Obama's numbers. What say you?

[Paendragon]

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/04/ObamasNumbersApril2.png

This should be nice and peaceful . . .

 

[Busybody]

compared to what?

 

[Setanta84]

Issues as complex as healthcare and the labor market are never going to be justly depicted in a single figure or graphic.

With the number of people insured rising, it's intellectually dishonest to hold that up as "proof" that opponents of the ACA were wrong.

Nobody to the left of the Tea Party suggested it wouldn't increase the rolls of insurance companies. That's pretty much the one and only thing it was designed to do.

Rather, being familiar with the US' for-profit health care industry and the results of private exchanges in that marketplace--mainly in MA--the concern was whether insurance would actually increase access to quality care.

In MA it didn't. Medical bankruptcies never declined in MA--which makes promises a federal version of it would do it when that data was in seem even more cynical--the basic problems of hospitals being overcrowded and understaffed weren't addressed by it, addressing the lack of GPs to keep people up to date in health exams and treatments and keep them out of the ER didn't happen, and the insurance companies used the configuration of networks to screw the consumer by making it unnecessarily hard to use the plans they had been forced to buy.

All of this is also true of the ACA. It's why, contrary to what the White House was telling people in 2009 and 2010, the bill has not become more popular since implementation. People get they are being screwed harder than ever by the insurance companies now.

The only part of the ACA that is worthwhile is the expansion of Medicaid and undoing some of the violence Bush did to Medicare. And those parts of it are actually popular.

However, if Barry and his friends John, Paul, and Pete get their way, those golden kernels of corn in the heap of corporatist/fascist shit that is the ACA will go away when the Grand Bargain happens.

With the labor market, those factoids fail to point out that the working and middle classes--and even the lower to middle tiers of the upper middle class--never recovered from the recession, that 9 cents out of every dime generated by the "recovery" went to the richest Americans because of how heavy it was skewed towards subsidies for industry and fucking tax breaks, and that the job market is still shit.

Job security just does not exist anymore, most of the jobs "created or saved" are fucking part-time service industry jobs that pay minimum wage or less depending on the state, and employers are also using the desperation of the workforce to abuse the fuck out of independent contractor designations to both skirt basic employee protections and tax liability.

Working people and religious and ethnic minorities--i.e. everyone outside of the elite donor class--have actually lost ground under the Obama administration.

 

[Busybody]

compared to what?

 

[miles]

compared to what?

The economy sucks. Labor force participation is at an all time low. The Fraud dumps on our allies and coddles our enemies. Russia is out of control. The Middle East is on fire. The federal deficit is at an all time high. The country is more divided than ever.

Should I continue?

 

[miles]

compared to what?

No information types love that shit.

 

[Busybody]

numbers in and of themselves mean nothing

COMPARED TO WHAT?

 

[Paendragon]

To clarify, these numbers are in comparison to what the numbers were on the day he took office. Yes, I know it says that on the bottom of the chart, but some people won't read the whole thing . . . nor click the link.

 

[Busybody]

To clarify, these numbers are in comparison to what the numbers were on the day he took office. Yes, I know it says that on the bottom of the chart, but some people won't read the whole thing . . . nor click the link.

yes

we know

means NOTHING....unless you show us the SAME RATE of growth or not for the same categories for OTHER TIME FRAMES

 

[Busybody]

To clarify, these numbers are in comparison to what the numbers were on the day he took office. Yes, I know it says that on the bottom of the chart, but some people won't read the whole thing . . . nor click the link.

this didn't answer the question, PANTY GRAM

it was merely an attempt to show how SMART you are and how DUMB we are

try agin

 

[miles]

yes

we know

means NOTHING....unless you show us the SAME RATE of growth or not for the same categories for OTHER TIME FRAMES

Discussing facts with no-info types is like talking to a blank wall.

 

[RobDownSouth]

<snip>
Rather, being familiar with the US' for-profit health care industry and the results of private exchanges in that marketplace--mainly in MA--the concern was whether insurance would actually increase access to quality care.

In MA it didn't. Medical bankruptcies never declined in MA--which makes promises a federal version of it would do it when that data was in seem even more cynical--the basic problems of hospitals being overcrowded and understaffed weren't addressed by it, addressing the lack of GPs to keep people up to date in health exams and treatments and keep them out of the ER didn't happen, and the insurance companies used the configuration of networks to screw the consumer by making it unnecessarily hard to use the plans they had been forced to buy.

All of this is also true of the ACA.

Setanta84, a lying son of a whore, is comparing apples to oranges.

Under Romneycare, things like caps and coverage limits still existed (i.e. hospital bills capped at $150,000...you're responsible for the rest).

This resulted in a number of people who rang up million dollar hospital stays to still be on the hook for the remaining $850,000.

This limit was removed by the ACA.

Setanta84 is a lying son of a whore.

 

[Busybody]

Tell us

Panty Gram. ...compared to what

 

[Setanta84]

Setanta84, a lying son of a whore, is comparing apples to oranges.

Under Romneycare, things like caps and coverage limits still existed (i.e. hospital bills capped at $150,000...you're responsible for the rest).

This resulted in a number of people who rang up million dollar hospital stays to still be on the hook for the remaining $850,000.

This limit was removed by the ACA.

Setanta84 is a lying son of a whore.

Look up medical bankruptcy rates in the US since implementation if you don't believe me. Removing the cap doesn't make care magically affordable, especially if you have to get emergency treatment outside of your assigned provider network.

