mets, please respond

There's a bunch of different research reaching various conclusions and I haven't put the amount of effort into reading all of it that would be required, but I think roughly you can say about the ACA that

1) It was way more successful at expanding access than slowing cost growth, although it's important that it was successful at expanding access by shielding individuals from that cost growth via subsidies and medicaid expansion, and that's still a good thing imo.

2) It caused a dramatic increase in premiums on the individual market, but that's in large part because it put into place regulations that made it illegal to sell really cheap plans that didn't actually provide much coverage. Basically, premiums went up a lot because providers were now providing actual coverage, and to a great many more people, since a lot of previously uninsurable people could now enroll.

So it's somewhat problematic to try to gauge success purely in terms of measurements of premiums, especially in the individual market, where the entire market was changed dramatically. But it's also still true though that we have a big problem with the trendlines on costs and the ACA wasn't successful in addressing that problem.

Partly I think that just reflects the fact that it's provisions are more aimed at expanding coverage than reducing costs, and probably necessarily so. I'm not sure how a scheme like the ACA could dramatically impact costs in the way a single payer system could.

(addendum: I seem to recall seeing at least some research that premium growth slowed slightly in the employer market after the ACA, for a couple of years, but I'm not sure if that was because of ACA or other factors, and I've seen others disputing those findings, so ???)

I don't even think it's a talking point.

There are literally two people I've ever heard say that the electoral college favors Democrats: Trump, and now Mets.

Factors contributing to Trump victory:

1. anti-establishment messaging
(a) RWNJ's marshaled in support of DJT
(b) LWNJ's flight from HRC

2. hamstrung Voting Rights Act - disproportionately affected traditionally left-leaning social groups

3. electoral college system

4. russian "interference"

5. growing idiocracy (anti-intellectualism, politics-as-entertainment, disconcern for others)

in 2012 i had to buy insurance for myself. i did through aetna. i had 10 dollar co-pays good coverage. i got a 300 dollar stipend from my job to buy insurance, and it was more than enough. my insurance was 270 so i bought i cheap dental plan for 30 dollars.

what has changed since then?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cd05b75f0566

One aspect of healthcare costs that gets very little attention is the role of "adjustments" in billing.

Private insurers, like Medicare/Medicaid, contract with healthcare providers for "allowable" rates on services.

A $15,000 hospital bill will probably be reduced to $2,000 - $6,000, depending on the plan. Anyone making a serious inquiry (one not for the purposes of confirming a preconceived position) into "healthcare costs" needs to bear in mind the statistics they are looking at may reflect the "billed" amount, not the "allowed" or "adjusted" amount.

The post-adjustment amount is the figure that is actually paid for the care.



Complicating the "cost" figure further, health insurance plans include wildly varying co-pays and deductibles, which further reduces the "cost" to the consumer.

the biggest "problem" with the system is small states do get over represented and at this point it probably helps republicans but it didnt always.

there have been 5 presidents that didnt win the popular vote, and only 2 in the past 130 years so it is mostly moot anyway

right hillary not campaigning in wisconsin and michigan is the biggest reason, but you ignore that

russia hasnt been shown to influence one vote

trump getting the independent vote because of hillarys deplorable comment, which was the turning point that you dont want to admit, isnt on your list either

Because "2 of the last 5 elections" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I agree with most of this post, and you even conclude that it made reasonable insurance illegal and cause rates to skyrocket

i agree it got more people insured but that wasnt my argument

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/top-...n-dollars.html

https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/new...are/index.html

So, what's changed is the amount your insurance company is ripping you off for. This has precisely jack **** to do with Obamacare.

The Economist projects that in order to win house majority in the fall, the Democrats will need to win by 7 points in order to have a 50% chance

lol faux democracies

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2...over-democrats
^Soft paywall, should count against a limit of free articles

Siding with sexism, racism, and rampant corruptionto PWNZ the libs!! The turning point.

Do you think it's important to unify these reasons with Trump's upset in the primary or are they different things?

538

They didn't try or they weren't effective?

Hillary says "Trump supporters are deplorable" (not exactly, but arguendo); people who don't then support Trump say "hey, that's mean, I'm now going to support Trump". How does this make sense?

The only ones that don't apply there are the electoral college and the voting rights act.

Otherwise, I think they map pretty well (anti-establishmentism & idiocracy). Not sure about Russia, although there is certainly motive & opportunity.

Mets, you continue to ignore Kokiri's post about Trump's history and representations.

Why is that?

Not only "not exactly", it's not even close to what she said or meant with her speech where she first used the term "deplorables". But of course no one on the right actually listened to or read the speech.

(See also: Nancy Pelosi's "have to pass it so you know what's in it")

I think some of you don't understand psychology

When you imply that anyone who supports trump is racist and vile, someone who is considering voting for him that doesn't believe he is those things is insulted and you made their decision. The self righteousness.

Eye keeps acting like i don't get the context of the deplorable comment

So yes she's only referring to 25% of the country not 50

Basically

We are the self righteousness moral majority
We claim to be the tolerant left but 25% of the population is irredeamable scum
And you should only be offended if you are part of that 25%

Do i understand it now eyebooger?


What great purpose did the statement serve sir?

Basically the only problematic part of that quote is the word half. There's really no doubt that there is a substantial portion of Trump's core constituency that is alarmingly racist, and that they support him because of his racist rhetoric and actions, and not in spite of it.

Of course there's plenty of gradations of vileness or moral culpability in people's prejudices, not every one is literally a neo-nazi. So generalizations are only so useful, but people who support Trump but feel unfairly maligned by accusations of racism are definitely missing the forest for the trees. Trump is a xenophobic, hateful, racist running on an explicit platform of xenophobia and racism. If someone doesn't want to be associated with that sort of thing then they ought to rethink their support.

I never ever said i respect trump as a man

I said people ought to rethink their political support for him, and that goes regardless of how much they claim to respect him or not.

1. Trump didn't come across as self-righteous?

2. You seem to be acknowledging that Trump said/did racist and vile things. Is it really a stretch to say that people who support him also support what he says and does? What is he if not the sum of his actions?