[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Whats the point of using Presidential administrations as bench marks in your arguement? ...

So, I guess we can be assured that Trump, the GOP, and all of their 'unbiased media' will not be continually blaming Obama in the coming years for what ever shortcomings or inabilities they have in trying to deal with or correct problems? That I've got to see...

Additionally, I did not make the "bench marks" comparison; the comparison comes from the FactCheck.org site, which I linked in my post as a source of my statement(s), something a very high percentage of those who make some of the most scurrilous posts, on both sides of an issue, here do not, although I have very often made the effort to source their statements and have very often found the source to be, indeed, some partisan "hatchet job" website rather than some verifiable source. Perhaps this is why, in those posts, links or cites are not given...

Originally Posted by Rockstar

...The President in this country has absolutely no authority to increase or decrease health care premiums. This term "braking effect" of the ACA, is that yours or Fact Check? I ask because this idea that the ACA was instrumental in curbing health care costs is contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office attributed the decline in health care spending too. According to their 'facts' it was economic slowdown, not the ACA that brought costs down. ...

Never said the President had or has "authority to increase or decrease health care premiums". But actions taken during their administrations do have effects on things like premiums...

Yes, the "braking effect" term is mine alone; I, unlike many others, do own up to my errors; I had intended to use single quotes ('braking effect') but inadvertently used double quotes; too bad for me there is no 'auto-correct' for punctuation...

The "idea that the ACA was instrumental in curbing health care costs is contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office attributed the decline in health care spending too.": the idea the ACA aided in reducing health care cost is not contrary to the CBO reports findings. The report, in several different places, makes it clear the CBO could not adequately or definitively gauge the effect of the ACA on healthcare costs. The CBO report doesn't actually say, and certainly not explicitly, the ACA has no effect on healthcare costs. Therefore, it is neither contrary to the report nor does the report wholly support any claim the ACA, alone, is responsible for the slowdown in healthcare premiums nor does the CBO report support claims the ACA alone is the cause for healthcare issues; it is merely a factor in the equations...

My initial response was a reaction to the posting of a single graphic, with no accompanying link, and this statement:

Originally Posted by August

Make no mistake, we're still waiting for that. In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it.

It was this sort of broad, undefined, 'take-it-as-truth' sort of posting that caused me to respond: " In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it." [Italics mine, lest somebody take umbrage]...

I searched for, and found, with very little difficulty, the source document and also some other usages of the graphic, which led me to FactCheck.org and this opening statement caught my eye and interest:

Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush. In fact, employer-sponsored premiums have been growing at moderate rates for the past few years.


This is a prime example of what we call a “true, but” claim: an assertion that’s technically correct, but changes in meaning or significance once it’s put in context or fully explained.

[Italics mine, again, lest somebody take umbrage]...


You see, when you look up facts, to be really as impartial and informed as possible, you also need to be willing to look at all aspects of an issue, not just find the one 'fact' that supports your issue and call it a day. This was something I learned from participating in competitive debate tournaments, where the debaters had to alternate between 'pro' and 'con' on an issue every other round; you had to know all the facts for each side in order to make an argument each round. There have been many times I wondered about something posted in these forums and have done research to find out what the varying arguments supporting or decrying the issue(s) really are; there have been times when the research results in an accumulation of facts that do, indeed, support the post, even if I may not necessarily agree the outcome, but, facts in context facts are to be acknowledged and respected and I do not respond to those posts in those cases; I leave that to those who may have some emotional attachment with their particular viewpoint. However, when I feel something is being bent, omitted, or glossed over, and research shows that to be the case, I often can not resist the urge to try to give a more rounded view of an issue...

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Anyway, feel free to check these facts those facts and their facts . And please let us all know when you get the multitude of facts sorted and tell us which facts are the only facts we should listen too.

I never tell anyone which facts to listen to since I would never want someone to do so to me. Believe what you will in what you want to believe; I'll just be sitting over here trying to separate the grist from the gibberish. And, as you can see, I do "feel free to check these facts those facts and their facts"; I do so all the time and I enjoy it...

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I mean really you should follow your own advice before you begin chastising anyone with a thought contrary to your facts. In fact I'm willing to bet a good many of the people who take this sort of tripe sophistry as actual reasoning are the same people who neither saw, heard nor read the report. They probably just wait around for the talk show host, blogger, hatchet job factcheck website to tell them what to think and say and how to vote; it must be nice in that little world, not having to use whatever brainpower they might have; they must laugh at all us silly, stupid folk who actually do the "homework" and try to separate out the dross so we might actually find the truth and make informed decisions; Oh, silly us, for thinking democracy and the fate of our nation deserves at least some effort from its citizens...

I don't 'chastise' contrary thought; just sloppy thought presented as fact. And I stand by the statement you misquoted (without double quotes!! ) and still say if an issue is important, an effort to learn as much about it as possible is equally, if not more important...

So, yes, I did actually read the full report, you linked and some addendums, prior to your posting and found, as I have indicated, the report neither affirms nor denies the ACA impact, so I opted to leave out reference to it as the report is non-definitive on the issue. I actually did my homework and, if someone had actually did theirs and also read the full report they would have found likewise...



<O>