How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

I don't have kids moron. But a lot of people got stuck with their kids bills thanks to Obama, because the millennials didn't feel like paying for themselves.

Obamacare created a choice. The parents still had the option of not covering the kids. They just had an additional option that they didn't have before. And for many it was a no-cost option -- they could simply have their kids pay them the incremental cost (which was still much lower than the kids could get insurance for on the private market). Meanwhile, it relieved many of the parents of the cost that would come from their kids getting a serious illness while uninsured.... a situation that can require a parent to either use a second mortgage on her home to make sure her child gets decent medical care, or to just leave the kid to the mercy of our third-world-style healthcare system for the uninsured and pray that doesn't end in death or permanent disability.

[Superfreak]

Incorrect. Reagan inherited a growing economy. Then it went into recession -- eventually winding up with unemployment rates even higher than the worst of the Great Recession. Then there was a recovery fueled by unprecedented peacetime deficit spending and massive interest rate cuts. But that boom didn't go on until 2000. It came crashing down shortly after Reagan left office.



Clinton left Bush with the longest economic growth cycle in American history, sub-4% unemployment rates, record high real incomes, near-record-low poverty rates, no significant foreign military commitments, vast troves of goodwill among allied nations, etc. Even when the economy eventually slipped into recession, during Bush's first term, it was an unusually short and shallow recession, because the fundamentals were strong. It was basically just an engineered recession from Greenspan raising rates to try to get Bush into office... and even then, it may have been avoidable if not for the 9/11 attacks. The economic horror that eventually hit us in Bush's second term can't be attributed to Clinton. Bush had years to deal with under-regulation of exotic securities and the mortgage market, and he chose to ignore the problems because his catechism didn't permit him to understand that under-regulation was even a thing.



What other president in history ever lowered deficits that fast?

LMAO... Reagan inherited double digit inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. The recession of 82-83 was forced to kill the Carter inflation. Volcker led that charge.

You continue to ignore this fact on Obama. 2008 deficit was under $460B the highest in history to that point. Obama was OVER that amount all but one year of his Presidency.

[Oneuli]

Again, the fact that a few provisions started early doesn't alter when the exchanges actually started up

Your claim wasn't about when the exchanges started up. That was the new claim you came up with AFTER the falsehood of your original claim was pointed out to you. Just take the gift: you were woefully ignorant of the history of Obamacare, and now, thanks to me, you aren't. You're welcome.

Your tylenol analogy is moronic.

Keeping in mind that it was tailored for a moron, isn't that appropriate?

[Oneuli]

The dot com bubble and the Y2K scare was based on strong economic fundamentals and would have survived if not for Greenspan?

I see a question mark, but it doesn't look like a question.

[cawacko]

I see a question mark, but it doesn't look like a question.

You stated it as fact and I'm having a difficult time understanding it as such. It was called the dot com bubble for a reason.

[Legion]

Of course not. The data runs afoul of your political prejudices, so the data cannot be believed. But, as I said, if the data ran the other way, you'd embrace it.

The data doesn't prove what you claimed that it does.

[Legion]

nope Not one human was forced to buy medical insurance for their adult child idiot

Prove it.

LINK

[Oneuli]

LMAO... Reagan inherited double digit inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. The recession of 82-83 was forced to kill the Carter inflation. Volcker led that charge.

As you can see, even from your own dating of the recession, Reagan inherited a growing economy from Carter.... he also inherited a falling inflation rate. The rate had been as high as 17.0% in January 1980, and, thanks to Carter's inflation-busting pick to head the Fed, it had fallen to around 11.2% in Reagan's first month, and was heading still lower (6.8% in Reagan's fourth month). But, then the Reagan recession started that summer.

You continue to ignore this fact on Obama. 2008 deficit was under $460B the highest in history to that point. Obama was OVER that amount all but one year of his Presidency.

What's your point? He inherited a massive deficit and an epic economic meltdown from Bush. He brought the deficit down as fast as could reasonably have been expected. Any faster and we almost surely would have double-dipped into a second recession, like much of Europe.

[Oneuli]

You stated it as fact and I'm having a difficult time understanding it as such. It was called the dot com bubble for a reason.

I never even mentioned the dot com bubble, or the Y2K scare, so this isn't something I stated as a fact. It's something you've injected into the debate. So, what point are you trying to make?

[Oneuli]

The data doesn't prove what you claimed that it does.

What did I say the data "proved"?

[Truth Detector]

Exactly. Deficits were cut by over half.

You moron; where else would they go if not for the massive record of $1.4 trillion he racked up. They didn't go down as a result of less spending you incoherent dumbass; they went down as a result of higher revenues. Spending INCREASED over that time period not decreased.

It's obvious you lack a formal education in math and economics.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...outlay-summary

[Truth Detector]

Yet, in this case, they projected that Obamacare would push deficits down and then deficit actually fell -- at one of the fastest rates in history, in fact.

Moron; the deficit didn't decrease as a result of LOWER spending. Damn you are dense.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...outlay-summary

[volsrock]

As you can see, even from your own dating of the recession, Reagan inherited a growing economy from Carter.... he also inherited a falling inflation rate. The rate had been as high as 17.0% in January 1980, and, thanks to Carter's inflation-busting pick to head the Fed, it had fallen to around 11.2% in Reagan's first month, and was heading still lower (6.8% in Reagan's fourth month). But, then the Reagan recession started that summer.



What's your point? He inherited a massive deficit and an epic economic meltdown from Bush. He brought the deficit down as fast as could reasonably have been expected. Any faster and we almost surely would have double-dipped into a second recession, like much of Europe.

Liar


National Debt Under Obama

Depending on who you ask, President Obama added anywhere from $983 billion to $9 trillion to the national debt. Who's lying? None of them. There are three ways to look at the debt added by any president.

Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-...-obama-3306293

[Legion]

What did I say the data "proved"?

Obamacare did, in fact, greatly reduce the rate of healthcare inflation -- to the point that prices have risen much less since Obamacare passed than in ANY comparably lengthy period before Obamacare. You can confirm that yourself with the data link I provided.

[Oneuli]

You moron; where else would they go if not for the massive record of $1.4 trillion he racked up. They didn't go down as a result of less spending you incoherent dumbass; they went down as a result of higher revenues. Spending INCREASED over that time period not decreased.

Spending has increased over every significant period in US history, as have revenues. What makes the difference between eras with rising deficits (e.g., Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump), and eras with falling deficits (e.g., Clinton, Obama) is whether the rate of revenue increase or the rate of spending increase is greater. You should read more about economics so you can engage on the topic intelligently. Good luck!