Could Obamacare succeed/fail?

[Arkady]

In science, one test for whether something is even a scientific hypothesis is whether the nature of the claim is even falsifiable. To be science, it should be conceivable that, if the hypothesis is wrong, some conceivable experiment or observation could make that clear. Otherwise, it's more like religion.

Extending the same idea, you can judge how scientific your political beliefs are by whether they're falsifiable. For example, if your belief is Obamacare is a good thing, are there any remotely plausible real-world events that could convince you that it was actually a bad thing? And if you think it's a bad thing, could any plausible real-world events change your mind?

This one's pretty easy for me, since I was never a "true believer" either way. I thought Obamacare was a deeply flawed, Republican-style reform, and an absurd Rube Goldberg device, that made little sense in light of all the well-tested socialized systems we could have emulated that are currently working well among other leading nations. But I also figured the pre-Obamacare system was so horrible that the change would probably still be a meaningful improvement. Since I never had a "religious" love or hate for Obamacare, it's really easy to pick out success or failure parameters -- things that would convince me it either was or wasn't a good idea.

Before Obamacare, medical bankruptcies were common and growing, our healthcare costs were the highest in the world and climbing faster than in other major nations, and our public health stats were poor and worsening relative to those of other wealthy nations. So, I'll be convinced Obamacare is a success if at least two out of those trends reverse: medical bankruptcy rates fall, US healthcare costs rise slower than among our peer nations on average, and US public health stats improve faster than among our peer nations on average. And if, instead, at least two out of the three show an acceleration of the pre-Obamacare negative trend, it'll mean Obamacare was a failure.

Five years of post-implementation data should be enough to convince me, assuming the date show something pretty clear, one way or the other. It could take longer, though, if the data lacks clear or consistent trends in either way. Still, if no clear improvement has shown up in ten years, that would be a failure, even without a clear worsening, given how much political capital went into the effort.

So, how about you. Is your belief in favor of or against Obamacare a matter of faith, immune to any conceivable real-world events? Or could you be made to see that you were wrong? What would it take?

 

[bdtex]

In science, one test for whether something is even a scientific hypothesis is whether the nature of the claim is even falsifiable. To be science, it should be conceivable that, if the hypothesis is wrong, some conceivable experiment or observation could make that clear. Otherwise, it's more like religion.

Extending the same idea, you can judge how scientific your political beliefs are by whether they're falsifiable. For example, if your belief is Obamacare is a good thing, are there any remotely plausible real-world events that could convince you that it was actually a bad thing? And if you think it's a bad thing, could any plausible real-world events change your mind?

This one's pretty easy for me, since I was never a "true believer" either way. I thought Obamacare was a deeply flawed, Republican-style reform, and an absurd Rube Goldberg device, that made little sense in light of all the well-tested socialized systems we could have emulated that are currently working well among other leading nations. But I also figured the pre-Obamacare system was so horrible that the change would probably still be a meaningful improvement. Since I never had a "religious" love or hate for Obamacare, it's really easy to pick out success or failure parameters -- things that would convince me it either was or wasn't a good idea.

Before Obamacare, medical bankruptcies were common and growing, our healthcare costs were the highest in the world and climbing faster than in other major nations, and our public health stats were poor and worsening relative to those of other wealthy nations. So, I'll be convinced Obamacare is a success if at least two out of those trends reverse: medical bankruptcy rates fall, US healthcare costs rise slower than among our peer nations on average, and US public health stats improve faster than among our peer nations on average. And if, instead, at least two out of the three show an acceleration of the pre-Obamacare negative trend, it'll mean Obamacare was a failure.

Five years of post-implementation data should be enough to convince me, assuming the date show something pretty clear, one way or the other. It could take longer, though, if the data lacks clear or consistent trends in either way. Still, if no clear improvement has shown up in ten years, that would be a failure, even without a clear worsening, given how much political capital went into the effort.

So, how about you. Is your belief in favor of or against Obamacare a matter of faith, immune to any conceivable real-world events? Or could you be made to see that you were wrong? What would it take?

We don't even have 5 full years of data yet. We've got just shy of 4 yrs,4 mos data. I'm thinking it's gonna take at least another 5 years to really evaluate it. It's gonna go through some tinkering in the next few years too.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

What gives the government (people I pay) the right to dictate I have to buy something that only effects me? You can call it science, I call it tyranny. obamacare is only workable if you can force people to pay into the system.

 

[MaryAnne]

We don't even have 5 full years of data yet. We've got just shy of 4 yrs,4 mos data. I'm thinking it's gonna take at least another 5 years to really evaluate it. It's gonna go through some tinkering in the next few years too.

We really do not have any absolute data yet. Changes are being made all the time. I think you could compare it to designing and building an auto. You tinker with it, as they say until it is almost right.

I read this morning they are not taking away from Medicare Advantage but increasing. This is a program that is working fine. I was notified this morning that if I take 3 preventive tests, cholesterol screening, flu shot and mammogram they would pay me $15 each. I have already had two. But this is what they are now doing. Even reminding you to renew your prescriptions

This is a part of the Wellness program. I am pleased with the changes so far..

 

[MaryAnne]

What gives the government (people I pay) the right to dictate I have to buy something that only effects me? You can call it science, I call it tyranny. obamacare is only workable if you can force people to pay into the system.

You just want to complain. progressive people see it as something we should have had for all years ago. You really do not even know what you are complaining about. All is about you,not the good of all.

 

[drivebyheckler]

What gives the government (people I pay) the right to dictate I have to buy something that only effects me? You can call it science, I call it tyranny. obamacare is only workable if you can force people to pay into the system.

I mean really.... this is basic common sense. Poor Arky is babbling about "science" and trying to act like he's not a card-carrying, full-blooded Obama boot licker. Barack Obama could squat down and take a dump on live TV, and Arky would find a way to commend Obama for it.

This is simple... if it's so awesome, why do people have to be forced?

 

[SW48]

In science, one test for whether something is even a scientific hypothesis is whether the nature of the claim is even falsifiable. To be science, it should be conceivable that, if the hypothesis is wrong, some conceivable experiment or observation could make that clear. Otherwise, it's more like religion.

Extending the same idea, you can judge how scientific your political beliefs are by whether they're falsifiable. For example, if your belief is Obamacare is a good thing, are there any remotely plausible real-world events that could convince you that it was actually a bad thing? And if you think it's a bad thing, could any plausible real-world events change your mind?

This one's pretty easy for me, since I was never a "true believer" either way. I thought Obamacare was a deeply flawed, Republican-style reform, and an absurd Rube Goldberg device, that made little sense in light of all the well-tested socialized systems we could have emulated that are currently working well among other leading nations. But I also figured the pre-Obamacare system was so horrible that the change would probably still be a meaningful improvement. Since I never had a "religious" love or hate for Obamacare, it's really easy to pick out success or failure parameters -- things that would convince me it either was or wasn't a good idea.

Before Obamacare, medical bankruptcies were common and growing, our healthcare costs were the highest in the world and climbing faster than in other major nations, and our public health stats were poor and worsening relative to those of other wealthy nations. So, I'll be convinced Obamacare is a success if at least two out of those trends reverse: medical bankruptcy rates fall, US healthcare costs rise slower than among our peer nations on average, and US public health stats improve faster than among our peer nations on average. And if, instead, at least two out of the three show an acceleration of the pre-Obamacare negative trend, it'll mean Obamacare was a failure.

Five years of post-implementation data should be enough to convince me, assuming the date show something pretty clear, one way or the other. It could take longer, though, if the data lacks clear or consistent trends in either way. Still, if no clear improvement has shown up in ten years, that would be a failure, even without a clear worsening, given how much political capital went into the effort.

So, how about you. Is your belief in favor of or against Obamacare a matter of faith, immune to any conceivable real-world events? Or could you be made to see that you were wrong? What would it take?

It can semi succeed if it doesn't need a bailout and premiums and deductibles rise at a rate similar to the last 10 years.

