archer wrote: Walter could have made a simple phone call and gotten the information he needed, but it is ever so much more fun to complain and label the ACA a failure than to seek the truth.
Er... in that long post I never claimed anything was a failure. I approached the process like any low-information voter... I halted and reported what had happened up to the point I was stopped dead in my tracks.
Dog's explanation as to what piece I was missing was the link. What's the problem.
Even when I learn something new and accept the explanation you have to get tacky?
Good news for ObamaCare...If you call it the "Affordable Care Act", the ratings are 10 points higher than if you call it ObamaCare--for Republicans . Same product, same thing.... (And they say there's no such thing as low-intelligence voters...)
The other interesting thing is regardless which one you call it, the teabagger lies about it are still lies.
archer wrote: Walter could have made a simple phone call and gotten the information he needed, but it is ever so much more fun to complain and label the ACA a failure than to seek the truth.
Er... in that long post I never claimed anything was a failure. I approached the process like any low-information voter... I halted and reported what had happened up to the point I was stopped dead in my tracks.
Dog's explanation as to what piece I was missing was the link. What's the problem.
Even when I learn something new and accept the explanation you have to get tacky?
Tacky? Tacky was your artificial example without adequate research.
archer wrote: I hope in 6 months we can start a discussion based on the realities of the ACA, and not wild suppositions.
CBO has reduced the net cost of the program for US taxpayers from 1252 billion down to 1168 billion over the next 11 years because they think not as many people will go on Medicaid due to the exchanges. So the US already has record debt levels and now over the next 11 years will spend 1168 billion funding ACA. That is after creating new taxes on domestically produced medical equipment, taxes on cosmetic procedures, and taxes on cadillac healthcare plans.
Partisan, wild suppositions from our own CBO.
How many Iraq wars is that? There is no such thing as a free lunch. How soon before US debt is 200% of GDP?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Is this the same CBO that claims that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit?
What Is The Impact Of Repealing The ACA On The Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
On balance, CBO and JCT estimated, repealing the ACA would affect direct spending and revenues in ways resulting in a net increase in budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period.”
You need both sides of any equation fred......the cost AND the savings.....when the savings outweigh the costs you have a lowering of the deficit. It's all in the math.
:rofllol 
