Projected ACA insurance price changes

Started Oct 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,292Gear list
Like?
Re: Premiums under Affordable Care Act lower than CBO estimated
In reply to drh681, Oct 24, 2013

drh681 wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

drh681 wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

drh681 wrote:

The Heritage projections are based on a review of current insurance rates and State ACA portal rates.

No particular cases were used; only effigies typical for the categories listed.

Yes -- but this is bogus data deliberately manufactured to back up a preconceived outcome. Propaganda.

No ass pulling needed.

Just online research of publicly available websites.

I'm sorry you are displeased by the effort.

It doesn't 'displease' or 'please'. It is not a genuine attempt to provide real information: it is propagandising to back a political position that is against the interests of the great majority of American people.

That fact is important to understand the context of such 'studies'.

What amuses me is that you are quite happy to take this type of entirely unscientific propaganda, produced by a partisan political group financed by a tiny elite of wealthy people, as representing the truth: then you'll claim that peer-reviewed science conducted on an international scope is all lies and propaganda devised by greedy scientists and some vague concept of 'government'.

You are one of what the Heritage Foundation and their ilk would refer to internally as a 'useful idiot'.

I'm not an idiot I'm a dupe.

No, you're an idiot, as you seem to like to keep proving.

You on the other hand rambled off in some sort of rant unrelated to the OP.

I said from the beginning that the "models" could have been weighted.

'Models' that are carefully manufactured to ensure false results for propaganda purposes are not models in the scientific sense.

They're what the average person would refer to as 'bullsh*t'.

But to declare the models wrong just based on the source, without even a cursory check of the source data, implies a totally typical liberal attitude toward anything that may interfere with your preconceptions of the President's infallibility.

I'd trust the CBO over any lobby group any day. If the lobby group happens to be ideologically opposed to what they are 'studying' and has an excellent track records for lying their asses off then it's case closed -- no need to waste my time.

That you believe that this has anything to do with Hopey-changey is a strong indicator of idiocy, IMO.

So the models I find are BS;

You should beware of trusting information from obvious propaganda sources (produced using 'models' designed to yield a predetermined outcome).

but all the overestimating models of Global Warming are "science".

I see. Your prejudice is showing.

I think it is your ignorance that is showing. The actual temperature data has been, and is still, outstripping most models when you look at the trend. This means that the models are too conservative, and are underestimating temperature increase (and also sea level rise, weather effects, and so on).

This shouldn't be that surprising, given that a 'scientific consensus' approach will tend to produce too conservative an assessment.  (The discipline of science is, overall, very cautious and conservative -- and it requires great and sustained effort to shift accepted theory.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow