Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (1 Viewer)

[Ookie Pringle]

BFS in scramble mode. Be prepared for those posts that make you go WTF.

 

[Sand]

Better check if you're going to an expensive hospital first -

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-cost-controls-ahead-feds-170024687--finance.html

That's so awesome.

So a semi-infinite unknowable deductible on top of the already high deductibles in place. Is Maduro on the federal payroll?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

After you point to the "he said" comment. I've already linked where he remained silent when other people were carrying the banner.

Oh, but thanks for proving me correct in predicting your reply/

Damn it...I'm confused here. Who is "he" in all these nested quotes?? I am going on record here and restating that I am asking a question....not making an assertion.

I think he wants me to show where matttyl explicitly stated that the employer market would have a 40% increase. While I replied to matttyl's post to quote his article I never claimed anything more than "The claim has been made through out this thread that the employer mandate is yet to come and the same increases being seen in the individual market would happen there." Which is somehow debatable.

So apparently you show a link that one poster and not matttyl said that one time ( about the employer plan increases) yet you state that these comments have been happening throughout this thread?

So your post on May 5th wasn't suggesting that those on employer plans, at least those working for small first weren't about to have large rate increases?

 

[Stinger Ray]

After you point to the "he said" comment. I've already linked where he remained silent when other people were carrying the banner.

Oh, but thanks for proving me correct in predicting your reply/

Damn it...I'm confused here. Who is "he" in all these nested quotes?? I am going on record here and restating that I am asking a question....not making an assertion.

I think he wants me to show where matttyl explicitly stated that the employer market would have a 40% increase. While I replied to matttyl's post to quote his article I never claimed anything more than "The claim has been made through out this thread that the employer mandate is yet to come and the same increases being seen in the individual market would happen there." Which is somehow debatable.

So apparently you show a link that one poster and not matttyl said that one time ( about the employer plan increases) yet you state that these comments have been happening throughout this thread?

So your post on May 5th wasn't suggesting that those on employer plans, at least those working for small first weren't about to have large rate increases?

That post was a link that had comments from insurance brokers and what they are seeing with increases. Not predictions but what they are seeing. That is a hell of a lot more of someone I'd trust than your garbage. No one was suggesting anything in that article. It was about what they are dealing with.And the fact that is all you could come up with....

 

[timschochet]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

 

[Sand]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

Speaking of this you're needed in the GW thread.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

 

[timschochet]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.

And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Let's be clear, mattyl's profession is not health care policy.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Let's be clear, mattyl's profession is not health care policy.

Let's be clear....his profession gives him more credibility than anyone in this thread yet you and others treat him like crap.

 

[Joe T]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Tim has yet to find a subject that Tim is not an expert on.

 

[timschochet]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Tim has yet to find a subject that Tim is not an expert on.

I am no expert on this subject, nor have I claimed to be.

 

[timschochet]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Let's be clear....his profession gives him more credibility than anyone in this thread yet you and others treat him like crap.

Poor fourd! And to think he is largely on your side!

 

[Sand]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

So you're miffed that he doesn't address every quibble you have? You post hundreds of times per day - no way any normal human could keep up.

 

[timschochet]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

 

[timschochet]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

So you're miffed that he doesn't address every quibble you have? You post hundreds of times per day - no way any normal human could keep up.

Several people, not just me, confused the 40% increase issue. You may have been one of them for all I know.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Let's be clear, mattyl's profession is not health care policy.

Let's be clear....his profession gives him more credibility than anyone in this thread yet you and others treat him like crap.

Sorry, but anyone who predicts that the ACA is going to result in FEWER people being covered loses all credibility.

And no, being an insurance salesman doesn't make some a health care policy expert.

 

[BassNBrew]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

 

[timschochet]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

No they also predicted that not enough people would sign up. Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured.

 

[BassNBrew]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

No they also predicted that not enough people would sign up. Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured.

I don't recall that, but maybe matttyl can confirm.

 

[Stinger Ray]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

No they also predicted that not enough people would sign up. Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured.

How many times does this have to be told to you.......it's way to early to make any determinations about predictions on the ACA.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Let's be clear, mattyl's profession is not health care policy.

Let's be clear....his profession gives him more credibility than anyone in this thread yet you and others treat him like crap.

Sorry, but anyone who predicts that the ACA is going to result in FEWER people being covered loses all credibility.

And no, being an insurance salesman doesn't make some a health care policy expert.

