Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015  (Read 11215 times)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2016, 10:00:21 AM »
You can't have it both ways, either they read the bill they were debating and fighting over for month and after month, or shame on them if they didn't. Nobody outside of the Congress would have had access to the working copy of the bill while it was still under debate and consideration.  OTOH, how many bills do you think Congressmen/women actually read before they vote on them?

First on how many bills they read before passing? Not enough, and not most of them.

The typical process to my understanding is they MIGHT read an executive level summary of what the bill entails, but they don't go into the details. More generally, they have staffers look over the bills and they provide summaries under which the Congress-critter then makes their decision. Of course, the "staffer" may not actually be a staffer, but a "trusted lobbyist" or "political party operative" from somebody else's staff, or from a given Congressional (sub-)committee which has its own staff instead.

They don't read the bills, they vote the bills based on what their trusted agents tell them to do.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2016, 01:38:35 PM »
Then why the outrage about what Pelosi said? If what you say is true, any legislator could make that comment about any piece of legislation.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2016, 02:44:24 PM »
Then why the outrage about what Pelosi said? If what you say is true, any legislator could make that comment about any piece of legislation.

No, they couldn't. Because here, P admits that even their agents hadn't had time to read it.  There are certain functions that Congress can delegate to its own subordinates that it CANNOT delegate to the executive branch.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2016, 03:51:00 PM »
Quote
No, they couldn't. Because here, P admits that even their agents hadn't had time to read it.
Where does she say that?  She was addressing her audience in her comment.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2016, 04:51:58 PM »
Maybe if Obama had put the bill online for five days like he promised, people could have crowd sourced reading parts of it to find out what was in it and bring to light some of the obvious, and maybe not so obvious, deficiencies that would eventually, undoubtedly, doom it to disaster. He could also have put the deliberations online or on C-Span like he promised instead of holding them behind closed doors.

And let's face it. If single payer really is better and was Obama's preference, along with most of the Democrats, there was absolutely nothing any Republican could have done to stop them, and they wouldn't even have had to worry about a Supreme Court challenge either because there would have been no mandate to buy from a private company that jacks the rates while shrinking the networks. The Democrats had one shot. And they squandered it completely.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2016, 05:01:57 PM »
And let's face it. If single payer really is better and was Obama's preference, along with most of the Democrats, there was absolutely nothing any Republican could have done to stop them, and they wouldn't even have had to worry about a Supreme Court challenge either because there would have been no mandate to buy from a private company that jacks the rates while shrinking the networks. The Democrats had one shot. And they squandered it completely.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence a single payer was the preference of most Democrats. Especially since a public option didn't even get off the ground.

If they'd implement single payer on the Canadian model, the Supreme Court would have killed it with the Fed's attempt to require the states to expand Medicaid. I'm not sure it's possible for the Feds to do single payer without a constitutional amendment.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2016, 05:25:16 PM »
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/221723-kucinich-single-payer-the-only-obviously-constitutional-healthcare-plan

"Kucinich: Single-payer the only 'obviously constitutional' healthcare plan

Kucinich also noted that single-payer — because it would be funded through taxes, similar to Medicare — wouldn't raise the same kind of legal questions as Obama's healthcare overhaul. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June on whether the law's individual mandate is constitutional.

"Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, health care costs continue to rise, jeopardizing budgets and preventing people from getting the health care they need," Kucinich said. "Single-payer is the only solution that is obviously constitutional and can meet our nation’s needs.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this. Now to be clear I'm not saying that single payer would necessarily work well or that I completely agree with it. I'm saying that instead of using the failure of Obamacare as a step toward single payer it would have been much better to go straight to single payer. Some even say that Obamacare was designed to fail to usher in more support for single payer. Whether it was purposefully designed to fail or it had failure built into it because of the flaws in its design, I'm suggesting that the better approach would have been to go straight to single payer. We would know by now whether that was working well or not and this election could have been about the choice of whether or not to continue with the new single payer system.

