A baby is condemned to death by socialized medicine

gwb-trading said:
The article with links provides lots of data. Are you also attempting to claim the USA Today article is biased. Or are the Obamacare premium increase maps also biased.
More...

Two things, it's an op-ed from a biased perspective, people like that are good with manipulating and ommitting data that doesn't' fit their narrative which is why I always try to rely on non-partisan or neutral sources. Kaiser is one of the, Brookings is too.

Second, nobody is denying the premium increases, the question is whether they are 'extraordinary'.
 
exGOPer said:
Two things, it's an op-ed from a biased perspective, people like that are good with manipulating and ommitting data that doesn't' fit their narrative which is why I always try to rely on non-partisan or neutral sources. Kaiser is one of the, Brookings is too.

Second, nobody is denying the premium increases, the question is whether they are 'extraordinary'.
More...

Are you suddenly no longer denying the increases after Obamacare are much greater than before Obamacare.

Well good, we are making some progress when you acknowledge the truth.
 
gwb-trading said:
Are you suddenly no longer denying the increases after Obamacare are much greater than before Obamacare.
More...

But that's not true, I pointed to NON-PARTISAN evidence citing the opposite.

Pre-ACA the increases averaged 31%

Post-ACA the increases averaged 20%. That average doesn't mean that mean that some plans didn't saw higher increases than the average. Even your Forbes link acknowledged that for employer plans, the rates increased much slowly.
 
exGOPer said:
Two things, it's an op-ed from a biased perspective, people like that are good with manipulating and ommitting data that doesn't' fit their narrative which is why I always try to rely on non-partisan or neutral sources. Kaiser is one of the, Brookings is too.
More...

Well the Forbes article cities Brookings and other sources. Of most interest in the summary paragraph they the author cites a "rigorous 2014 Brookings study, that come to opposite conclusions". -- You can read the 79 page Brookings study which supports the author's assertions.
 
exGOPer said:
But that's not true, I pointed to NON-PARTISAN evidence citing the opposite.

Pre-ACA the increases averaged 31%

Post-ACA the increases averaged 20%. That average doesn't mean that mean that some plans didn't saw higher increases than the average. Even your Forbes link acknowledged that for employer plans, the rates increased much slowly.
More...

Well good... then you better go read Brookings in-depth reports and all the economists at universities who studied the cost increases in detail.
 
gwb-trading said:
Well the Forbes article cities Brookings and other sources. Of most interest in the summary paragraph they the author cites a "rigorous 2014 Brookings study, that come to opposite conclusions". -- You can read the 79 page Brookings study which supports the authors assertions.
More...

He is using the 2014 Brookings study (that fits his narrative) while ignoring/trying to disprove the 2016 Brookings study that doesn't fit his narrative. Partisanship doesn't get more obvious than that.

Let's just ditch his analysis and stick to Kaiser as we know that they don't have an agenda unlike the Heritage guy.
 
exGOPer said:
He is using the 2014 sBrookings tudy (that fits his narrative) while ignoring the 2016 Brookings study that doesn't fit his narrative.

Let's just ditch his analysis and stick to Kaiser as we know that they don't have an agenda unlike the Heritage guy.
More...

Please post a link to an in-depth 2016 Brookings study that does support the author's narrative.

I very much believe Kaiser has an agenda as well. You may want to note that the Kaiser think-tank is tied at the hip to the medical insurance company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top