AP "fact check" headline falsely suggests people would pay higher premiums under health care reform
The headline of an Associated Press "fact check" article falsely suggested that President Obama's health care plan would cause people to pay higher health insurance premiums. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that by 2016 the Senate's version of health care reform -- on which Obama's plan is largely modeled -- would not increase premiums for the vast majority of Americans, and for many, premium costs would decrease.
AP "fact check" headline falsely suggests that people would pay higher premiums "under Obama plan"
AP: "Premiums would rise under Obama plan." The headline of a March 17 AP "fact check" article stated, "Premiums would rise under Obama plan," falsely suggesting that people would pay higher health insurance premiums under health care reform. The article cited a CBO report on the Senate's health care bill to discuss how premiums would be affected by health care reform legislation.
CBO found bill would not raise premiums for majority of Americans
CBO: Premiums in group market will not increase. CBO estimated that the large group and small group markets make up 83 percent of the insurance market and that those premiums would essentially remain unchanged and could decrease.
PolitiFact: "CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." A January 27 PolitiFact.com analysis labeled the claim that health care reform would cause premiums for most Americans to increase "pants on fire" false and stated, "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." From PolitiFact.com:
On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous.
The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.
CBO: Most individual enrollees would receive subsidies, which would decrease the premiums they pay by "56 percent to 59 percent" on average. CBO estimated that by 2016 a majority of people insured on the individual market would receive subsidies, which would decrease their premiums compared to what they would pay without health care reform. CBO stated, "The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law." Claims that the bill would increase premiums in the individual market are based on estimates that do not factor in subsidies.
Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums." The Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported on an exchange between Obama and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) during the February 25 health care summit:
Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama just had a contentious exchange on this point, so it's worth settling the issue: Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.
Here's who the teabaggers are. They're predominantly white people carrying signs decrying imaginary government takeovers, imaginary tax increases, and the reality of the black man in the White House all the while listening to such bastions of democracy and sanity like Michele Bachman.
If you choose to state something other than wrong prejudices I will respond.
Thanks.
I forgot to add these teabagger traits:
"sometimes armed"
"spelling challenged"
All these are farcical and said for effect:
1) All liberals are hippies and drug users who want sex all the time.
2) All blacks are useless and lazy, and they are the cause of all of our problems because they want to be repaid for the slavery they had to endure up to 150 years ago, and then endure Jim Crow.
3) All liberals are poor people who want to mooch off of the rich who are smart and work hard.
4) The only way for a black man to get rich is to play a sport because they are too dumb to do any better.
5) All conservatives are evil and heartless and only want to walk on the backs of the poor.
6) All the homeless deserve to be homeless because they are dumb.
7) All Christians have been brainwahsed and are fools.
8) Gun owners just want to shoot other people.
I hope you see the point, and unless you can support your ideas about those in the Tea Party movement, your opinion is prejudicial.
Disclaimer:
I have no evidence that you, ever or even for a moment, had a thought that resembled one of these. Heaven parish the thought. And of course I have no evidence whatsoever that the persons quoted below are either Conservatives or express ideas that are representative of the views of any Conservatives living or dead. And of course none of these persons ever said any of these things or anything like them.
How 'bout letting rip with a few Limbaughs?:
"Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"Take that bone out of you nose and call me back".
"Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
On political dissent:
"It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protestors and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anticapitalist, pro-Marxist communists".
On Abu Ghraib:
"I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"
On Guantanamo prision:
"It's sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun."We need to shut down this Gitmo prison? Well, don't shut it down - we just need to start an advertising campaign. We need to call it, 'Gitmo, the Muslim resort.' Any resort that treated people like this would have ads all over the New York Times trying to get people to come down and visit for some R&R, for some rest and relaxation."
Spike Lee once urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X. Limbaugh responds: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."
Discussing a Chicago inner-city schoolteacher punished for using a math question that focused on the price of prostitution and cocaine habits, Limbaugh suggested that the teacher should be credited for "understanding the culture these kids come from." The math question began: "Rufus is pimping three girls."
Then there is Coulter:
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."
"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."
"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening."
"If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in Vietnam -- oh wait, he does."
“While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.”
"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.
In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.
Ann Coulter not aiming at Liberals.