I don't think single payer would have worked as well as its supporters believe, but I am sad that now we'll probably never find out. It was very risky to bet everything on one roll of the dice with Obamacare and now we've lost it all including the house and there's not likely to be another shot at it for a long time to come.

I agree that single payer wasn't the choice of most Democrats and that was a huge mistake on their part. A mistake that cost us all.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2016, 06:15:31 PM »
Maybe if Obama had put the bill online for five days like he promised, people could have crowd sourced reading parts of it to find out what was in it and bring to light some of the obvious, and maybe not so obvious, deficiencies that would eventually, undoubtedly, doom it to disaster. He could also have put the deliberations online or on C-Span like he promised instead of holding them behind closed doors.
He doesn't control C-Span, which I assume you know.  If he had put the bill "online for five days" would you have read it?  If it was so monstrously long that even the people who rejected it out of hand didn't bother to study it to find out its merits, why would you or others who instinctively rejected it spend 5 days analyzing it?

Quote
And let's face it. If single payer really is better and was Obama's preference, along with most of the Democrats, there was absolutely nothing any Republican could have done to stop them, and they wouldn't even have had to worry about a Supreme Court challenge either because there would have been no mandate to buy from a private company that jacks the rates while shrinking the networks. The Democrats had one shot. And they squandered it completely.
I wish they had gone all the way, but Obama's natural inclination is for compromise and buy-in.  That was his greatest weakness, one that Trump could care less about.  Away with it!  Replace it, uh, sure...

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #58 on: November 21, 2016, 08:44:50 PM »

AI Wessex

"He doesn't control C-Span, which I assume you know."

My recollection is that this was debated in secret. He doesn't control C-Span, but was the offer to let them cover it even made? Was the offer to let anyone cover it made?

I don't think so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.speaker.gov/general/house-committee-investigates-obamacare%E2%80%99s-backroom-deals-secret-negotiations

"April 17, 2012|Posted by Don Seymour

Last year, the House Energy & Commerce Committee began investigating how the president’s health care law was developed, examining the backroom deals and secret negotiations between the Obama administration and the health care industry.

The goal is to shine a light on the behind-closed-doors process used to craft this expansive law, which today is raising costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers – and is being reviewed by the Supreme Court for its Constitutionality.

According to the committee, the investigation so far has found “the White House engaged in extensive negotiations” with outside interests, “trading policies for public support and treating pieces of our health care system like a series of bargaining chips to be doled out in an effort to deliver a political victory.” But with the White House stonewalling requests for information, there remain a lot of unanswered questions."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"If he had put the bill "online for five days" would you have read it?  If it was so monstrously long that even the people who rejected it out of hand didn't bother to study it to find out its merits, why would you or others who instinctively rejected it spend 5 days analyzing it?"

That's why I said its reading could have been crowd sourced, like when looking at satellite imagery was crowd sourced to find a missing plane. Thousands of different people and small groups could have broken up the law to read parts of it and offer feedback and insight. That was the whole point of Obama's promise of transparency on things like this. Just another in a long string of promises broken unilaterally by Obama for no apparent reason. No good reason at least.

http://blog.digitalglobe.com/2014/03/10/missingmalayairjet/

"DigitalGlobe Launches Crowdsourcing Campaign to Find Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet in Satellite Images"

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2016, 08:50:25 PM »
Quote
AI Wessex

"He doesn't control C-Span, which I assume you know."

My recollection is that this was debated in secret. He doesn't control C-Span, but was the offer to let them cover it even made? Was the offer to let anyone cover it made?

I don't think so.
Seems kind of narrow and specific to single out this one piece of legislation for special treatment.  Either this means that you would have closely followed the hours and hours and hours of C-Span coverage in order to come to an informed opinion about the relative benefits and costs of the legislation, or you're just looking for an excuse to blame Obama.  I wonder which one that would be?