Sorry....but he has never stated he is an expert. He gives his opinions on what he sees on a daily basis being in this profession. He has made you look foolish time and again when you try and debate about health insurance. You and others that disagree with him are just nasty to him at times and it's pathetic.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

Just what....no one has EVER called him an expert. I give him credit for staying in this thread with how much crap some of you guys give him.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Tim has yet to find a subject that Tim is not an expert on.

I am no expert on this subject, nor have I claimed to be.

But you sure like to prematurely pound your chest in this thread and others.

 

[The Commish]

After you point to the "he said" comment. I've already linked where he remained silent when other people were carrying the banner.

Oh, but thanks for proving me correct in predicting your reply/

Damn it...I'm confused here. Who is "he" in all these nested quotes?? I am going on record here and restating that I am asking a question....not making an assertion.

I think he wants me to show where matttyl explicitly stated that the employer market would have a 40% increase. While I replied to matttyl's post to quote his article I never claimed anything more than "The claim has been made through out this thread that the employer mandate is yet to come and the same increases being seen in the individual market would happen there." Which is somehow debatable.

Got it...

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Let's be clear, mattyl's profession is not health care policy.

Let's be clear....his profession gives him more credibility than anyone in this thread yet you and others treat him like crap.

Sorry, but anyone who predicts that the ACA is going to result in FEWER people being covered loses all credibility.

And no, being an insurance salesman doesn't make some a health care policy expert.

this coming from someone that doesn't think Obama lied about the ACA.

 

[The Commish]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

Why would you singe matttyl out on something every single person in the FFA does? We all do that. The difference between matttyl and others in this thread is he's not just making #### up. At least he goes to a source not him or the administration. He comments on the things being reported and does so from his POV. The "other side" has exactly the administration to rely on for their information and/or CBO projections based on data points given them by the administration. To me, mattyl and BFS have done the best jobs of trying to keep things in perspective.

 

[The Commish]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

This kind of stuff annoys the crap out of me too. These statements, especially by matttyl, were typically qualified with "if things stay as they are" early on. The administration has sense drug it's feet, picked what parts to implement etc. There's a reason they took that approach. You're free to believe they did it oh a whim and didn't see bad things coming but to lump him in with the conservative is just lazy. It would be akin to lumping BFS in with TGunz.

 

[The Commish]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

No they also predicted that not enough people would sign up. Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured.

I don't recall that, but maybe matttyl can confirm.

I saw him suggest in the long run that less people would end up insured. That claim remains to be seen. IMO, the claim will never be verifiable given the way we are getting numbers fed to us.

 

[matttyl]

After you point to the "he said" comment. I've already linked where he remained silent when other people were carrying the banner.

Oh, but thanks for proving me correct in predicting your reply/

Damn it...I'm confused here. Who is "he" in all these nested quotes?? I am going on record here and restating that I am asking a question....not making an assertion.

I think he wants me to show where matttyl explicitly stated that the employer market would have a 40% increase. While I replied to matttyl's post to quote his article I never claimed anything more than "The claim has been made through out this thread that the employer mandate is yet to come and the same increases being seen in the individual market would happen there." Which is somehow debatable.

So apparently you show a link that one poster and not matttyl said that one time ( about the employer plan increases) yet you state that these comments have been happening throughout this thread?

So your post on May 5th wasn't suggesting that those on employer plans, at least those working for small first weren't about to have large rate increases?

Small employer plans will see large increases. Small employer plans/rates (under 50 and more specifically under 20) were heavily dependent the health of the underlining group (via underwriting). With that no longer the case, they will see increases and many of my small groups already have. They likely won't be on the 40% level, as (at least here in VA) employer plans regardless of size were already required to have maternity included as well as other things which individual plans didn't have. That said, there will still be increases.

 

[matttyl]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

Tim, if I had to correct not only mis-postings but also misunderstandings about the ACA in this thread I'd have 3x as many posts as I already do. Sometimes I won't check this thread for a couple of days and don't see everything posted. During the open enrollment period that we had I was in a bit of a daze anyway as my business was quite literally turned on it's head and I was attempting to help as many people as I could. There was a lot of misinformation about misunderstanding, and I know you faced a lot of that yourself in your dealing with your brother's situation. I'm sure you were told things from people that were flat out wrong.

 

[matttyl]

I think matttyl has done a very good job here, and I appreciate his educating me about this subject. But that being said, some of BFS' criticisms are warranted, IMO. When I and other people confused the 40% increase as being for everyone, and not just a small minority, matttyl, who knew better, chose not to correct it, until he was directly asked about it. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern. Whenever someone in support of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is quick to correct it, and I appreciate that. But whenever someone critical of ACA gets some fact wrong, matttyl is silent and allows the misconception to continue.

