Metsfanmax wrote:
I'm literally doing that right now. So will you provide me with some sources of projections that you think are generally accurate?
It is well known that macroeconomic forecasts are very rarely ever correct. You should look into exactly how Obama came up with the "every family making under $250,000 a year will see a decrease of $2,500 in premiums" and why that turned out to be so wrong.
That's some funny stuff there.
But you can always look to Forbes, Cato institute and plenty of other places to look.
Even common sense should help you a bit. How can you pass a law saying no pre existing conditions can be turned down, (guaranteed issue) and that sick people can't be charged more than healthy people (community rating) <ha!> and other increased regulation but expect that there won't be a dramatic increase in premiums?
But even that would be all ok if only the law and the lawmakers had been honest from the get go, which they were not in the slightest. The ACA was sold on lies, half truths and projections that can't be considered accurate or even trustworthy just due to the complexity of the issues.
There is nothing wrong with saying "look, we are trying to work out ways to make it more efficient and less costly but it's complex model and such estimates are difficult to project with accuracy". Then it's best to be presented with best case- worst case. Instead the ACA was sold with all the promises that are hoped for but the costs are either ignored, hidden or outright lied about.
Everyone wants healthcare to be cheaper, better and all the other things we'd all like to see. But using deception, bait and switch and maybe even outright lying is not the way to do it. I'd hope no one would dispute the shady way the ACA was conducted and passed and then changed over and over and over. By proven liars no less. (Basically politicians are liars, they kinda gotta be as a job requirement).
That's why there are people like PS and NS who scoff outright outright at Obama and the ACA (with good reason I'd add) to people like TGD who scratch their head and know that there is something shady going on and are taking everything with a grain of salt (with good reason I'd add).
Then there are the true believers who were unfortunate enough to take Obama at his word and it keeps coming to light time and time again that he was either mistaken, misinformed or possibly even lying about a lot of the ACA.
There is plenty of such going on from all sides to be sure, but one thing is for certain, if the government puts out a report saying the sky is blue there is no reason to fault anyone for actually going outside to see if it really is blue.
That's how far the credibility of the government is shot with a lot of people. And all with good reason.
But I suppose it all really comes down to who is getting their mule skinned. If one is getting a better deal than they had before they are happy, no matter who it is that ends up paying. Those getting the raw end of the stick (and there are people who are) they aren't so happy.
One can say the premise of the ACA is good, and it may well be. But the execution, no, that dog don't fly at all, best intentions be damned. The Devil's in the details and the details ain't looking good at all. Time will tell one way or another. I'd certainly like to see improvement, but from my point of view the true problems are not even addressed in the slightest so the chances of anything good are extremely slim, IMO.
You can't address the costs of something if the something used to measure those costs (currency) is forever being devalued day after day. That's the absolute foundation upon which all the costs are based on, the vehicle upon which those costs are measured. If that vehicle has dire issues in and of itself those issues transfer into everything denominated by that vehicle.
It's all about the money and foundations built on sand. Fix that first then we might actually have a chance to fix other things, but that issue is never ever looked at because, frankly, it's too scary to contemplate.