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2016, 09:27:27 AM »
This one piece of legislation was a pretty big deal.  Doesn't seem odd at all to give it extra scrutiny. 

That said I sure as heck wouldn't have tuned in to watch.  :P  I would have taken comfort with the thought (even if false) that SOMEONE was doing so.  You know, like I pretend that the elected officials may read the things they vote on...   ::)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2016, 09:34:33 AM »
This one piece of legislation was a pretty big deal.  Doesn't seem odd at all to give it extra scrutiny. 

That said I sure as heck wouldn't have tuned in to watch.  :P  I would have taken comfort with the thought (even if false) that SOMEONE was doing so.  You know, like I pretend that the elected officials may read the things they vote on...   ::)

I'll likewise admit that even though the TPP issue was important to me, I tended to defer to reports others made of its content rather than reading the entire document for myself. I did skim certain sections but never studied it seriously. But then again I don't have a sworn responsibility to be familiar with legislation I'm voting for.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2016, 10:33:36 AM »
Quote
And in fact, when Obamacare came in to "fix" the problem Americans were overwhelming satisfied with their coverage (you're the one who brought this point up).

This is factually wrong

Are you kidding me?  The most commonly reported statistic was 87% satisfaction rate.  It's not factually wrong, it's literally the truth.

Quote
- the remarkable thing is that Americans pay twice as much as any other country per capita for health insurance, and in polling on satisfaction with health care the Americans tend to have a lower level of satisfaction with their health care than about 60% of people from other developed countries.

What a bizarre argument.  Your claim is that people with socialized healthcare pay less for private health insurance that people in a country where private health insurance is the norm?  In other news, people with a free lunches, pay less for lunch than people without them.  Like wow.

People in socialized health care systems bear their costs through taxation, and through service limitations (ie cost controls), and through free riding (getting medicines developed in free market economies at severe discounts, with the hidden threat that they will nationalize the formulations - at least in their own countries - if the benefit is not provided at a discount).

Once again, most people are not sick, the only reason to be dissatisfied with their healthcare is if they realize how much they are paying (taxes hide that, but so does employer insurance) or if they have unreasonable waits for routine services.  Viewing the majority's satisfaction as a significant metric is silly.

Quote
And I never said that Republicans wanted to kill tens of thousands of people - I said that they took actions that were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I am sure they sincerely believed in right wing media that suggests that people having less access to medical care poses zero risks to their health.

Lol, not that they wanted to just that they did.  By that measure, I could say that Democrats have taken actions to make them responsible for millions of people being poorer than they had to be.  I am sure they sincerely  believed in the left wing media that suggests that social welfare programs that lead to dependency on the government pose zero risks to their long term prosperity.

I'm clearly being snarky.  But I'm absolutely shocked that you seem to still think this pile of dog poo is a gem, even after more and more of what the critics said were obvious consequences have been shown to be reality, even though you told us in real time they weren't.  Do you even remember the real time discussions where you guys claimed Obamacare would reduce costs (not just price friggin costs!) by adding more people getting services?

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2016, 12:01:49 PM »
According to one Gallup poll (quick Google search :) ):
Quote
One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2016, 01:21:53 PM »
You think a gamed question about the "availability of affordable care" is remotely responsive to what I claimed?  What I claimed is and was a fact, the existence of other facts on the side doesn't change that in  the least.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2016, 01:35:54 PM »
Whose statistic are you reporting?  If people surveyed say otherwise, why does that mean that they can't be trusted?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2016, 03:21:14 PM »
Everyone's, literally everyone's, if you look for the statistic on whether Americans were satisfied with their coverage, it's been over 80% for decades.  There's not even much change post ObamaCare.  Your statistic is not responsive to my claim, period.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2016, 05:26:02 PM »
What is a "statistic" and how does it differ from a poll?  FWIW, I used to run a software department that created patient surveys and software to analyze them.  We focused on hospitals and found far less satisfaction than you insist has always been the case.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #68 on: November 22, 2016, 05:42:18 PM »
AI,

I think the difference here is that your survey would be of people who used the services significantly, whereas Seriati includes people who have never had a significant illness to date.  As long as you are healthy and only get the occasional cold or minor injury that are cheap and easily treatable - most people are satisfied with their insurance, because it seems to meet their needs.  It is only when they discover that their coverage only pays a small percentage of expensive bills or doesn't cover a number of things that one thought it covered, or that coverage is denied that people are unsatisfied.