And finally, the eloquence of Hannity:
"[Liberals] teach our children multiculturalism rather than American culture, revisionist history rather than American history, the thinly disguised religion of secular humanism and extreme environmentalism rather than capitalism. They train our young to criticize America, not celebrate it. They welcome condoms into the classroom but ban God and the Ten Commandments. They encourage tolerance for the teachings of the Koran but not for the teachings of Jesus Christ. They oppose the Pledge of Allegiance, tell us that ‘God is dead,’ that ‘Christianity is for losers,’ and that evangelical and Catholic conservatives are more dangerous than radical Islamic militants. They tell us that fuel-burning SUVs are bad for America, but flag-burning SOBs aren’t. But they are wrong. And it is time to ask: Why, particularly in time of war, should we entrust the education of our children to people who loathe and ravage so many of out core values and traditions?"
See how easy it is if you just let your 'inner bad boy' out. Just tryin' to help. Always a pleasure.
Coulter arguably does as well, and Hannity can be a jerk as well, though this quote from him that you included, I think has some merit.
Take the tolerance of the Koran and compare it to situations where kids have been told they cannot read a story from the Bible when asked to read their favorite story to the class, when the Bible story is their favorite. Lesson kids learn-- favorite stories cannot come from the Bible.
This seems to be slowing down, so here is a bit about me. I am a 33 year old second year law student looking for a second career. I live in WY with my wife and two boys aged 3 and 4. Prior to law school, we lived outside of DC where I worked in the mortgage industry and then the FAA.
I have been and remain conservative, but really view myself as even outside of that movement, because I strongly think conservatives are guilty of many of the things they accuse Dems of. I also think people, on their own outside of any outside compulsion, should act to make their community stronger. This includes acting charitably (pick a way, it matters not) and by focusing on local politics before focusing on the national.
The absoulte best way to make a difference is to start in your own home. Far too many ignore this and wonder what has gone wrong with our nation, and this group includes conservatives.
Perhaps one of my biggest issues with politics today is the very game of politics. Politics is so full of opportunism and hypocrasy that it can be hard to take it seriously. The problem though, is that it is deadly serious. It is not isolated to one group, as I have stated before.
So, there you have it, as does everyone here. Maybe it will help some understand where I am coming from...
Who knows...
Look, I think at best we do not know what will happen. With opinions all over the place and with only the unknown future ahead of us, we simply cannot know.
I think a lot of people mistake raises in premiums as simply a greedy attempt to make more money. First, at the outset I'll say that yes, part is an attempt to make money, as they are private businesses that need money to stay in business and provide people jobs and help with others health care expenses. However, some of these increases are legitimate business needs to cover expenses.
I saw a statistic the other day that was interesting. I have not verified it, but will. But the statistic was that the proft margins for insurance companies are quite low, like at 5-6%. So, any sort of increase in cost will badly affect their bottom line.
That said, it is also true that any sort of increase in cost will affect the bottom line of any body paying for medical costs, unless profits are made higher. Now, even if a company runs a non-profit insurance plan, any sort of increase will affect what they are required to bring in to cover their costs. This is true whether it is the government or not.
The issue then, I don't think, is who pays for the medical costs, but the medical costs themselves. Unless we can keep costs stable, the amount required to pay for the increasing costs must increase. There are no other options.
I am always baffled at the direction and the focus of this whole health care reform debate. MMfA and those pushing this or any bill always insist that the costs will be lower, the CBO said so, or something. They zero in on this because they think that will alleviate people's fears on health care. It's all about the money, spiraling out of control costs. While this is obviously a major concern, nobody has yet to convince me that government involvement will lower any costs. Because government involvement rarely does. It's the nature of the beast. Not to mention cost projections are pie-in-the-sky predictions that run way below what actually is necessary. And people know this. But MMfA and the Dems keep at it, and people's skepticism remains - because we aren't stupid.
So instead of focusing on costs, costs, costs the Dems and MMfA would be better served just to say this is what we know now but we really don't know how this will play out in ten years. A little frank honesty would be appreciated instead of stock political spin on costs which are nothing but educated guesses, and not worth the paper they are printed on.