So long as one is willing to accept matttyl's bias against ACA, his participation in this thread is very useful, especially to know nothings on this issue like me. But he doesn't paint a complete picture. For that, we also need the contributions of people like BFS and tommygunz.

And of course based on what you wrote we need to be willing to accept the bias you, BFS, Gunz and others have as well.

Regarding tommygunz, of course. BFS is a little more nuanced, so it's hard to tell. His primary concern seems to be the overall cost of healthcare. As for myself, my bias is I want ACA to succeed. That's very different from predicting it will.And even as regards tommygunz, it's important to remember that he is not really for Obamacare; he's for single payer. He regards ACA as an improvement but is not uncritical of it.

You are all biased and have attacked matttyl much more than he has ever to you. He's the most knowledgable poster in this forum on this subject and he gets mocked. It's laughable watching people think they know more about someone that makes this his profession.

Tim has yet to find a subject that Tim is not an expert on.

I am no expert on this subject, nor have I claimed to be.

Let me be clear - I've never claimed to be one, either. That said, even when the "expert" on the topic is asked specific questions (Sebilius), they don't know. I do what I can, though. The ACA is in fact a great thing for many people, those who before couldn't obtain coverage (due to their health), or afford coverage, or couldn't afford coverage because of their health. Some of those people are rightly deserving of help, some I don't think are because of their personal choices (aka personal responsibility, Gunz). At the same time, many people are being "hurt" or harmed by higher premiums, and lesser coverage, or both - along with higher taxes and such. Is it all going to be worth it in the end, time will tell.

 

[matttyl]

I respect matttyl a lot, but I made a specific criticism of him above and I stand by it. If you disagree with that criticism, please state your reason. Don't just fall back on, "Oh, matttyl's an expert, so he's smarter than YOU." That's pretty insipid.

Tim, initially I guess everyone understood that we were talking about the individual market - yourself included as your personal example was your brother who is in the individual market - and that the articles being posted were in regards to the individual market - and that the "marketplaces" being created and touted were for the individual market. When you seemed confused on the topic, I did attempt to correct you (and others). When you asked me a question about it, I gave you an answer. There are people in this thread who are in fact very knowledgeable - maybe I'm one of them, though I wouldn't consider myself an expert. Others hardly know anything about what's going on, and maybe they come to this thread to educate themselves, and that's great for them. Sometime the conversations being discussed are over someone's head - which I'll readily admit would be me in many of the other threads here in the "Free for all". I myself have learned quite a bit from this thread, things I didn't know before and other posters have been essential in that (Fourd and at times BFS).

 

[matttyl]

Sorry, but anyone who predicts that the ACA is going to result in FEWER people being covered loses all credibility.And no, being an insurance salesman doesn't make some a health care policy expert.

I'm still waiting, and have been for months now, at you showing where I ever said this. That's not at all what I said, and if that's what you obtained from what I said, I suggest you take a reading comprehension class. I was linking situations of the ACA to previous examples of "guaranteed issue - no pre-ex" such as New York (which you started a thread about if I recall) where the number of people covered by individual polices PLUMMETED in the years following them going to a guaranteed issue, no pre-ex arrangement. Yes, the ACA was a huge improvement there, only because of the horrible dumpster fire that the previous situation turned into.

If you're up for some weekend reading - I would highly recommend you actually read this study which I know I've posted at least 3 times here already. Tim, before there is any confusion, THIS IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET!!!

It's a study from 2012 about 8 states that went to a guaranteed issue in the individual health insurance market in the past. Here is a summary of their findings:

Although results varied widely among the eight states, in general we found that, measured in terms of market size, level of premium, and availability of insurance options, individual health insurance markets deteriorated after the introduction of GI and CR reforms. Often, insurance companies chose to stop selling individual insurance in the market after reforms were enacted which resulted in a decrease in competition. Enrollment in individual insurance also tended to decrease, and premium rates tended to increase, sometimes dramatically. We also did not observe any significant decreases in the level of uninsured persons following the enactment of these original market reforms. Particularly severe consequences resulted in states such as Kentucky, where reforms were applied piecemeal, so that some portions of the individual market operated under pre-reform rating and issue rules for years after reform was originally enacted. Under such uneven treatment, markets will tend to “resegment” with the low risk individuals moving to the non-reform portion of the market, leaving the reform block with the more expensive members. This effectively limits the subsidization goal of CR reforms. In a 2000 paper, two regulators from New Hampshire compared individual market regulation to squeezing a balloon—cautioning that unless you “squeeze the balloon on all surfaces at once,” the market will resegment.

