Reply With Quote
They skyrocketed in the wake of Obamacare getting passed and in the months leading to the implementation. They weren't skyrocketing before that. I know what I saw and experienced.
You can hang your hat on fake stats. I wouldn't expect you to not do so in this instance, tbh.
They skyrocketed in the wake of Obamacare getting passed and in the months leading to the implementation. They weren't skyrocketing before that. I know what I saw and experienced.
and your belief that the stats are fake comes from your personal anecdotal evidence
Again, the argument isn’t about feels or anecdotes. And, again also, the healthcare equation isn’t just about premiums. People that didn’t have insurance would end up in a hospital, which would in turn bill the government for it. So you were still paying for that even if it wasn’t reflected in your premium.
This isn’t a defense of Obamacare, but what was before was simply much worse. Not only it segregated a good chunk of people that needed care the most, it didn’t control costs either, pricing out most people or straight up bankrupting them.
Perhaps even worse, it perpetrated that ‘choice’ was a codeword for substandard care.
And my survey of the market at that time. Your belief comes from you'll take whatever fake stats the establishment puts piping hot on your plate.
It's not feels or anecdotes. I took the temperature of the market. It's not at all what blakehole purports. And the bought and paid for media had no interest in doing their jobs. This is why Trump won. It wasn't because Obamacare "was actually an improvement".
That is literally the textbook definition of what you have here, anecderp
Not at all. I studied prices; they were all skyrocketing. The only thing I didn't do was do ent it for future ST discussion; sorry but that was never a priority, cuck.
This is an oxymoron.
What you ‘studied’ wholly involves you, thus it’s an anecdote. Present your study so it can be peer reviewed and compared to other peer reviewed studies. You don’t get to say it’s right coz you did it.
Astronomic rate increases everywhere I looked. You and Lite are good examples of why fake news works.
Yeah where "you" looked. That's an anecdote. You're an idiot.
Did you miss the astronomic part? Did you miss the part that there are articles on this happening to others?
Sorry, but your is FAKE NEWS.
Oh "astronomic"! That means it's not an anecdote now!
Seriously, nobody can have a discussion with you because you don't understand simple terms and simple logic.
Get back to work on researching me.
Plenty of stuff out there about people's rates more than tripling.
It's your fake news, anecderp. You're literally re ed.Plenty of stuff out there about people's rates more than tripling.
Simple math; if plenty of people are having there rates double and triple, then the idea that rate increases are decreasing is preposterous.
Cucks like their very fake news, though. I don't blame you for being who you are, dude.
It's not personal, it's just that "I saw this" is not a representative sample of anything. Come on son, this isn't too difficult.
You can hate Barrycare all you want, and you can opine that it's worse than what was there before, both valid opinions, but what amounts to "trust me" is not a counter argument, especially since outside of the claim that "I've studied it", there's really no authority in that claim.
And, again, there's a number of measuring sticks for how 'good' a given healthcare system is: affordability, access, coverage, quality of care, etc. Drawing conclusions from just one prong is misleading at best, IMO.
When you say premiums for those already covered went up, ok, that's very likely, but we also added up a lot of people that were deemed uninsurable before (access), families subsidized who could now get insurance (affordability), a more robust baseline coverage that didn't require extra expensive riders (coverage), all the while quality of care remaining just about the same.
Your position is actually a great example of why Fake News work. If you're legitimately interested in the topic, you would take the time to inform yourself, come up with facts when having this discussion, and backup material. It's both intellectually honest, and a great way to reflect on our own prejudices by actively challenging them. Fake News festers on ignorance and ideologues.
I've posted extensively about my dislike for ACA, even all the way back when it was voted, not going to rehash that here, posts are available for those that want to look.
Lite mentioned statistics. If there's stories out there of people's rates tripling, then what do you think the odds are of rate increases decreasing? Come on now.
I do hate that scam. It tripled my rates while giving no additional value. You seem to shrug it off and pretend I'm crazy cos it doesn't fit the propaganda you're slurping. It's cool by me though; to each his own.
representative sample
Jesus, derp. Ask you mom what this means.
SR21 is correct in pointing out that, statistically, anecdotes are irrelevant. You're also stuck in rates, and you keep saying "double-triple!" but continue to provide zero foundation for it. "I heard it on Fox N Friends" is not evidence of anything. Let's look at some of the numbers, where they come from, what they measure, etc. IIRC, at least Winehole provided the study with source and everything.
I hate it with a passion too, but for different reasons. The real risk is pretending that what was before it was any better, because then we fall back into the same trap. It wasn't. Services and drugs were just as expensive, it excluded or priced out a ton of people, it bankrupted families, it allowed policies with substandard care. Talk about a scam.
FWIW, Medical tourism, the topic in the OP, predates Barrycare by a good amount of years. Bloated healthcare prices in the US are nothing new, and nothing that the ACA really addressed. It's unsurprising to see it continue. Potentially even grow, because we're still not addressing costs.
Not really. I'm not a statistician; but there were advanced problems based upon sort of a reverse-engineering where you'd be given the variations or "anomalies" and you'd have to calculate the probability of a mean being in a certain range. Sorry, but the odds of having a situation where rates are tripling and the overall rates still decreasing on the average is pretty much unheard of. You're subscribing to FAKE NEWS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions