Obamacare - practical discussion

Obamacare - practical discussion


The leftist Polit-fact even calls the conclusions from the study “half-true” and puts the number closer to 29% - the number I use in my post #246. Claiming that only paid-for propagandists or those on the right take issue with the conclusions from this study is straight up fake news.


THe fact that the republicans lie a lot more doesn’t make politifact biased.


Come on Jerosen. You’re better than this. Are you really claiming poltifact doesn’t lean left? Are you going to claim CNN and MSNBC don’t lean left and Fox News doesn’t lean right too?


Here’s several hundred examples of their left leaning bias, in case you were looking for some.


I’m sorry guys but it’s all just the Republicans whining about their lies being pointed out.

That’s not bias.

If the reverse was true and a fact check website found that democrats lied more often would you consider that proof of the factchecker bias.?

Next you’ll claim that Trump doesn’t lie 5 times a day because Fox News said so.

You can stop trying to convince me.

News ain’t fake just because you don’t like it.


Reread what you just wrote.

Are you claiming that you can’t be convinced of something? Is your mind made up no matter what evidence is presented?


If it’s under 5 a day, I want my money back. The weird thing is that people seem surprised by this after a year now. Some humor along these lines:


Their “half-true” is falsely based upon the Megan McCardle column that jeroson previously posted ^ upthread. I didn’t respond to it then because:

#1 – The column was quite clearly self–labeled as “OPINION”, so I didn’t see the point.

#2 – It’s Megan McCardle for Petes Sake. She has a looooooong record of regurgitating paid-for RightWing propaganda at whatever media outlet she is at.

I have neither the time or patience to monitor the track record of such useful idiots, but if you google her name, you will see many others do, and she has been wrong, wrong, wrong, on issue, after issue, after issue.

Sorry, ya’ll still got nuthin’.


Only one aspect (the possibility that the drop in filings helped increase the portion of medical bankruptcies) is related to McCardle in the politifact piece, so no, it’s not completely based on her column.

Regardless, I posted the politifact piece to refute your claim that no one has taken issue with the Warren paper. I didn’t make the same argument in post 246 that politifact made.

You have yet to address my argument.


Why would you feel a need to ask such a question?
I mean really. Because you literally think I claimed that? Or because you’re insinuating its true?


It’s mostly because I have never heard an honest person say that Poltifact is not biased toward the left. You’ve always seemed pretty honest to me. Why are you telling us not to try and convince you that they aren’t biased?


How many people have you asked? How many opinions create a fact?

Have I been hiding under a rock for a few years that I missed out on this discussion everyone is having?

I didn’t / don’t feel a need for the discussion because at its heart its just biased people using bias sources arguing about bias. That seemed like a wasteful effort. And very unconvincing.


I should have known that you weren’t actually interested in a discussion about Politifact’s bias considering the other claim you made in defending Politifact (that was more along the lines of something I would expect JoeFriday to say).


Trump does lie a lot.

Don’t you agree?


But you failed.

That’s not what I posted. Try reading it again.


Agree 100%


You posted that only paid-for propagandists have mounted a phony dispute. Are you claiming that Politifact is a paid-for propagandist?

REGARDLESS, I am not a paid for propagandist. I have mounted a dispute. You have not responded to it.


Actually, I posted:

It should be rather revealing to all that none of the peers of the Department of Medicine @ Cambridge Hospital have found fault with their data, and none of the peers of the Harvard Medical School @ Cambridge have found fault with their data, and none of the peers of the Department of Sociology @ Ohio University have found fault with their data. It’s only the paid-for propagandists that are mounting a phony dispute.

Show me the PEERS.


I don’t know why their peers didn’t find the conclusion faulty, but it’s not like there aren’t other studies out there that have come to different conclusions.

It’s clear you have no intention of addressing my critique of their conclusion that 57% of bankruptcies are from medical bills. That’s fine, but what about my point that actually DRAWS on a conclusion they made in the paper? The point that very few people with medical bankruptcies end up that way because they don’t have insurance. This is how the discussion started if you recall. You said the ACA was necessary in part because of all the medical bankruptcies and how great a job it did at ending that (a claim which you still have provided no evidence). What do you say to that point? Have you found anything to back up your claim yet or were you just making things up?


Sorry to interrupt the debate. Here’s a tax calculator for doing what-if for ACA subsidy calculations, by one or the finance bloggers. Haven’t tried it yet personally, but I will before year-end.