GruberCare

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
health care costs are steady, and premiums overall have not gone up 20% by any metric whatsoever.

that was a pathetic attempt at deception, even for you.
Click to expand...
I was simply replying to someone that knows and just said he got a 20% increase. This slip is pretty stupid, even for you. :)
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
In 2009, during the height of the debate over Obamacare, the law’s architect, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, was all over the op-ed pages, talking about how the bill would reduce the cost of health insurance. “What we know for sure,” he told Ezra Klein, “is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.” His words were trumpeted by the law’s advocates, and were critical to persuading skittish Democrats to vote for the bill. But it turns out that “for sure” doesn’t mean what you thought it did. Because, now, Gruber is quietly telling state governments that the law will significantly increase the cost of insurance. And it will especially do so for young Americans: the ones who most struggle to find affordable health coverage.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...young-workers/

Naturally, Gruber’s leads with a smiley face, noting for the umpteenth time that the law is expected to increase health insurance coverage; approximately 340,000 of the state’s residents are expected to gain insurance coverage by 2016. Of course, about 170,000 of the newly covered will be shuffled into Medicaid, a program that’s wrecking state budgets and providing, at best, uncertain health benefits. Meanwhile expanding the state’s health insurance coverage will come at a significant cost to hundreds of thousands of individuals, especially within the individual market, where the law has the greatest effect. Gruber projects that the average individual market health insurance premium will cost about 30 percent more than if ObamaCare had never passed. For most individual market enrollees, the average premium increase will be even higher: 87 percent of the individual market is projected to see a premium price increase of 41 percent.
Click to expand...
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/06/wh...-backers-in-wi

The second was a report written for your home state government Chesus. I bet it still doesn't stop you from repeating shit about the ACA that isn't close to true though.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...young-workers/


http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/06/wh...-backers-in-wi

The second was a report written for your home state government Chesus. I bet it still doesn't stop you from repeating shit about the ACA that isn't close to true though.
Click to expand...

you don't have to rely on what ifs and projections anymore. obamacare has been on the exchanges for two years now, and these are the facts:

*health care costs for the nation as a whole have been steady, something not seen in decades.
*health care premiums are going up at a slower rate than they have in decades. obamacare has slowed the increase of premiums.
*health care insurers are spending less on administrative costs and more on actual care now.
*obamacare costs less than it was projected to cost.
*obamacare is covering more people than it was projected to cover.
*medicare is now set to last longer than it was before obamacare was passed

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/08/health-care-costs-are-holding-relatively-steady-for-now/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/03/health-care-spending-projections-obamacare-aging/15025709/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/18/the-obamacare-provision-that-terrifies-insurers/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/14/lower-premiums-yes-really-drive-down-obamacares-expected-costs-cbo-says/
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/cbo-obamacare-will-cover-more-people-at-a-lower-cost-than-we-expected/360633/

these are the facts.
 
Thecouchlock

Thecouchlock

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Only far left looney types are allowed to have pictures in their signatures. You seem to be more politically aligned to the center, so that means you are actually a racist republican.
Click to expand...
Damnit, I will change it right now before someone gets cranky skanky on my panky.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
In today’s testimony, Gruber offered a new explanation, saying that what he meant when he made the remarks in 2012 was that he wasn’t confident the federal government would set up an exchange; if the federal government didn’t build a fallback, then that would mean that states choosing not to build their own would lose access to tax credits. In the prepared version of his testimony, he puts it like this: "The point I believe I was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason, might not create a federal exchange."

Finally, Gruber admitted that he has come up with this explanation for what he must have been meant entirely after the fact. While "thinking about how I could have made that statement, I believe that’s what I had in mind," he said today. This is an explicit admission that he’s rationalizing his prior statement in order to fit with what he now believes.
Click to expand...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/jo...e-for-his#fold
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top