Of the eight states we studied, two (Kentucky and New Hampshire) have since repealed guaranteed issue and community rating laws in their individual markets entirely, and one (Washington) has significantly weakened its original community rating and guaranteed issue provisions. Maine and New Jersey have relaxed their community rating requirements as well.

 

[matttyl]

In any event, Stinger Ray, thus far the doom and gloomers in this thread, (and that includes matttyl), have not been accurate in their predictions about ACA. For all of your derision of tommygunz, he has been far more accurate than just about anyone else in this thread. That doesn't mean he's going to be accurate in the future, nor does it mean all of his arguments are correct. But you don't seem to want to give him any credit at all, and that makes you IMO more partisan than he is.

That's not really a fair statement since the bulk of the ACA policy they felt was going to create the doom was kicked down the road a year or two. If I were to say that the Broncos were going to win the Super Bowl this year and you said they weren't, you wouldn't be more accurate if there was a strike and the Super Bowl was cancelled.

No they also predicted that not enough people would sign up. Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured.

NO I DID NOT!

 

[matttyl]

Sorry, but anyone who predicts that the ACA is going to result in FEWER people being covered loses all credibility.And no, being an insurance salesman doesn't make some a health care policy expert.

Sorry, but anyone who says all men need maternity coverage as well needs to go back to 3rd grade health class.

 

[matttyl]

I saw him suggest in the long run that less people would end up insured. That claim remains to be seen. IMO, the claim will never be verifiable given the way we are getting numbers fed to us.

Again, to clarify - I was talking about a "phenomenon" known as a "death spiral" (insurance term) where prices go up, and the young/healthy people leave the pool and go uninsured. The prices have to then go up even further to compensate for a sicker remaining pool - and the pool continues to shrink. An article was posted here yesterday talking about how these new plans simply aren't financially attractive to younger folks (I didn't post it, forgot who did). As you can imagine, this takes years - possibly a decade or more as the study I've posted here a few time shows. Tim or Gunz saying that I was "wrong" are years too premature in that statement - and of course all I said is that something like that could happen, not that it will happen - and things have already changed since I've said anything like that. We're literally less than half a year into this.

Damn, 8 posts in a row - sorry about that. I'm trying to keep up and respond to all these posts so that Tim won't yell at me again for not "correcting something." I've attempted to correct both him and Gunz on their characterization of my earlier statements about death spirals, yet he continues to say things like "Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured" which he said less than 12 hours ago....all I can then do is throw my hands up and say "I give up".

 

[uwftbl]

You just can't make this crap up about government inefficiency. I searched key words thinking this may have been posted earlier but I couldn't find anything, so here it is. Pretty disgusting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKi0EWpjFI

 

[The Commish]

I saw him suggest in the long run that less people would end up insured. That claim remains to be seen. IMO, the claim will never be verifiable given the way we are getting numbers fed to us.

Again, to clarify - I was talking about a "phenomenon" known as a "death spiral" (insurance term) where prices go up, and the young/healthy people leave the pool and go uninsured. The prices have to then go up even further to compensate for a sicker remaining pool - and the pool continues to shrink. An article was posted here yesterday talking about how these new plans simply aren't financially attractive to younger folks (I didn't post it, forgot who did). As you can imagine, this takes years - possibly a decade or more as the study I've posted here a few time shows. Tim or Gunz saying that I was "wrong" are years too premature in that statement - and of course all I said is that something like that could happen, not that it will happen - and things have already changed since I've said anything like that. We're literally less than half a year into this.

Damn, 8 posts in a row - sorry about that. I'm trying to keep up and respond to all these posts so that Tim won't yell at me again for not "correcting something." I've attempted to correct both him and Gunz on their characterization of my earlier statements about death spirals, yet he continues to say things like "Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured" which he said less than 12 hours ago....all I can then do is throw my hands up and say "I give up".

Fair enough....didn't mean to mischaracterize your position.

 

[matttyl]

I saw him suggest in the long run that less people would end up insured. That claim remains to be seen. IMO, the claim will never be verifiable given the way we are getting numbers fed to us.

Again, to clarify - I was talking about a "phenomenon" known as a "death spiral" (insurance term) where prices go up, and the young/healthy people leave the pool and go uninsured. The prices have to then go up even further to compensate for a sicker remaining pool - and the pool continues to shrink. An article was posted here yesterday talking about how these new plans simply aren't financially attractive to younger folks (I didn't post it, forgot who did). As you can imagine, this takes years - possibly a decade or more as the study I've posted here a few time shows. Tim or Gunz saying that I was "wrong" are years too premature in that statement - and of course all I said is that something like that could happen, not that it will happen - and things have already changed since I've said anything like that. We're literally less than half a year into this.

