make their bullshit look good

Anyone who believes a CBO estimate deserves to be fucked over

Willful idiots like Oneuli only use them when it fits into their false narratives.

 

[Oneuli]

I don't know what else to say, you ignore every argument presented to you, while claiming you don't.

Obviously, I don't ignore every argument presented to me. You just made an argument (that I ignore every argument), and here I am addressing it directly, rather than ignoring it. So, what argument, specifically, do you think I've ignored?

 

[Truth Detector]

The argument was only Obama and Bush doubled debt. If you don't see how the history of people like Reagan and FDR changes that argument.... well, try harder.

The only thing that changes is how desperately you flail at strawmen snowflake.

Actually, healthcare inflation calculations include all spending on healthcare, regardless of where the financing comes from. So, you're wrong. Obviously.

Actually, you're attempts to conflate them into savings for the American taxpayer are erroneous, stupid and laughable.

It's a bit like arguing that if the New England Patriots hadn't drafted Tom Brady, they'd have won just as many Super Bowls. It's possible. You can't disprove it. But since no QB has ever won as many Super Bowls as Brady, it sure doesn't look likely.

Another dumb analogy scarecrow; but what would you be without strawmen right?

 

[Oneuli]

How is 3.5% under Reagan and 3.1% growth for the decade worse than Obama's anemic 1.45% and 2.1% for the 2010's?

Did someone argue it was? Go put the straw man back in your closet and try to focus. The point here was that the 80s did not have explosive economic growth, as asserted. Instead, they had the second-worst growth of any decade in the 20th century. And the question is whether realizing how wrong he was about that has caused him to reconsider any beliefs he drew from that misconception. My assumption is the answer is now, since he didn't actually draw any beliefs from the misconception, as he comes at the problem from the opposite direction: he adopts an unwavering article of faith and then blindly asserts the existence of evidence to support it.

 

[Oneuli]

are deficits and debt connected?

Of course. But they're not the same thing, as much as the wingnuts here seem to imagine they are. Deficits and debt are related in approximately the same way as velocity and distance are related (or, for that matter, the way that acceleration and velocity are related). Yet people here keep quoting debt figures as if they were deficits.

 

[Truth Detector]

Did someone argue it was? Go put the straw man back in your closet and try to focus. The point here was that the 80s did not have explosive economic growth, as asserted.

How was 3.5% not explosive growth scarecrow? Apparently it is you grasping at straws.

Instead, they had the second-worst growth of any decade in the 20th century.

That's a lie. How was 3.1% GDP second worst scarecrow? Here's the data again:

Average REAL GDP by decade.
1900's = 3.9%
1910's = 2.9%
1920's = 3.4%
1930's = 1.0%
1940's = 5.6%
1950's = 4.2%
1960's = 4.5%
1970's = 3.2%
1980's = 3.1%
1990's = 3.2%
2000's = 1.8%
2010's = 2.1%
OBAMA =1.48%
https://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Economy-GDP-R-By-Decade.pdf

And the question is whether realizing how wrong he was about that has caused him to reconsider any beliefs he drew from that misconception. My assumption is the answer is now, since he didn't actually draw any beliefs from the misconception, as he comes at the problem from the opposite direction: he adopts an unwavering article of faith and then blindly asserts the existence of evidence to support it.

You just described yourself you moron.

 

[Oneuli]

So Obamacare is great now? I thought the left claimed it was failing because of GOP reforms.

Obamacare has saved the American people a great deal of money (see top post). However, it's true the GOP has tried to sabotage it, including by effectively eliminating the mandate. That sets it up for long-term failure or at least serious under-performance. But it doesn't change the fact it's been a significant improvement.

 

[Oneuli]

Let me explain Econ to you. If you increase demand and don't expand supply costs go up.

The data shows that costs have risen, but at much, much slower rates than was typical before Obamacare. That's the FACT conservatives are desperately trying to avoid acknowledging.

 

[Truth Detector]

Of course. But they're not the same thing, as much as the wingnuts here seem to imagine they are. Deficits and debt are related in approximately the same way as velocity and distance are related (or, for that matter, the way that acceleration and velocity are related). Yet people here keep quoting debt figures as if they were deficits.

Who has claimed the were the same thing scarecrow? You love constructing strawmen don't you snowflake?

 

[Truth Detector]

Obamacare has saved the American people a great deal of money (see top post). However, it's true the GOP has tried to sabotage it, including by effectively eliminating the mandate. That sets it up for long-term failure or at least serious under-performance. But it doesn't change the fact it's been a significant improvement.

That is a lie; your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise are laughably stupid.

 

[Oneuli]

Your attempts to argue that the ACA actually saved Americans money when it has not

I made my argument. I showed how healthcare inflation since Obamacare became law has been, by a margin, the lowest for a period of that length in history. If you have a counterargument, that goes beyond bleating that I'm "moronic and retarded," just make it. Why do you find it so hard to do so? If you think about that question honestly, you'll learn something.

 

[Truth Detector]

The data shows that costs have risen, but at much, much slower rates than was typical before Obamacare. That's the FACT conservatives are desperately trying to avoid acknowledging.

I love that "slower rate" claim. Does it include the costs associated with the massive subsidies the ACA is costing the taxpayers?

 

[Oneuli]

you're special I guess.

Nah. I just read. If the rest of you did so, you'd be aware of these things, too.

 

[Lightbringer]

The data shows that costs have risen, but at much, much slower rates than was typical before Obamacare. That's the FACT conservatives are desperately trying to avoid acknowledging.

Costs have risen.

 

[Truth Detector]

I made my argument. I showed how healthcare inflation since Obamacare became law has been, by a margin, the lowest for a period of that length in history. If you have a counterargument, that goes beyond bleating that I'm "moronic and retarded," just make it. Why do you find it so hard to do so? If you think about that question honestly, you'll learn something.

Wrong; you made a farcical claim and then flailed and stomped your arrogant, pompous little feet when proved to be full of crap. Stomp harder snowflake.

 

[Oneuli]

I've pointed out many

As you're aware, you've yet to be able to point out any. You made one particularly stupid attempt -- the one where you quoted annualized numbers with the thought you were catching me in some sort of error regarding the decade-growth numbers I'd posted. But, as you remember, I demolished you completely on that one. Can you think of any other time you've tried to point out an error I've made?

 

[Oneuli]

The CBO estimates are a joke.

They're the best thing we have for lining up fiscal years with presidential terms. And they're certainly not a joke when viewed over that short a time-frame. You just want to shove Bush's FY 2009 spending (e.g., the bailouts) into Obama's column. Rejected.