How much has Obamacare saved the American people?
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
I have cited numerous lies within your posts snowflake. You keep pretending they don't exist. It is the pathological state you wallow in. You can't help it, you're an idiot. Keep flailing.
If Obamacare raised everyone's premiums; how has it saved anything? If my cost before Obamacare was $350 a month, and now I am paying $450 a month, I haven't saved anything. I have spent more.
The premise of this thread is not merely absurd, but moronic. If subsidies are costing trillions, the taxpayers will be forced to pay for them; how have we saved anything?
The premise of this thread is not merely absurd, but moronic. If subsidies are costing trillions, the taxpayers will be forced to pay for them; how have we saved anything?
GDP cannot be expressed as a percentage. It's expressed in dollar terms. I suspect you were trying to make some sort of point about GDP growth, rather than GDP. One can never tell with you. But GDP was higher during Obama's presidency than at any point in history before that (and higher, in fact, than in any point in history for any nation in history). That's true for seven out of his eight years, and for his eight-year period taken as a whole.
It happened in FY 2009, which started October 1, 2008. By the time Bush left office, the deficit was $1.2 trillion. It rose to $1.4 trillion, before starting its historic fall, but it first cracked $1 trillion under Bush.
I'm not trying to avoid that fact, any more than I'm avoiding the fact that his predecessor held that same distinction before him, and that Reagan held it before him, etc. I'm just providing context.
What makes you think so. You followed that accusation up with "Reagan's average GDP was 3.5%. Obama's was 1.48%. " But, obviously, that's a nonsequitur. My claim wasn't about each one's average GDP growth rate (or "average GDP" to use your repeated error). I was simply referring to the recoveries. Reagan's first recovery was demonstrably worse than Obama's recovery. Reagan's second recovery, after the economy went into recession on his watch, was stronger.
I haven't a clue what you're gibbering about. The point of this thread isn't about whether Obama is good or bad. It's about the fact healthcare cost growth has been at a record low since Obamacare became law. For some reason, that simple fact makes right-wing heads explode. It's funny to watch.
I do? What makes you think that? I simply pointed out your error. Why change the subject? Wouldn't it be better to just write "oops, I was wrong again -- sorry"? Give it a shot. Honesty is good for the soul.
Yes. Greenspan was very hopeful he could bring about a recession in time to make Bush president. His recession didn't show up until after Bush took office, but it didn't end up mattering from an election perspective, since the Supreme Court appointed Bush president despite the people choosing Gore.
Yes, and he tried. Unfortunately, many dishonest right-wingers reacted to his attempts by pretending they were just an attempt to "wag the dog," to distract from the fact the man had lied about a consensual affair. There's really no low that's beneath right-wingers.
Have you read Richard Clarke's book?
What lie do you think I've told?
What evidence do you see that it's a lie? Be specific, please.
Showing cause and effect definitively isn't possible with something as complex as a nation-sized socioeconomic system. But, what we can say is that the average improvement of the poverty rate when a Democrat is president is VASTLY greater than when a Republican is. Coincidence? Well, conceivably. However, it should tell you something that the wingnut apologists are effectively permanently stuck in the mode of claiming EVERYTHING is a coincidence, and that real-world results never matter for evaluating policy.
The poverty rate is down greatly since the start of the war on poverty. Johnson declared the war on poverty at the start of 1964. At the time, the poverty rate was 19.5%. Today it's 12.3%. Facts matter. Shouldn't you take the time to learn a few?
We've had only one set of balanced budgets in the modern era. It was after years in which Clinton led a push for higher upper-class taxes, and less military spending growth. By comparison, we had three experiments with lower upper-class taxes and rapidly expanding military spending: the Reagan, younger Bush, and Trump years. Each was a period of very rapid deficit increase.
I'm on neither. However, your claim is illogical. Regardless of whether I was on those things or not, my personal experience would tell me nothing about that's going on in the wider country. That would be like assuming that if I've lost weight recently, the country must be getting thinner. It's absurdly irrational. In order to know whether our personal experiences are typical or not, we need statistics to show what's going on in the broader society. As you'll see if you reread the top post, what's been going on in the wider country is that healthcare inflation has been experiencing a record low rate since Obamacare became law. Whether you're lying about your experiences or your experiences are merely atypical is something only you know. But what's been going on in the broader society is clear.
Last edited:
Yep, that's right, it was YOU who was reduced to weeping. Poor little thing.
No, as you're well aware, you've yet to be able to find a single one. Instead, what you do is to call me a liar and then post a non-sequitur.... like if I were to say it's raining and you replied "Liar! Queen Victoria has been dead for years!" It's fun just for the sheer stupidity of it, but even you have to realize at some level that you've failed to identify any falsehood written by me.
Getin the ring
Verified User
OH NO, page 37 and you're still here defending the disaster, the now defunct disaster charmingly referred to as Obamacare
let it go
What makes you think Obamacare raised everyone's premiums? And even if it did, why would you imagine that would resolve the question of whether it saved people anything? Obviously, when it comes to healthcare costs, premiums are just one aspect of spending.
OK. Now, let's say those numbers are accurate.... that right before Obamacare became law, your costs were $350 per month and now they're $450 per month.
That seems credible enough. So, it's been 8.75 years. What's that rate of inflation, annualized? Since you suck and math, I'll do it for you. It's 2.91% inflation. Now, what if in the 8.75 years leading up to the passage of Obamacare, the rate was 6% annualized? What if there was no 8.75 year period in history, prior to Obamacare, when the annualized rate was anywhere close to as low as 2.91%? Now, does it look like Obamacare cost you money or saved you money? If healthcare inflation had continued along at the pre-Obamcare rate of 6%, in that scenario, you'd now be paying $583 per month instead of $450. So, relative to the baseline projection, it would be saving you $133 per month.
Through record-low healthcare cost growth, obviously.
Last edited:
Haven't you realized yet that your pleading has no effect on me? I know you would like me to stop making you feel bad by pointing out how wrong you are about everything. But here's the thing: I don't care what you want. You can whimper and whine for mercy until the crack of doom and I'm not going to let it go. Grow a spine!
Getin the ring
Verified User
What makes you stupidly believe they haven't?
How have you proved that anyone saved anything. Your moronic claims hinges around suppositions. Let's try this in a simpler form so that your low IQ brain can get around the FACTS: If I was paying $300 month before, but now am paying $400 a month. How have I "saved" anything.
Let's go a step further; the claims to pass Obamacare were NEVER that the plan would lower the rate of inflation on healthcare costs, but rather, that it would dramatically reduce them. At one point, Obama claimed it would reduce the deficit.
Has it done any of those things? Yes or No?
What is obvious is the stupidity within your claims and arguments.
There you go with that asinine argument again. If I am paying MORE now; how have I "saved" anything? I am paying MORE! Therefore I have not saved a thing. Apparently, basic logic and simple math are beyond your comprehension level.
Yet, we are paying MORE; therefore we haven't saved a thing. Did you flunk third grade snowflake?
what afu@kin idiot,
"grow a spine"
you've been whining for 37 pages
Here's what the idiot is trying to say; that regardless of the FACT that you have LESS in your wallet, you still have MORE.
Let's review the lies used to pass the ACA:
Lie #1: Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care. IT did not.
Lie #2: Obamacare will not increase the deficit. IT increased the deficit.
Lie #3: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." No you cannot. Most lost theirs as the plans changed to meet the intent of the law.
Lie #4: If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep it. NO you cannot. Most plans changed, cost more and had greater limitations and higher deductibles.
Here's what Gruber, the architect of the ACA, thinks of Oneuli:
Jonathan Gruber Videos: Oneuli "Too Stupid to Understand" Obamacare
Lie #1: Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care. IT did not.
Lie #2: Obamacare will not increase the deficit. IT increased the deficit.
Lie #3: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." No you cannot. Most lost theirs as the plans changed to meet the intent of the law.