Damn, 8 posts in a row - sorry about that. I'm trying to keep up and respond to all these posts so that Tim won't yell at me again for not "correcting something." I've attempted to correct both him and Gunz on their characterization of my earlier statements about death spirals, yet he continues to say things like "Matttyl predicted that there would actually be less people insured" which he said less than 12 hours ago....all I can then do is throw my hands up and say "I give up".

Fair enough....didn't mean to mischaracterize your position.

I don't think you did nearly to the extent that either Tim or Gunz have, and continue to do even after I've explained my position to them repeatedly.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So apparently you show a link that one poster and not matttyl said that one time ( about the employer plan increases) yet you state that these comments have been happening throughout this thread?

So your post on May 5th wasn't suggesting that those on employer plans, at least those working for small first weren't about to have large rate increases?

Small employer plans will see large increases. Small employer plans/rates (under 50 and more specifically under 20) were heavily dependent the health of the underlining group (via underwriting). With that no longer the case, they will see increases and many of my small groups already have. They likely won't be on the 40% level, as (at least here in VA) employer plans regardless of size were already required to have maternity included as well as other things which individual plans didn't have. That said, there will still be increases.

At the risk of oversimplifying small employers that had policies that were very similar to individual policies will see increases roughly in line with the individual market in becoming ACA compliant. But, ignoring cost shifting changes like networks and/or deductibles to keep the increases lower these will be much more feature rich policies including some benefits that you have argued should not be required. I assume as a general rule that state regulations for individual market were reasonably similar to regulations for small groups meaning that a similar range of policy offerings existed between "crap" and "cadillac".

Small employers that had policies that were similar to large employer policies won't see as much of an increase at all as their policies were already designed in the same way that the ACA regulations were supposed to be written - based on the average large group. (Not really interested in quibbling how successfully the administration did this.) So becoming ACA compliant is a smaller step or no step at all.

Similar to the individual market, there are subsidies available in the form of tax credits for some small employers that will offset some of these increases. However, in most places an online SHOP is still not available - which should be good for you if they hurry up and impose that employer mandate for the small guys.

Other than oversimplifying a bit, is this pretty much accurate?

 

[matttyl]

Very much so, but one thing to be aware of as a key difference in the small group and individual ACA markets-

In the individual market you can typically buy the same plan either on or off exchange. The plan is identical (deductible, OOP, copays, carrier),and you can obtain subsidy on exchange if eligible. In the small group market, you may only have 2 or 3 plans available via SHOP from a carrier, with 20-30 or more/different plans available direct from the carrier which wouldn't be eligible for any tax credits.

Also, ALL group plans (at least in my state, I believe in most/all, though) no matter if large or small had maternity coverage. It was embedded, and many also had dependent maternity included as well. That wasn't the case in the individual market.

 

[matttyl]

*oh, and the SHOP plans available have very large deductibles and OOP maxes. You want a tax write off, great, take the crap plans.

 

[Tau837]

matttyl, I want to define your argument a little better. Let's take the worst case scenario. Here's John Lazy ###. He's too lazy to work, so he collects unemployment and welfare. He could afford health insurance, but he decides to buy cable TV and liquor instead. He smokes 3 packs a day. Now John Lazy ### gets lung cancer, and he has to have major surgery or he's gonna die. As a society we should:

A. Let John Lazy ### die.

B. Pay for John Lazy ###'s surgery.

C. Force John Lazy ### to buy insurance months earlier, even though it's going to cost us a little more to do so.

What's your preference?

We should let people make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Option A, if John can't find a way to pay for treatment.

 

[Tau837]

Why do you hate personal responsibility?

Why do you hate freedom of choice and personal accountability?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Why do you hate personal responsibility?

Why do you hate freedom of choice and personal accountability?

Sorry, the society I want to live in doesn't let poor people die simply because they lack resources.

 

[Tau837]

Didn't see this posted. From New McKinsey Survey: 74% Of Obamacare Sign-Ups Were Previously Insured:

Combining all of this data: of the 8 million sign-ups on the exchange, we can only be confident that around 1.7 million are previously uninsured and enrolled. We can add another 865,000 or so for those purchasing coverage off the exchange, for a total of 2.6 million previously uninsured individual-market enrollees.

 

[Tau837]

Why do you hate personal responsibility?

Why do you hate freedom of choice and personal accountability?

Sorry, the society I want to live in doesn't let poor people die simply because they lack resources.

That isn't the scenario that was posed.