Obamacare Death Spiral

What exactly do you think this chart shows us regarding the ACA?

DonDiego suggests :
i. The term "death spiral" has nothing to do with "DEATH PANELS" or "Job KILLERS" although it may ultimately affect employment. The term refers to the likely demise of Obamacare based on its design by which young healthy Obamacare "customers" are declining to subsidize the older less-healthy folks who participate in the program. This results in significant raises to premiums, which results in more young healthy "customers" declining to participate.
And as insurance providers observe fewer young healthy "customers" they discover the expected profits turn to unsustainable losses and reduce their participation.
The result is fewer choices, less competition, higher prices, . . . until the "business" is unsustainable; insurers leave the program.

ii. That an increase in employment which occurs as Obamacare is implemented does not demonstrate that one caused the other.

OH LOOK ! ! !



Unless poor old DonDiego is misinterpreting the data it seems employment goes up right after every recession; probably has something to do with what a recession is. It would seem the job growth in the most recent recession is slower compared to other recessions, . . . . maybe imposing costs on employers, like Obamacare, has something to do with it after all.

Exactly correct. In fact the chart that was posted is the best example I've seen in a long time of the Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc fallacy.

The real laugher is that the ACA was not implemented in 2010. it did not go into effect until 2014....So how could it impact employment in 2010 - 2013?

Which is why I asked Forkush exactly what he thinks that chart shows. Instead of noting the ACA passage, it would have been just as informative to point out that Sebastián Piñera become Chilean president in March of 2010.

What the chart shows is tha ACA is not a job killing disaster like so many far righters claim it is. Once you destroy that argument, what is it they object to?
That more Americans have insurance than before?

What chart has ALanLeroy consulted that shows how the ACA has killed jobs during a period where 15 million were created? And whats the Latin term for people who say as much?

The only problem is the chart doesn't show that. The chart ends in 2014. The ACA actually started in 2014. The employer mandate didn't begin until 2015. And there is no indication of what employment would have been without the ACA or how many people moved to part time or left the workforce because of it.

When have I ever said that ACA has killed jobs? Why do you asshats keep wanting to put your words in my mouth? I can only assume it's because you can't directly address what I ACTUALLY SAY, so you just make shit up. What I said was the forkush chart proves nothing.

Were these 15 million jobs you refer to created in 2015 and 2016? Since the friggin' chart ends in 2014 and the employer mandate didn't start until 2015. And how many more jobs would have been created without the ACA in 2015 and 2016. And how many people went to part time or left the workforce because of the ACA? Do you have a chart that answers those questions?

But again...I have never stated the ACA was a job killer. I have said that it fails miserably to address the real problem of medical costs. And unlike most Democrats and Republicans I've suggested many ways the ACA could be fixed to really make heath care affordable. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. And then pass it over here.

The Deception. The Cost.
By the way, the chart doesn't "show" The Obamacare is not a job killer. It shows slow job-growth following the last recession compared to earlier ones. The effects of The Obamacare on the recovery are not broken out.

********quote*****
Obamacare has caused health insurance premiums to skyrocket. It has caused millions of Americans who liked their health plans to lose their health plans. It has caused doctor and hospital networks to narrow. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obamacare exchanges in Alabama and Alaska will each have one—that's right, one—insurer offering plans. We're moving toward "single insurer" health care.

So what are Americans getting in return? Obamacare's proponents say the overhaul has greatly increased the number of people with health insurance coverage (albeit by less than three-quarters as much as it was supposed to have done by this time). What they tend to omit is the fact that most of the "newly insured"—about 60 percent—have merely been dumped into Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare has added only 8 million people—just 2.5 percent of the U.S. population—to the private insurance rolls.

And at what cost? Well, the CBO says that the Obamacare subsidies for private insurance will cost $43 billion this year alone. That's an average of $5,375 per person for those who have been added to the private insurance rolls—or $21,500 per family of four. Meanwhile, the typical 36-year-old (or younger) who makes $36,000 a year (or more) gets $0 under Obamacare. Such everyday Americans instead get to help finance that $5,375-per-person cost for those who get private insurance under Obamacare, while facing far higher premiums and significantly narrower doctor networks themselves.

As for those who Obamacare has newly enrolled in Medicaid, they are costing taxpayers even more—an average of $5,692 per person for this year alone ($74 billion divided by 13 million new enrollees).
*****endquote*****
Ref: The Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard? Really? Isn't that the paper that claimed the Khans weren't entitled to be called Gold Star parents because they are not real Mericans?

I feel bad for doubledee. Half his material goes right over his intended audiences heads.

I know of no one in my peer group who has been positively impacted by Obamacare. Their stories are all of their coverage getting worse, and rates skyrocketing. Still, I'll hope that someone somewhere is benefitting from this.