Lie #4: If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep it. NO you cannot. Most plans changed, cost more and had greater limitations and higher deductibles.
Here's what Gruber, the architect of the ACA, thinks of Oneuli:
Jonathan Gruber Videos: Oneuli "Too Stupid to Understand" Obamacare
No. As you'll recall, what I've been doing is kicking the ass of all the wingnuts on this site.
This forum is actually dangerous for my ego. I'm tempted to start thinking of myself like one of those chess grandmasters who takes on a whole chess club in simultaneous games of chess, and checkmates them all easily. But then I have to remind myself that you aren't the equivalent of chess club members. You're more like a nursing home full of dementia patients who can barely remember how each piece moves, much less deploy it effectively. Playing all these simultaneous games and winning easily each time isn't very impressive, when I remember that.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
oh wait......you get to ignore facts that you don't want to believe......forgot.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
???.....you've tossing around percentages since the first page.......
What makes you think I believe they haven't? I haven't taken any stance on that question. Read more carefully, dumb dumb.
I showed that healthcare cost growth has been, by a significant margin, the lowest on record for a period of this length. I'll admit I can't definitively show that it wouldn't have been still lower without Obamacare. But it's the reasonable conclusion. That's where the Tom Brady analogy I brought up earlier comes in. Is it possible that if the Patriots had drafted Spergon Wynn instead of Tom Brady they still would have won all those Super Bowls -- or maybe even more of them? Yes, it's possible. You can't prove it. But, given the fact no QB before Brady ever won as many Super Bowls as him, it's much more rational to infer that if they'd drafted Spergon Wynn they'd have won fewer Super Bowls. In the same way, the post-Obamacare era set a record for the lowest healthcare inflation for a period of that length on record. It's the "Tom Brady of healthcare eras." Is it possible healthcare inflation would have been just as low or lower if not for Obamacare? It's possible. It's just not something any rational person would think likely, in light of the data.
Depends. If you'd be spending $500 if not for the change, then it's pretty obvious how you saved $100, right?
Here, a simple analogy. Let's say I have a loan with an introductory interest rate that's set to expire, and with the new higher interest rate that's about to kick in, my monthly cost will rise from $300 to $500. However, I can refinance to a new loan with the exact same term and a lower rate that will make my monthly cost $400. How have I "saved" anything by refinancing? Well, if you're a total imbecile, you'd conclude I haven't saved anything, because my cost went up. And if that's how you see things, that we've identified why it is that nobody would ever put you in charge of anything that matters. But if you have even a speck of common sense, you recognize that refinancing saved you $100 relative to where you'd be if you hadn't refinanced.
I get it: you'd like to change the subject. But, as I've said, this thread isn't about whether or not the people who sold Obamacare were all honest in their sales pitches. It's about whether Obamacare saved people money. Try to focus.
You've saved money relative to what you would have been paying. Obviously. It's bizarre you can't grasp such a simple point. Were you dropped on your head as a child?
We have saved a great deal relative to where we would reasonably expect to be but for the change.
Here, this may help you think, by reversing your political prejudice. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that since Obamacare passed, healthcare costs have been rising by 3% per year. And let's say that it's repealed in favor of a strictly free-market private system, of the sort favored by libertarians. And say that over the next eight years, healthcare costs rise by only 0.1% per year. Would you say repealing Obamacare saved us money? If you're honest, you'll admit you would... that the radical decrease in the rate of healthcare cost growth would be a huge mark in favor of the change. But if you were to meet a particularly imbecilic lefty, he might point out that costs still rose, however slightly, and therefore we didn't save anything with the change. You'd understandably laugh in the face of that imbecile.
Now you understand why all the smart people laugh in your face.
Here's what the idiot is trying to say; that regardless of the FACT that you have LESS in your wallet, you still have MORE.
You misunderstood. Try rereading.
Try to focus, pumpkin. This thread isn't about whether or not the sales pitch for Obamacare was always honest. That's a fine topic for some other thread. This thread is about how much Obamacare saved the American people. Those are obviously very different questions. Something can be oversold and yet still be an improvement.