"Obamacare"

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.

I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.

He's not the only one.

If that really happened to you, no one should care because you're statistically insignficant.

[star seed 7]

Except it's not nothing 

[chum1]

I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.

I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.

He's not the only one.

If that really happened to you, no one should care because you're statistically insignficant.

Yes, I am certain that there are others who are also statistically insignificant.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't doubt that a small minority of people would have seen their premiums decline.

It's well documented that an overwhelming majority have seen their premiums increase for the same policy with a higher deductible. That is mumped up.

[chum1]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Out of pocket health care costs are going up at about 6% average per year. If you have an average income, it's going up a whole lot more.

[michigancat]

FSD is lying, guys

[sys]

I want a poster with a dood walking on the beach with two sets of footprints behind him, and one of the platitudes drawn in the surf next to him.

i made one of those for jeremy guthrie.  it was really good.

[chum1]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

Other mumped up things:

Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations

These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

Other mumped up things:

Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations

These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.

I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.

[chum1]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

Other mumped up things:

Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations

These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.

I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.

Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

Other mumped up things:

Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations

These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.

 The price of healthcare is only rising about 1.8% per year. Premiums and out of pocket deductables are up 6%. Please post data.

[chum1]

Please post data.

That's a little vague. What do you want to know?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Other mumped up things: Inflation.

Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.

Other mumped up things:

Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations

These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.

I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.

Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.

Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Huh. Even the liberal publications agree that rates are shooting up due to Obamacare.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428.html

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7423912

But I'm just "taking sides." I guess if I was a libtard and was constantly being reminded of my stupidity, if be annoyed, too.

[chum1]

Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.

Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.

When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If I recall correctly, chum is one of those obamacare enrollment facilitator/promoters, so he's just doing his job here.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't like early voting because it allows people to cast votes before campaigns are over. I also don't like the "rock the vote" mills the democrats set up in the inner cities to unethical [and probably illegally] package democrat votes.

I'm unaware of a policy rationale in favor of early voting, other than convenience  [and the aforementioned cheating].

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.

Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.

When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?

I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.

[chum1]

Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.

Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.

When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?

I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.

I think I get it. So, you'd count application of some idea to which you subscribe - something like, "when you give rich people more money, they create more jobs" - as using common sense? That clears things up for me, though I'd personally consider that sort of thing an empirical matter.

[Spracne]

I wish I could vote online, like I file my taxes, do my banking, work and pay bills. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I wish I could vote online, like I file my taxes, do my banking, work and pay bills.

You could easily have 500,000,000 votes cast in a presidential election.

[Headinjun]

I don't like early voting because it allows people to cast votes before campaigns are over. I also don't like the "rock the vote" mills the democrats set up in the inner cities to unethical [and probably illegally] package democrat votes.

I'm unaware of a policy rationale in favor of early voting, other than convenience  [and the aforementioned cheating].

Why is helping people practice their democratic right so unethical?  There's no demand that you vote democrat after you sign up.

[chum1]

I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.

Okay, I read them. They do not address the issue I was discussing: that large premium increases are caused by the ACA, though they do speculate about the possibility. They primarily say that exchange plan premiums may or may not have large increases next year, which addresses a completely different issue and is also thoroughly noncommittal.