Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Daerio]

Well if you're going to make that claim then you're going to have to back that up as well. Could you show me where prices in all areas of healthcare have increased to affect 100% of the population?

Both Andalite and myself have linked evidence showing the premium costs dropping in various areas. There's more than just what's outside your own front door.

Again, it's harder to compare apples to apples when it comes to insurance, because while premiums may have stayed the same deductibles and coverage may have changed. We would have to take a specific example. I asked you to use yourself as an example, but since you don't want to do that in an honest way, we could use other examples, provided there is proof to back it up.

I could use my own costs as an example, but I think you guys would quickly argue that somehow my example doesn't count; which is why I started this conversation by asking you to prove your claim.

[AndaliteBandit]

Your link has absolutely no facts on it. It's a feel-good press release. Please provide some evidence of your claim.

TRICARE and the Affordable Care Act Fact Sheet

- - - Updated - - -

I could use my own costs as an example, but I think you guys would quickly argue that somehow my example doesn't count

It counts if you can provide evidence of it, unless of course our browsers mysteriously start acting up.

[Truculentt]

The first link states that ACA has no effect on TriCare coverage. The second link lists who is exempt from premiums. Doesn't get clearer than that.

are we really arguing the rise in healthcare costs since obamacare now?

because the only people ignorant enough to approach that topic are those who are living off someone else.


hang on...

let me get my ignore list ready...

[Daerio]

TRICARE and the Affordable Care Act Fact Sheet

- - - Updated - - -


It counts if you can provide evidence of it, unless of course our browser mysteriously starts acting up.

There is no analysis here either, but it does in fact prove my point:

Considered Minimum Essential Coverage? NO.

Only TRICARE Plus¹ (not TRICARE-eligible)
Only direct care (not TRICARE-eligible)
Only line-of-duty care (not TRICARE-eligible)
Only transitional care for service-related conditions2
(not TRICARE-eligible)

Whoops, looks like coverage did see some changes when the ACA was implemented. Funny thing, that.

[cubby]

I asked this before but didn't get an answer, do you think the fact that he was a reality TV show host and not a presidential candidate 11 years ago when he said those things might be relevant context?

No, how could it? Would it matter if he was a game show host if he'd raped a woman during that time? Exactly. In cases like this, with very rare exceptions, if they were sexually assaulting women in the past, they're going to continue to do it in the future.

[Truculentt]

Their economic indicators suggest otherwise.

keep drinking that kool aid

[Captain N]

Again, it's harder to compare apples to apples when it comes to insurance, because while premiums may have stayed the same deductibles and coverage may have changed. We would have to take a specific example. I asked you to use yourself as an example, but since you don't want to do that in an honest way, we could use other examples, provided there is proof to back it up.

I could use my own costs as an example, but I think you guys would quickly argue that somehow my example doesn't count; which is why I started this conversation by asking you to prove your claim.

I'm waiting to see you produce a lick of evidence for any of your claims. Like I said I'm more than willing to post my premium costs but you've yet to make the effort to show me where your proof is while you hand-wave evidence others have brought forward.

You claimed that 100% of people were effected by rising premium and deductible costs -- I'm asking you to show me where everyone was affected.

That indicates people affected by a cost to their premiums -- If I get the same coverage for the same price then I am not affected. Feyla made that claim that he was not affected.

You've shifted your goal posts so far Im not even sure we're in the same stadium playing the same sport as when you made that first claim. A claim I can back up that I have seen no deductible or price increases that affect me.

[AndaliteBandit]

Whoops, looks like coverage did see some changes when the ACA was implemented. Funny thing, that.

That's not a change in coverage. None of what you quoted are plans, which is why they don't meet the minimum coverage requiremets of ACA. Even the first one, which you would have known if you read the footnote. (What that superscripted 1 references!)

Here's a quote from the first page: the ACA does not impact your TRICARE coverage

[Endus]

There is no analysis here either, but it does in fact prove my point:

Whoops, looks like coverage did see some changes when the ACA was implemented. Funny thing, that.

That wasn't your point;

Rising costs and deductibles affects 100% of the population, including the people listed in the previous group.

Are you saying YOUR costs haven't increased? Well, you're a special snowflake then, since everyone else's did.

That was your point. Coverage adjustments are your new goalposts that you've moved to, as you've realized your prior claims are without factual basis and completely indefensible.

This way you can avoid admitting to that error and pretend to "win" by defending a completely different argument.

You originally claimed that rising costs had made every single person's costs go up. That was false. And now you're trying to avoid admitting that.

[Daerio]

I'm waiting to see you produce a lick of evidence for any of your claims. Like I said I'm more than willing to post my premium costs but you've yet to make the effort to show me where your proof is while you hand-wave evidence others have brought forward.

You claimed that 100% of people were effected by rising premium and deductible costs -- I'm asking you to show me where everyone was affected.

That indicates people affected by a cost to their premiums -- If I get the same coverage for the same price then I am not affected.

Yes, and I asked you to prove it. Still waiting.

Since we both know that isn't going to happen, I can go ahead and give you two anecdotal examples of what the ACA was actually like in reality when it got implemented:

Myself and my uncle. We're both relatively low income. I'm 29 with no medical history, and he's 50 with a history of seizures. When ACA hit and the marketplace first opened, insurance providers were offering minimum catastrophic coverage at 50$/month. We both signed up for these plans. Somehow, even though we "locked in" the rates during the enrollment period for 50$/month, our premium continued to go up every month, until we both eventually stopped paying for it.

Now, catastrophic coverage for me costs 230$/month. I'm guessing his is about the same. He had a pre-existing condition that precluded him from getting insurance. Now that ACA has eliminated pre-existing condition exemption... he still doesn't have insurance. I don't pay for 230$/month $5000/year deductible. I can't afford to. I don't know anyone who can afford to pay that much for something they can't use.