I can fail if it requires a government bailout.

 

[Renee]

What gives the government (people I pay) the right to dictate I have to buy something that only effects me? You can call it science, I call it tyranny. obamacare is only workable if you can force people to pay into the system.

Do you drive?

 

[Renee]

I mean really.... this is basic common sense. Poor Arky is babbling about "science" and trying to act like he's not a card-carrying, full-blooded Obama boot licker. Barack Obama could squat down and take a dump on live TV, and Arky would find a way to commend Obama for it.

This is simple... if it's so awesome, why do people have to be forced?

And conversely Obama could find the cure for cancer and you would find a way to demean it.

 

[Arkady]

We don't even have 5 full years of data yet. We've got just shy of 4 yrs,4 mos data. I'm thinking it's gonna take at least another 5 years to really evaluate it. It's gonna go through some tinkering in the next few years too.

I'm saying five full years from full implementation, so, at the earliest, April 1 would be the start of year one, in my evaluation. For now, though, the initial signs seem promising.

 

[bdtex]

I'm saying five full years from full implementation, so, at the earliest, April 1 would be the start of year one, in my evaluation. For now, though, the initial signs seem promising.

My bad. I thought you meant 5 years from passage. We're pretty much on the same page then.

 

[Arkady]

What gives the government (people I pay) the right to dictate I have to buy something that only effects me? You can call it science, I call it tyranny. obamacare is only workable if you can force people to pay into the system.

The social contract. That's what creates the right. Millions of your fellow citizens got together and gave a resounding election victory to a man who promised healthcare reform, and they gave him a majority in the House and the Senate to work with. Then the majority of the House and the majority of the Senate both passed a bill that was acceptable to the president, who signed it.

If you don't like it, you're welcome to try to change things by electing different Congress members and a president who will sign a repeal (or a supermajority in the House and Senate so that signature isn't necessary). Until then, you'll buy the product the law says you have to buy, or you'll pay the tax the law says you have to pay, because that's how democracy works. You call it tyranny because you don't like how the process came out. But you had the checks and balances of three separate governmental bodies all having to agree, and then the Supreme Court having to refuse to rule it unconstitutional. Those are checks and balances, so it can't even be said to be the "tyranny of the majority." It's just the political process working itself out. If this is "tyranny" you'd have to say the same of Social Security and Medicare, which also require you to buy into insurance systems. And by extension practically anything one doesn't want to pay for is "tyranny." The word loses all meaning.

 

[Arkady]

I mean really.... this is basic common sense. Poor Arky is babbling about "science" and trying to act like he's not a card-carrying, full-blooded Obama boot licker. Barack Obama could squat down and take a dump on live TV, and Arky would find a way to commend Obama for it.

This is simple... if it's so awesome, why do people have to be forced?

If you can put your twisted Obama poop-fetish and boot-licking fantasies aside for a minute (seriously, you right-wingers have some deep psycho-sexual issues going on), it would be great if you could address the question. Are there any real-world events that could convince you the law was actually a good idea?

 

[trapdoor]

In science, one test for whether something is even a scientific hypothesis is whether the nature of the claim is even falsifiable. To be science, it should be conceivable that, if the hypothesis is wrong, some conceivable experiment or observation could make that clear. Otherwise, it's more like religion.

Extending the same idea, you can judge how scientific your political beliefs are by whether they're falsifiable. For example, if your belief is Obamacare is a good thing, are there any remotely plausible real-world events that could convince you that it was actually a bad thing? And if you think it's a bad thing, could any plausible real-world events change your mind?

This one's pretty easy for me, since I was never a "true believer" either way. I thought Obamacare was a deeply flawed, Republican-style reform, and an absurd Rube Goldberg device, that made little sense in light of all the well-tested socialized systems we could have emulated that are currently working well among other leading nations. But I also figured the pre-Obamacare system was so horrible that the change would probably still be a meaningful improvement. Since I never had a "religious" love or hate for Obamacare, it's really easy to pick out success or failure parameters -- things that would convince me it either was or wasn't a good idea.

Before Obamacare, medical bankruptcies were common and growing, our healthcare costs were the highest in the world and climbing faster than in other major nations, and our public health stats were poor and worsening relative to those of other wealthy nations. So, I'll be convinced Obamacare is a success if at least two out of those trends reverse: medical bankruptcy rates fall, US healthcare costs rise slower than among our peer nations on average, and US public health stats improve faster than among our peer nations on average. And if, instead, at least two out of the three show an acceleration of the pre-Obamacare negative trend, it'll mean Obamacare was a failure.

Five years of post-implementation data should be enough to convince me, assuming the date show something pretty clear, one way or the other. It could take longer, though, if the data lacks clear or consistent trends in either way. Still, if no clear improvement has shown up in ten years, that would be a failure, even without a clear worsening, given how much political capital went into the effort.

So, how about you. Is your belief in favor of or against Obamacare a matter of faith, immune to any conceivable real-world events? Or could you be made to see that you were wrong? What would it take?

My belief, from the beginning was always falsifiable. I said the cost numbers were lies (or at the very least "wrong, and too low") and they've already been shown to be lies (or at the very least "wrong, and too low").

My objection to the "well-tested socialized systems" is two fold. The first is simply that our Constitution makes no provision for such a system (or for this one, when it comes to that). The second was that those socialized systems are going broke all over Europe, especially in the Eurozone countries. In the past, countries like Italy, Spain, France and Greece could cover their economic shortfalls by inflating their currencies. when that option went away, the socialized systems mostly became debits on their books. Greece's economy collapsed entirely. Italy and Spain teetered. France cut services in its much-vaunted cradle-to-grave system. The only successes are Germany (at least at the moment) and the Baltic nations that have relatively small, homogenous societies (and who bear taxes that are politically impossible in the U.S.).

I never wanted the government involved in health care, particularly in a system that was propped up either by inflation or obviously bad numbers -- my hypothesis that the numbers would be bad was always falsifiable, and it has been borne out.

 

[MaryAnne]

When the personal insults start on a good thread you know they have lost.

SW, we will have to wait and see how the kinks get worked out. This has been true of every program created over the years.

Personally,I would have liked to see all of the programs rolled into one with Medicare for all. They have a 2% over head but with all the Special interests and lobbyists who own Congress we were lucky to get this far.

Harry Truman was the first to want health care. Nixon wanted the same.

I would never pretend the ACA is perfect. I do like the fact Republicans inserted a piece in a bill to help Small business. The nuts in the party are complaining about that.

 

[MaryAnne]

My belief, from the beginning was always falsifiable. I said the cost numbers were lies (or at the very least "wrong, and too low") and they've already been shown to be lies (or at the very least "wrong, and too low").

My objection to the "well-tested socialized systems" is two fold. The first is simply that our Constitution makes no provision for such a system (or for this one, when it comes to that). The second was that those socialized systems are going broke all over Europe, especially in the Eurozone countries. In the past, countries like Italy, Spain, France and Greece could cover their economic shortfalls by inflating their currencies. when that option went away, the socialized systems mostly became debits on their books. Greece's economy collapsed entirely. Italy and Spain teetered. France cut services in its much-vaunted cradle-to-grave system. The only successes are Germany (at least at the moment) and the Baltic nations that have relatively small, homogenous societies (and who bear taxes that are politically impossible in the U.S.).

I never wanted the government involved in health care, particularly in a system that was propped up either by inflation or obviously bad numbers -- my hypothesis that the numbers would be bad was always falsifiable, and it has been borne out.

What you want did not matter when millions voted for Obama knowing what he wanted.

There is no concrete evidence of anything yet so none of us can know except what we see. Young adults on their parents plan. No one can be denied for pre-existing conditions. No life time cap so you will not go bankrupt off you face serious illness. The Wellness program I described in another post.

The reason we are broke is because we are paying for wars fought off the books, a massive bail out to the banks who broke the bank. And Nothing was done to the crooks at all. Now,who started those massive bail outs? It was not Obama.

I would find it funny reading complaints about spending money on us,the tax payers if I did not see the mind set as tragic for us.

 

[trapdoor]

What you want did not matter when millions voted for Obama knowing what he wanted.

Even under the best of circumstances, what you're describing is known among political theorists as "the tyranny of the majority." In the real world, Obama one by about a 4 percent margin, and anyone from his party in an unsafe district lost two years later, once Obamacare was known (he should have focused on jobs for the first two years).

There is no concrete evidence of anything yet so none of us can know except what we see. Young adults on their parents plan. No one can be denied for pre-existing conditions. No life time cap so you will not go bankrupt off you face serious illness. The Wellness program I described in another post.

I said the numbers were wrong, and that they've already been shown to be wrong -- and I didn't misstate. The numbers have already been declared wrong, and moved UP, not down.

The reason we are broke is because we are paying for wars fought off the books, a massive bail out to the banks who broke the bank. And Nothing was done to the crooks at all. Now,who started those massive bail outs? It was not Obama.

We were in the hole, and had been for nearly 20 years, before a single shot was fired in any of those wars (and no, before you go there, Clinton's "surplus" was never anything more than a projection -- an accounting fiction).

I don't find it funny spending money on "us the taxpayers." I find it appalling that public funds can be diverted to private purposes such as individual health insurance.

 

[marvin martian]

There is no concrete evidence of anything yet so none of us can know except what we see. Young adults on their parents plan. No one can be denied for pre-existing conditions. No life time cap so you will not go bankrupt off you face serious illness. The Wellness program I described in another post.

Why are you saying that? The numbers that were used to sell the program to unsuspecting Americans have already been empirically proven to be wrong. They were lies, repeated over and over, by top administration officials, including the president, to fool people into supporting this law. Do you dispute that?

 

[fairsheet]

I understand why some are upset that Obama involved the privates in this one. I get that. But, I think he read the handwriting on the wall and decided this is the best he could get.

The silver lining to all that though, is that it puts the onus on the PRIVATES to make it work. And thus far, it looks like they're doing just fine. The biggest "shock" thus far, is one that's been predicted from the git go. States that formerly allowed the sale of health insurance plans (in name only) are seeing increased costs in order to meet minimum Obamacare standards. Alas, that's a free market thing. Functioning free markets deal with real and actual costs.

There seems to be a feeling out there that at some point, the privates are going to "cry uncle" and whine that they simply can't meet "big guvmint's" demands. And at that point, the natural solution will be to simply repeal Obamacare. It won't work that way. If Obamacare can't be made to work with the privates, the call will be for a plan that doesn't include the privates. The privates don't want that.

 

[MaryAnne]

Even under the best of circumstances, what you're describing is known among political theorists as "the tyranny of the majority." In the real world, Obama one by about a 4 percent margin, and anyone from his party in an unsafe district lost two years later, once Obamacare was known (he should have focused on jobs for the first two years).



I said the numbers were wrong, and that they've already been shown to be wrong -- and I didn't misstate. The numbers have already been declared wrong, and moved UP, not down.


We were in the hole, and had been for nearly 20 years, before a single shot was fired in any of those wars (and no, before you go there, Clinton's "surplus" was never anything more than a projection -- an accounting fiction).

I don't find it funny spending money on "us the taxpayers." I find it appalling that public funds can be diverted to private purposes such as individual health insurance.

Tyranny of the Majority??? No, we have had Tyranny of the Minority for the last few years with the constant no group.

You spout about numbers,but the CBO showed money would be saved in the long run.

As for debt we were beginning to slow the debt under Clinton and Under Obama the debt has fallen faster than under any President,even with dealing with the huge war costs, the crash of the economy.

Trap you can live in that old world,but we are moving on.

Obama was just on TV making sure Women get equal pay. Something Congress has refused to do. You have lost the young,minorities and now Women. When does your party decide to come into the realworld?

The ACA is here to stay.