Since most people go through life without needing serious insurance coverage till they are covered by medicare, they never have reason to become dissatisfied.  So it was mostly 'satisfaction via ignorance and luck'.

It is like that XKCD comic about people rating satisfaction with an app 'TornadoGuard' - 4 reviews - 3 are 4/5 star 'good UI', 'runs great no crashes', 'i like that it shows multiple locations' and a 1 star rating 'app did not warn me about tornado'.

http://xkcd.com/937/

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #69 on: November 22, 2016, 06:09:17 PM »
Except he didn't even cite that survey LetterRip, he cited a survey about whether people were happy with the affordable choices, which is effectively preloaded to prejudge what's being measured. 

No doubt satisfaction for heavy users is lower than the populace, I have several posts where I make the same point as you.  Satisfaction of the populace is a silly measure since most people are healthy, which is why I criticized Greg making that point in the first place. 

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #70 on: November 23, 2016, 02:02:49 PM »
Quote
Except he didn't even cite that survey LetterRip, he cited a survey about whether people were happy with the affordable choices, which is effectively preloaded to prejudge what's being measured. 
Every survey measures something.  What is the basis of measurement behind your 87% figure?  BTW, you haven't explained the difference between a statistic and a survey result.  I assume your number does not come from a survey.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2016, 08:24:29 AM »
This one piece of legislation was a pretty big deal.  Doesn't seem odd at all to give it extra scrutiny. 

That said I sure as heck wouldn't have tuned in to watch.  :P  I would have taken comfort with the thought (even if false) that SOMEONE was doing so.  You know, like I pretend that the elected officials may read the things they vote on...   ::)

Particularly when it is legislation involving a full 5th of the national economy. So it involved about $2.88 Trillion worth of economy in 2009. Some $3.35 Trillion today, assuming it's still holding around 20% of the economy.

Kasandra

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2016, 08:32:56 AM »
Hello, dear ones.  Trump supports Paul Ryan's plans to kill Obamacare, which means that health care costs and access to treatment will return to what they once were and resume their natural growth.  Worry no more.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2016, 08:36:06 AM »
According to one Gallup poll (quick Google search :) ):
Quote
One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Sampling problem I see with the question is this:

Availability for whom? Affordability for whom? On what basis are they making this analysis? Personal experience, personal friends/family, "friend of a friend's barber's brother who...," news reports, or some other means?

And I thought Canada had socialized healthcare, so it's already paid for. As such, how in the ____ are they unsatisfied with the availability of affordable health care, it's *bleeping* free! Same question for the Brits.

Quote
Quote
Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

Which still circles back to vague questions. Are they unhappy with the availability of healthcare in general, or are they unhappy with the cost of the care provided? And again, how are the Brits and Canadians unhappy about health care costs that their government is supposedly paying for them?

Kasandra

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2016, 11:42:29 AM »
Note that there are two criteria in the survey, availability and affordability.  In both Canada and UK, medical care isn't completely free or always available, either. 

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #75 on: November 25, 2016, 03:02:51 PM »
Quote
Your claim is that people with socialized healthcare pay less for private health insurance that people in a country where private health insurance is the norm? 

The costs I cite aren't out-of-pocket to consumers, they are total national expenditures on health care per capita. Costs in the US are twice as high as the nearest other country.

And the satisfaction of Americans with their health care coverage relative to those from elsewhere is generally at the bottom of the list http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-lowest-in-international-survey/

Quote
In 2011, the U.S. spent $8,508 per capita in health care expenditures, compared with $3,405 per capita in the U.K., which was the country with the highest ranked health care system overall.




cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #76 on: December 11, 2016, 08:22:30 AM »
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/12/11/new-evidence-obamacare-is-not-saving-lives/#4c8f7ea25112

In 2009, during the run-up to the passage of a health care reform bill, Rep. Bill Pascrell (N-NJ) claimed on the House Floor that “as many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance.” A few months later, prior to the Senate vote on what became the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) upped the ante, claiming that, “45,000 times this year – nearly 900 times every week, more than 120 times a day, on average every 10 minutes, without end – an American died as a direct result of not having health insurance...”

"...If a lack of health insurance was killing thousands of Americans every year, and the goal of the ACA was to save lives by reducing the percentage of Americans without health insurance, the clearest possible test of the success of the ACA would be a reduction in mortality. While there are some indications that the ACA did increase the percentage of Americans with health insurance, life expectancy has actually gone down, rather than up. Mortality – as measured by the age-adjusted death rate – increased 1.2%, rather than decreased due to more health insurance."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like it when hard numbers can be examined so that we can see the real results.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2016, 09:38:29 AM »
They haven't fully figured out why Life Expectancy dropped, but they're suspecting it's due to a combination of rising suicide rates, in particular among white unemployed males, and obesity related illnesses claiming more people. (Which may also turn out to be "a type of suicide" for some. They became depressed, and started eating....)

Kasandra

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #78 on: December 11, 2016, 11:40:22 AM »
Quote
I like it when hard numbers can be examined so that we can see the real results.
Then you should use "hard numbers" that prove something.  Here's one for you:  The fluctuation in age of elected Miss America's closely follows the rise and fall of murders by steam, hot vapors or hot objects.  Hard numbers, real results y'all.

If you care about the proof that article implies, here's what Snopes says about it:
Quote
The change in the estimate of life expectancy presented here stems from the fact that its prediction a year earlier was based on what looked to be — but turned out not to be — a trend toward increasing improvements in mortality rates across the country. The change reported in this new study results from tempering that earlier projection. However, life expectancies are still expected to rise across the board, just at a slower rate than was predicted in 2015.

In other words, it was predicted that life expectancies would increase more than they did, so the new estimates reflect a more accurate prediction that life expectancies will continue to increase, but at a lower rate than was previously predicted.

Does this correction mean anything to you?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 11:46:29 AM by Kasandra »

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #79 on: December 12, 2016, 08:09:40 AM »
Honestly I'm confused by it.  But I can understand that the life expectancy rates can fluctuate and people can't predict all the variables. That's fine.

But are you suggesting then that Obamacare really is saving 45,000 lives every year that would have been lost without it?


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #80 on: December 12, 2016, 09:10:57 AM »
If you care about the proof that article implies, here's what Snopes says about it:
Quote
The change in the estimate of life expectancy presented here stems from the fact that its prediction a year earlier was based on what looked to be — but turned out not to be — a trend toward increasing improvements in mortality rates across the country. The change reported in this new study results from tempering that earlier projection. However, life expectancies are still expected to rise across the board, just at a slower rate than was predicted in 2015.

In other words, it was predicted that life expectancies would increase more than they did, so the new estimates reflect a more accurate prediction that life expectancies will continue to increase, but at a lower rate than was previously predicted.

Does this correction mean anything to you?

I'm going to have to class that one as questionable, even though it is Snopes.

There are several different "life expectancy" numbers that float around out there. The specific one that just dropped this year is allegedly pegged to the mortality statistics for the previous year. Which is also why it is sometime referred to as "Life Expectancy at the time of birth" because that was, on average, how old people were already living to be when you were born.

But this goes back to lies, damned lies, and statistics. The "Life Expectancy" number is a statistic, and as such, it can be interpreted, and generated, by a wide range of various means.