The general public will never buy all these cost estimates hook line and sinker yet the Dems seem to think if they say it over and over it will sink in. And they haul out and call it a lie or a falsehood when anyone dares question these CBO numbers, it's ridiculous.
The U.S has the most expensive health care system in the world which does not cover all it's citizens. Every other modern industrial nation has one form or another of universal health care coverage, either through government or a mix of public and private. Their systems cover everyone and it's far more cheaper.
That's YOUR (and Wesley the weasel's repeatedly debunked) strawman argument that's totally bogus!
Of course we don't know the exact costs that we'll incur. It doesn't matter though, that we don't know. What we're looking at is the COMPARISON between doing nothing and doing this. And, with that comparison, doing this is MUCH better for the deficit!
All we HAVE is projections. That's how ALL gov't works - estimating what they have to have coming in via taxes and what they'll have going out via disbursements - the ONLY way to figure that out is with projections similar to what the CBO is doing here. It's also how all successful businesses work, as well as household budgets too! All we HAVE are our suppositions about what our inflow will be and what our outgo will be, and if we've done a good job of those projections/estimates/predictions, we're in good shape.
And the CBO has a great track record of these projections (contrary to the bogus points Wesley the weasel tries to push).
Objecting to using these kinds of projections is ridiculous.
To quote the article above, "The headline of an Associated Press "fact check" article falsely suggested that President Obama's health care plan would cause people to pay higher health insurance premiums. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that by 2016 the Senate's version of health care reform -- on which Obama's plan is largely modeled -- would not increase premiums for the vast majority of Americans, and for many, premium costs would decrease."
So, yes, this estimate is being used to state that it is certain premiums will not increase. It is not about a balancing budgetary acts, rather it expressly talks about rising premiums.
Do not shift the topic, Dolly. The topic is premiums, not deficits.
But the same argument holds for the cost of premiums. In order to determine what will go on in the future, we have projections, predictions and estimates!
And as the article above(and my post below) explains, it's a distortion of what has been found to say that "premiums will go up". Comparing apples to apples, they won't!
Thanks for continuing to dig your own grave. It's always appreciated.
Normal people don't try to diminish their credibility the way you guys do. Please keep it up! We love it!
My apologies.
I also know full well you were responding to Right On. But that really doesn't matter, since my response addresses the substance of what you wrote.
The ONLY way one can say that people would pay higher premiums is to compare apples to oranges.
Comparing apples to apples, they won't. But because many people will choose better coverage, THOSE people WILL pay higher premiums - again, for BETTER coverage.
Just because YOU can't read and comprehend what's under discussion, and keep stuff in context doesn't mean that everyone is so highly impaired as you are.
And the first time the poster 'unknown' gives us a good response, I'll be sure to let you know. It didn't happen above! Only a dolt would think that a baseless personal attack is a 'good response'.
But what is expressly written does not indicate any sort of comparison. Again, point me to a place where it expressly states it is a comparison.
Here's a couple of examples from there.
"CBO estimated that the large group and small group markets make up 83 percent of the insurance market and that those premiums would essentially remain unchanged and could decrease."
"Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama just had a contentious exchange on this point, so it's worth settling the issue: Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform."
This is not rocket science, you doofus.
The only way to reduce health care costs is to reduce the costs. Pretty obvious, huh? But its easier, and a better political idea, to push the idea that the government will subsidize the costs that will continue to rise.
What RC and others can't understand is savings coming from people not using the emergency room for primary care, savings coming from avoiding thousands of bankruptcies, savings from ending the subsidizing of HMO profits and CEO salaries.
Not to mention the saving of lives.
Can I ask why it is a problem for doctors to make a fair living? What about lawyers?
Foghorn, trust me, I know first hand the effects of health care costs on the bottom line of household many budgets. Do not assume that I do not know or have not experienced.
I do not recall seeing your list of potential savings, so I'd like to see them. I'd also like to know your sources and the logic as to how it would be saved.
But the Dems agreed to do that anyway.
And Obama got concessions, big ones, from health care providers, drug companies, etc, last spring, so I'm not sure why you're acting like this is something that's unique and original to you!!!
Obama's healthcare reform WILL reduce costs!
If you doubt what I said (and there's NO reason you should, since there's no time when I assert ANYTHING that I'm not sure of), then you can look it up.