 

[Busybody]

So, axed a legit question. ..Ole Panty Gram runs away

 

[RobDownSouth]

Look up medical bankruptcy rates in the US since implementation if you don't believe me. Removing the cap doesn't make care magically affordable, especially if you have to get emergency treatment outside of your assigned provider network.

You can slice and dice your anecdata any way you like it, Setanta84 the lying son of a whore, but at the end of the day, Obamacare is doing what it was designed to do: reduce the number of uninsured people in America.

So fuck you.

 

[Setanta84]

You can slice and dice your anecdata any way you like it, Setanta84 the lying son of a whore, but at the end of the day, Obamacare is doing what it was designed to do: reduce the number of uninsured people in America.

So fuck you.

Yes, it is designed to increase rolls for insurers. We both agree on this.

What you don't understand is the concept of being "underinsured" and how it applies to this particular law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

compared to what?

Apparently, those figures are as compared with the figures when Obama took office, and things were at a low ebb. There has been a recovery, but it has been one of the slowest in history

 

[Busybody]

Apparently, those figures are as compared with the figures when Obama took office, and things were at a low ebb. There has been a recovery, but it has been one of the slowest in history

I want to see comporable figures for other time frames

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, it is designed to increase rolls for insurers. We both agree on this.

What you don't understand is the concept of being "underinsured" and how it applies to this particular law.

^^^^^
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/ocare_zps3c584320.jpg

I understand the ACA better than you, chum.
I also understand that the ACA did away with those pseudo-insurance plans that offered an illusion of medical coverage.
I also understand that you are now moving the goalpost from "uninsured" to "underinsured"....bu I don't mind because I can smack you down in either arena.

So keep that anecdata and carefully cherry-picked factoids a-coming.

 

[Setanta84]

^^^^^
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/ocare_zps3c584320.jpg

I understand the ACA better than you, chum.
I also understand that the ACA did away with those pseudo-insurance plans that offered an illusion of medical coverage.
I also understand that you are now moving the goalpost from "uninsured" to "underinsured"....bu I don't mind because I can smack you down in either arena.

So keep that anecdata and carefully cherry-picked factoids a-coming.

I never questioned it insured people, I said there is a difference between being insured and having true access to care, which there is and anyone actually versed in the issues will tell you. Bless your heart, reading just doesn't seem to be your thing.

Also, if you think the ACA did away with shitty plans, I have a bridge to sell you.

The fact that you think this while living in Texas, which doesn't even participate in the good parts of the law, tells me you either have little to no experience dealing with the health care system in this country or you're "special" even by Texas standards.

 

[miles]

Throb, STFU.

Racist douche.

 

[Busybody]

So, axed a legit question. ..Ole Panty Gram runs away

Where is panty granny. ..why is she hiding?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I never questioned it insured people, I said there is a difference between being insured and having true access to care, which there is and anyone actually versed in the issues will tell you. Bless your heart, reading just doesn't seem to be your thing.

Also, if you think the ACA did away with shitty plans, I have a bridge to sell you.

The fact that you think this while living in Texas, which doesn't even participate in the good parts of the law, tells me you either have little to no experience dealing with the health care system in this country or you're "special" even by Texas standards.

Great non-answers. The ACA did away with the vast majority of substandard coverage plans. Yes, there are a few left that stayed under the radar, and you're attempting to use 100% as the pass/fail bar because you're desperate to "prove" the ACA is somehow failing, when all evidence points to the contrary.

You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit that the ACA has succeeded.

Throb, STFU.

Racist douche.

You're welcome to try and shut me up anytime, asswipe.

Your children should all die in a fire....with you close enough to hear their last screams.
I heard another good Hebrew curse yesterday in addition to the one I traditionally bless your family with: "May you shit every three minutes or every three months".

 

[Setanta84]

Great non-answers. The ACA did away with the vast majority of substandard coverage plans. Yes, there are a few left that stayed under the radar, and you're attempting to use 100% as the pass/fail bar because you're desperate to "prove" the ACA is somehow failing, when all evidence points to the contrary.

You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit that the ACA has succeeded.

Translation: Blah, blah, Bob Law, Bob Law's Law Blog, sure, I overstated some things and got others plain wrong because I'm a partisan hack who doesn't think for myself but let's make this about you.

The reality is if the measure of success for the ACA is successfully using the law to help an unsustainable industry feeding off of the misery of Americans extract rent from the American taxpayer, then, sure, it's a wild success.

If the measure of success is whether or not it actually made receiving health care more affordable, which is the goal stated in the name of the fucking act, then it's not a success, no.

Only a single-payer system or a system that actually regulates private providers strictly and creates a single pool of patients to bargain with--like the Northern European countries do--is going to solve the affordability issue.

Put in another way, as long as the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are protected by law from competition and regulation by bribes and hospitals are not required to adhere to a standard index of prices for services, and the system in general rewards intensity of care rather than outcomes--i.e. as long as the system is a for-profit model based on billing patients for hours and services priced at the sole discretion of each individual provider--nothing about health care in the US is ever going to be affordable.

Obama went in neither direction and never intended to go in either direction because that would have alienated the lobbyists of the providers. Instead, behind closed doors, he invited those lobbyists to give him a bill and then spent two years trying to figure out how to polish the turd before throwing it on the doorstep of his House and Senate caucuses and telling them to deal with it while he hoarded their money.