Reply With Quote
evidently not
"if it happened to me, it must have been the norm"
What I said ian't inconsistent with your case.
Surely you're aware of the difference between a statistical aggregate and an individual, no?
evidently not
"if it happened to me, it must have been the norm"
Nice one, philo.
Did I ever say my argument was based upon statistical analysis?
The numbers are bull . It was always gonna jump. Obama went from routinely calling healthcare one-sixth of the national economy to twenty percent (one-fifth) right in in the middle of his campaign. His handlers got in his ear and told him straight-up, we're jacking this up, don't undersell it.
It was clear to me that there was a concerted effort to not rock the boat. The newspapers didn't care. My insurance commissioner straight up lied about the matter when I contacted him. I don't want to hear bull about rate increases decreasing (which isn't a stat to brag about in the first place).
if wasn't based on stats. that's why it's not taken seriously. you can either sit there and consider the anecdotes of each of the 300 million people in the US, or you can use statistics to make better decisions
of course it is. its represents an objective improvement to what was the status quo
You think I didn't look at other plans when my rates skyrocketed? They were all jumping. That's how I know that whatever data that blakehole is hanging his hat on is complete and utter bull . You don't think en ies aren't paid to sell bull narratives? It's not like there aren't plenty of stories out there about rates doubling and tripling. Give me a break, philo. You believe what you want to believe.
I got ed over a little less is objective improvement? I honestly don't care either way, cos I know it's bull . Rates skyrocketed. I experienced it firsthand. I don't need to hear some corporate bull that you're clinging to for the sake of your own political expediency.
that would be one anecdote
thats not how data works, and not how decisions are to be made
Data gets manipulated (or outright ignored) all the time, Chump Lite. IIRC, blakehole's source was someone with a vested interest to sell a narrative. I was where the rubber hit the road; I know it's a bull narrative. It just doesn't suit your political narrative is all.
what source are you referring to?
He can post it; I don't save his propaganda.
It was a measurable net positive compared to the previous system, anecdotes notwithstanding. Which is the main reason politicos have a hard time replacing it (as much as conservatives hate Barrycare, it turned out to be fairly popular, considering the sign up numbers).
We’re still talking about a sandwich because due to unchecked escalating costs, it’s just as expensive as the previous system, is still largely tied to employment, etc etc etc
You dont even know what the source is, but you know it's progaganda and somebody with a vested interest to sell a narrative... because it's not favorable to your worldview. Got it.
He posted it a while back in another thread; I made the determination of it being BS at that time.
It was propaganda; cherry-picked #'s if even that. If the numbers were what Blakehole claims, I would've switched plans; they weren't.
its BS because you don't like it
You have no basis to say that. Again, coverage of pre-existing conditions is not arguable. Signup numbers are not arguable either. They’re measurable facts.
Whether your particular premium went up or not is immaterial to the overall argument. We’re not discussing feelings.
derp accuses other of cherry picking while his only "evidence" is his single, lonely cherry.
And saying Barrycare was an upgrade in the overall, doesn’t mean it was good. It wasn’t.
It's BS cos I paid a lot of money, and I know that it's BS.
Of course I do. I checked out the market and saw the skyrocketing rates across the board.
I understand that distinction; but it wasn't an upgrade overall. It was a monumental scam; of course it wasn't an upgrade.
But rates going up the first year doesn’t mean it was worse than previous. It was actually expected, considering you were getting better coverage. Rates alone, however, are not a measure. You got a lot of people that couldn’t enlist before now getting coverage with subsidies, both due to cost and pre-existing conditions.
The idea was that once the pools grew, year to year increases would come down, which is what Winehole correctly mentions that happened (it did). The problem is that the overall costs are too high, and the law did nothing about that.
double post
right. the statistics are BS because of your anecdotal evidence
which is not how the world operates
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