Now explain to me how the ACA made my life, or my uncle's life, better. Please explain to me how his situation is significantly improved by the fact that insurance companies can no longer exempt him for having a pre-existing condition.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a change in coverage. None of what you quoted are plans, which is why they don't meet the minimum coverage requiremets of ACA. Even the first one, which you would have known if you read the footnote. (What that superscripted 1 references!)

Here's a quote from the first page: the ACA does not impact your TRICARE coverage

So people who had those plans before either changed plans or started paying the Obamacare penalty, and they weren't affected? You and I have very different ideas on what "affected" means, I guess.

[cubby]

Yes, and I asked you to prove it. Still waiting.

Since we both know that isn't going to happen, I can go ahead and give you two anecdotal examples of what the ACA was actually like in reality when it got implemented:

Myself and my uncle. We're both relatively low income. I'm 29 with no medical history, and he's 50 with a history of seizures. When ACA hit and the marketplace first opened, insurance providers were offering minimum catastrophic coverage at 50$/month. We both signed up for these plans. Somehow, even though we "locked in" the rates during the enrollment period for 50$/month, our premium continued to go up every month, until we both eventually stopped paying for it.

Now, catastrophic coverage for me costs 230$/month. I'm guessing his is about the same. He had a pre-existing condition that precluded him from getting insurance. Now that ACA has eliminated pre-existing condition exemption... he still doesn't have insurance. I don't pay for 230$/month $5000/year deductible. I can't afford to. I don't know anyone who can afford to pay that much for something they can't use.

Now explain to me how the ACA made my life, or my uncle's life, better. Please explain to me how his situation is significantly improved by the fact that insurance companies can no longer exempt him for having a pre-existing condition.

Anecdotal examples can prove anything. They are worthless.

[Daerio]

Anecdotal examples can prove anything. They are worthless.

So my example is outside the norm? Upon what do you base this claim?

[AndaliteBandit]

Myself and my uncle.

Yes, but where's your proof? Are we just supposed to believe you?

[Daerio]

Yes, but where's your proof? Are we just supposed to believe you?

How about the fact that it's a more reasonable claim than the one you guys still haven't provided evidence for?

[AndaliteBandit]

So people who had those plans before either changed plans or started paying the Obamacare penalty, and they weren't affected? You and I have very different ideas on what "affected" means, I guess.

They are not plans. That is a list of health care services that the military are entitled to even if they are not enrolled in a TriCare health plan. As none of those are plans in the first place, that is why they do not meet the minimum coverage requrement.

But sure, let's acknowledge their existence. Please explain how their existence invalidates the existence of the people actually enrolled in TriCare, who did not see a change in their premiums or their coverage. Remember, all it takes is a single instance to refute your claim of 100%.

You have a very unique definition of 100%, it would seem.

[Truculentt]

Yes, and I asked you to prove it. Still waiting.

Since we both know that isn't going to happen, I can go ahead and give you two anecdotal examples of what the ACA was actually like in reality when it got implemented:

Myself and my uncle. We're both relatively low income. I'm 29 with no medical history, and he's 50 with a history of seizures. When ACA hit and the marketplace first opened, insurance providers were offering minimum catastrophic coverage at 50$/month. We both signed up for these plans. Somehow, even though we "locked in" the rates during the enrollment period for 50$/month, our premium continued to go up every month, until we both eventually stopped paying for it.

Now, catastrophic coverage for me costs 230$/month. I'm guessing his is about the same. He had a pre-existing condition that precluded him from getting insurance. Now that ACA has eliminated pre-existing condition exemption... he still doesn't have insurance. I don't pay for 230$/month $5000/year deductible. I can't afford to. I don't know anyone who can afford to pay that much for something they can't use.

Now explain to me how the ACA made my life, or my uncle's life, better. Please explain to me how his situation is significantly improved by the fact that insurance companies can no longer exempt him for having a pre-existing condition.

- - - Updated - - -



So people who had those plans before either changed plans or started paying the Obamacare penalty, and they weren't affected? You and I have very different ideas on what "affected" means, I guess.

they clearly live off their parents.

there's zero point arguing with them.

they'll learn how the real world works some day.

Infracted - stop posting for the sole purpose of instigating arguments and belittling others

[Daerio]

They are not plans. That is a list of health care services that the military are entitled to even if they are not enrolled in a TriCare health plan. As none of those are plans in the first place, that is why they do not meet the minimum coverage requrement.

But sure, let's acknowledge their existence. Please explain how their existence invalidates the existence of the people actually enrolled in TriCare, who did not see a change in their premiums or their coverage. Remember, all it takes is a single instance to refute your claim of 100%.

You have a very unique definition of 100%, it would seem.

Then I'm glad we can agree those people were affected, I patiently await your next fictitious example.

[AndaliteBandit]

Then I'm glad we can agree those people were affected, I patiently await your next fictitious example.

Those people aren't enrolled in TriCare, so their TriCare coverage was not affected by the ACA because they don't have a TriCare health plan in the first place.

I've already provided numerous instances of proof that TriCare coverage was not affected by the ACA, but that doesn't suit your narrative, so then your browser coincidentally acts up. Pathetic.

[jackofwind]

How about the fact that it's a more reasonable claim than the one you guys still haven't provided evidence for?

Don't forget to hold onto the quaffle of ignorance for dear life while you dodge the bludgers of inconvenient truth.

[cubby]

So my example is outside the norm? Upon what do you base this claim?

No, it's right in the ballpark for the norm on anecdotal examples - all of which are entirely worthless, because they can be used to prove any point. I'm not hating on you or your examples, I'm just pointing to the futility in using them to "prove" any point. It doesn't work.