How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

The OP is notorious for being stupid.

Then it should be possible for you to identify some error I've made, right? Good luck.

[Oneuli]

You claimed it was REAL GDP growth

And it was. I'm starting to suspect you don't know what the term "real GDP growth" means. What is it that you think that refers to, specifically?

[Truth Detector]

They start on October 1 of the PRIOR calendar year. Bush had been in office for a little under 1/3 of FY 2009 when Obama took office. That included the annual budgeting period. That's why, in early January 2009, the CBO already listed the FY 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. That rose by an additional $200 billion under Obama (largely the ARRA stimulus package). And I'm not trying to count that piece in Bush's column. But the $1.2 trillion baseline for the fiscal year is his.

Learn!

The CBO estimates are a joke. Bush had nothing to do with the massive $1.4 trillion Obama and Democrats racked up in 2009 snowflake. Try to grow a brain. The pork laden recovery act cost the nation trillions showing NOTHING in return other than a massive accumulation in debt and the worst GDP growth of any modern presidency.

But hey, I get it. You're an idiot who thinks Obama was great and moronically attempt to argue using specious claims that the ACA is saving money when it isn't.

[canceled.2021.1]

The CBO estimates are a joke. Bush had nothing to do with the massive $1.4 trillion Obama and Democrats racked up in 2009 snowflake. Try to grow a brain. The pork laden recovery act cost the nation trillions showing NOTHING in return other than a massive accumulation in debt and the worst GDP growth of any modern presidency.

But hey, I get it. You're an idiot who thinks Obama was great and moronically attempt to argue using specious claims that the ACA is saving money when it isn't.

Agreed. CBO estimates are a ruse to dupe the uninformed.

By statute, the CBO can only score what Congress gives them.

Congress knows how to front load taxes and backload expenses to make their bullshit look good

Anyone who believes a CBO estimate deserves to be fucked over

[Lightbringer]

Then it should be possible for you to identify some error I've made, right? Good luck.

You have failed to provide proof of your position.

[Oneuli]

It was an omission, not a lie

I'll admit it's possible he was just horrendously, hilariously ignorant of even the most basic aspects of recent economic history, and thus his false claim was made innocently. It's possible it wasn't a deliberate falsehood. But, it was clearly false. And my point was to clear up that untruth. You're welcome.

How does it change the argument?

The argument was only Obama and Bush doubled debt. If you don't see how the history of people like Reagan and FDR changes that argument.... well, try harder.

does not include the massive subsidies American taxpayers are being forced to pay, as well as, much higher premiums.

Actually, healthcare inflation calculations include all spending on healthcare, regardless of where the financing comes from. So, you're wrong. Obviously.

You're attempts to statistically suggest that premiums MIGHT have been even higher are speculative and dumb

It's speculative, but not dumb. Again, keep in mind we're not talking about growth rates that were just a bit below average, in which case an assumption that they would have been higher if not for the change is warranted, but is hardly a slam dunk. Instead, we're talking about growth rates that were BY A SIZABLE MARGIN, the lowest in all of history for a period of that length. Is it possible that they would have been just as low if not for the big change? Yes, I suppose it's possible. It's a bit like arguing that if the New England Patriots hadn't drafted Tom Brady, they'd have won just as many Super Bowls. It's possible. You can't disprove it. But since no QB has ever won as many Super Bowls as Brady, it sure doesn't look likely.

[Truth Detector]

And it was. I'm starting to suspect you don't know what the term "real GDP growth" means. What is it that you think that refers to, specifically?

I posted the REAL GDP growth dumbass., You're the one attempting to argue that total growth for each decade is a meaningful statistic. It is actually laughably stupid. But that is what you do; engage in laughably stupid and meaningless claims using specious methodology to prop up a failed ideology built on lies.

Social Fascist Democrats are not good for any economy. Their ideology is built around victims and the idea that people are too stupid to make it without massive Government intrusions into their lives.

Democrats held the purse strings for four decades with nothing to show for it but deficits and wars. Here you stand like a moron declaring it was great. STFU seriously. You're an arrogant, pompous idiot. That's makes you the worst kind of fool.

[Oneuli]

you're delusional and arrogant. your sense of correctness is actually a mental impairment.

If you can find anything I've said that is incorrect, simply identify my incorrect statement and point to the evidence that it's wrong. Why should that be so hard?

[Truth Detector]

Agreed. CBO estimates are a ruse to dupe the uninformed.

By statute, the CBO can only score what Congress gives them.

Congress knows how to front load taxes and backload expenses to make their bullshit look good

Anyone who believes a CBO estimate deserves to be fucked over

Willful idiots like Oneuli only use them when it fits into their false narratives.

[Oneuli]

I don't know what else to say, you ignore every argument presented to you, while claiming you don't.

Obviously, I don't ignore every argument presented to me. You just made an argument (that I ignore every argument), and here I am addressing it directly, rather than ignoring it. So, what argument, specifically, do you think I've ignored?

[Truth Detector]

The argument was only Obama and Bush doubled debt. If you don't see how the history of people like Reagan and FDR changes that argument.... well, try harder.

The only thing that changes is how desperately you flail at strawmen snowflake.

Actually, healthcare inflation calculations include all spending on healthcare, regardless of where the financing comes from. So, you're wrong. Obviously.

Actually, you're attempts to conflate them into savings for the American taxpayer are erroneous, stupid and laughable.

It's a bit like arguing that if the New England Patriots hadn't drafted Tom Brady, they'd have won just as many Super Bowls. It's possible. You can't disprove it. But since no QB has ever won as many Super Bowls as Brady, it sure doesn't look likely.

Another dumb analogy scarecrow; but what would you be without strawmen right?

[Oneuli]

How is 3.5% under Reagan and 3.1% growth for the decade worse than Obama's anemic 1.45% and 2.1% for the 2010's?

Did someone argue it was? Go put the straw man back in your closet and try to focus. The point here was that the 80s did not have explosive economic growth, as asserted. Instead, they had the second-worst growth of any decade in the 20th century. And the question is whether realizing how wrong he was about that has caused him to reconsider any beliefs he drew from that misconception. My assumption is the answer is now, since he didn't actually draw any beliefs from the misconception, as he comes at the problem from the opposite direction: he adopts an unwavering article of faith and then blindly asserts the existence of evidence to support it.

[Oneuli]

are deficits and debt connected?

Of course. But they're not the same thing, as much as the wingnuts here seem to imagine they are. Deficits and debt are related in approximately the same way as velocity and distance are related (or, for that matter, the way that acceleration and velocity are related). Yet people here keep quoting debt figures as if they were deficits.

[Truth Detector]

Did someone argue it was? Go put the straw man back in your closet and try to focus. The point here was that the 80s did not have explosive economic growth, as asserted.

How was 3.5% not explosive growth scarecrow? Apparently it is you grasping at straws.

Instead, they had the second-worst growth of any decade in the 20th century.

That's a lie. How was 3.1% GDP second worst scarecrow? Here's the data again:

Average REAL GDP by decade.
1900's = 3.9%
1910's = 2.9%
1920's = 3.4%
1930's = 1.0%
1940's = 5.6%
1950's = 4.2%
1960's = 4.5%
1970's = 3.2%
1980's = 3.1%
1990's = 3.2%
2000's = 1.8%
2010's = 2.1%
OBAMA =1.48%
https://www.crestmontresearch.com/do...-By-Decade.pdf

And the question is whether realizing how wrong he was about that has caused him to reconsider any beliefs he drew from that misconception. My assumption is the answer is now, since he didn't actually draw any beliefs from the misconception, as he comes at the problem from the opposite direction: he adopts an unwavering article of faith and then blindly asserts the existence of evidence to support it.

You just described yourself you moron.

[Oneuli]

So Obamacare is great now? I thought the left claimed it was failing because of GOP reforms.

Obamacare has saved the American people a great deal of money (see top post). However, it's true the GOP has tried to sabotage it, including by effectively eliminating the mandate. That sets it up for long-term failure or at least serious under-performance. But it doesn't change the fact it's been a significant improvement.