The really fun one is checking your life expectancy against how old you already are, if/when you can find that number.

In an odd twist, the older you get, the higher the number generally becomes(ignoring any personal medical issues, speaking of the demographic as a whole), which obviously isn't to say you will actually live to see that ever rising number. Because it gets really simple, due to infant mortality rates, and childhood illness, your odds of living to be 70(life expectancy) once you turn 10 is much higher than your odds were when you were born. Because you managed to live through the maladies of infancy and early childhood. Likewise, your numbers improve as a 20 year old, because you survived adolescence. Living to see 30 would see another upward tick, as you're still alive. 40 will see it go up yet again, as will every decade mark there after. Ie. Someone who already is 85 years old right now has a much better (statistical) chance of living to see 90 than a 20 year old does. Simply because everything that could kill that 20 year old in the intervening 65 years didn't kill the 85 year old.

But to frame this in a more historical context: There is the notorious claim that the average life expectancy way back when was in the low 30's. Even though plenty of people were living to be much older than that(with plenty of 60, 70, 80, and even 90 year-olds being recorded). The reason for the low life expectancy number was due to the high risk of an early death due to other factors. In particular during infancy and childhood. So while a newborn may have had a life expectancy in the low 30's, someone who actually lived to see their 30's, even way back in history, had great odds of making it into their 60's or beyond. It just happens that the particular effect in question isn't quite so pronounced now today.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #81 on: April 25, 2019, 07:38:08 PM »
Quote
A CBO report released the same day as the Mueller report found the number of uninsured Americans has increased from 27.5 million to 28.9 million over the last two years. According to the CBO, the jump is largely the result of the sharp increase in premiums over the same time period.

Can’t blame Republicans:

Quote
It’s notable that these declines in coverage are happening even though Republicans were unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act — and all before the repeal of the requirement to carry health insurance took effect (that provision only kicked in at the start of 2019). The rising uninsured rate is happening at a moment when, on paper, Obamacare looks a lot like it did under President Obama.


Quote
All of the increase in the uninsured over the past two years — all of it — is the result of the massive rate increases Obamacare’s mandates and regulations caused. According to the Health and Human Services Dept., premiums in the individual insurance market doubled from 2013 to 2017. They shot up again in 2018.

For those eligible for Obamacare subsidies, the rate increases were meaningless. The amount they had to pay didn’t change much, and in many cases went down.

But for the millions of middle-class Americans who buy insurance coverage on the individual market and aren’t eligible for Obamacare subsidies, the result has been financially devastating.

So, no surprise for any thinking person, it was predictable and predicted.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2019, 08:46:17 AM »
Obama Man Bad

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2019, 08:53:34 AM »
Oh, that's sad. You gotta get your own catchphrase, don't steal others. Lame.

Also, please note that the post addresses the ACA, not Obama, and deals with a CBO report with actual numbers. If you're gonna steal a catchphrase, at least use it right. ::)

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2019, 09:56:14 AM »
Quote
don't steal others. Lame.

Aren't you stealing the adding of words like 'Lame' from your criticism from Trump.
Everyday you sound more and more like him.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2019, 12:24:11 PM »
WRONG!   ;D

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2019, 12:26:17 PM »
How about why this is valid today. Because of Joe Biden:

Quote
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential platform announced Thursday the desire to “build upon” Obamacare, not Medicare for All, and ensure access to “quality, affordable” health care.

Biden is a front runner for the Dem nomination, he wants to take the ACA even further. Since it doubled premiums and has forced so many off their insurance, I can't see how that's a good thing.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2019, 01:16:15 PM »
Biden should spend his golden years relaxing and out of politics.
He can't beat Trump

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2019, 02:42:50 PM »
Biden should spend his golden years relaxing and out of politics.

And away from young girls.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2019, 04:32:21 PM »
How does the rate of the rate increases compare to pre-Obamacare days?  It is a similar percentage, higher or lower?