Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Objectively, I don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean or how you'd ever prove it. Subjectively, it means that you care about one more than the other, but we all knew that already.
|
I'll prove (or disprove) it like this. Compare the cost savings accruing from ACA to date (offsetting the well documented decrease in HC spending since 2008 caused by the financial crisis) to the amount spent to date to provide HC insurance under the ACA to those 30 million new consumers. It's an imperfect measure, but that ratio would be telling.
And stop trying to paint me as a Trump voter. It's quite transparent, and cheesy, particularly coming from someone like you, who obviously knows better. If you could put 46 million people w/o HC insurance, largely because they cannot afford it, onto a plan and create savings for all, I'd happily pay extra taxes for it! What I don't like about the ACA is the fact that it's bullshit, because what I just wrote is impossible. I don't like being told to "embrace complexity" in the numbers because some pack of policy twits think either:
1. They can perform financial alchemy; or,
2. Slide a doomed bill past the goalie because, hey, voters and Congress are pretty stupid.
Voters and Congress are generally not that bright. But in a circle like this one, where we've a few extra brain cells to spare, please - don't try to sell the bullshit that this plan would've created savings in excess of the cost of adding tens of millions of people to the rolls most of whom can barely afford the rent.
The only thing more annoying than being lied to is being lied to badly.
Threaded Mode