MMFA has most of the info, either in my previous posts or on their articles.
If you are that sure, then you certainly can provide it for me, and if MMFA is your only source than yes, I will doubt. Just as I would if Red State or Media Research Center was the only source from a conservative.
Alas, I know, I am a fraud for stating that I like to see multiple sources or solidly unbiased ones. How horrific!
Your cost/impact analysis assumes they will not raise the cost to the policy holders. Such a pass-through keeps the "bottom line" flat. That being the case, it seems your argument is not so much about profits, it is just about increasing costs as you come to in your final paragraph.
The issuse now is do we implement a system which provides expanded coverage first or do we get costs under control first? The Mass experiment has taken the first tack. In that EMTALA says no one can be turned away for emergency care until stabilized and many use the ER as their primary care with the concomitant cost implications, cost containment first seems unlikely.
I think it should be about controlling costs, and from what I can tell, the current bill and plan is about expanding coverage.
But I think that until costs are controlled, any attempt to expand or even maintain coverage will lead to increased premiums. This is true whether through direct premiums for health care, or through veiled increases through tax increases.
An interesting point of this "truth" would be to look at who makes more money and how much they put into the system.
basic health care is a right. if someone is lying on the street dying we don't just leave them there. we help them. we don't check their wallet to see if they have money and deserve health care. if everyone is insured, everyone pays in according to their means. this spreads the cost and lowers costs overall for everyone. the socialism argument is so incredibly lame. we all pay for the infrastructure you use to get to work and your home and for you to be able to patronize the bushiness you choose. we pay to protect you from crime and disaster. are these forms of socialism? of course they are. do i like paying for everything the government does? absolutely not. but, as one member of a tribe of close to 400 million people i understand that i must pitch in and do my part to make sure that our society stays strong. and if you still don't want to pitch in, well then start by giving me back my money that was taken to fight wars that you guys so love. because that's socialism as well. the wars we fight don't have one thing to do with defending my freedom. Afghanistan and Iraq are no threat to my freedoms. these are just wars of empire.
And if I hear you correctly, and please correct if this assumption is wrong, you are OK to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the poor's health care. I wonder, though, if the rich are expressly taxed more for infrastructure as you seem to indicate is to happen for health care.
I assume the best you can say is that it is built into the taxation system we have, because I know of no provision that expresses that the rich are to help everyone build our infrastructure.
Besides, consider who uses health care (and what health care) and who uses infrastructure.
and the rich do pay a higher percentage of taxes as they should. that's why we have a progressive tax system.
who uses health care? everybody. the rich use it as much as the poor. the difference is the rich can afford insurance.
Without that info, one might be led to believe that college graduates are more foolish for having nicer cars than college students, or that a college degree is dangerous to a sound budget. It's not.
I am not sure that qualfies. So, an important question is to define "need".
But the budgetary aspect is certainly in play.
But back to the "need" idea for a second. Health care is arguably a need. But from what I understand, everyone gets health care as it is. Providers cannot turn someone away for certain basics of health care. So, that can take us to what is a need.
An interesting question, what is a need in health care. Must we cured of all our health care ills, or only those that immediately and significantly affect our lives? What will the government say when they are to fit the bill for those who over eat their way to diabetes? Or those who smoke themselves into cancer? What about someone who hurts their knee while engaged in an activity where they knew their was a significant risk of knee injury?
I am not providing an answer, but these are the questions that will have to asked and answered if government gets involved. And remember, part of the answer must come from the ability to collect income.
The next time I need a fool's understanding on ANY topic, I'll come to you, you can be sure of that. For a reasonable understanding of a topic, ANY topic, I sure won't come to you.
You don't understand this topic, and this talking point has been debunked countless times. You're not trying to discuss the issue I raised and the talking point you used that i debunked, because you can't refute the facts, so you're now just trying to further derail the thread.
Oh, and if you can't understand that a college graduate with a job might need a nicer, more reliable car as a working stiff than a college student might have to have given his/her different milieus, then you're really, really, really too ignorant to even TRY to converse on this or any other topic.
Therefore, troll post, please ignore.
Do you vet what you write or just push it on through. You'd do yourself a favor to read it like a 100 times before you hit "save"
LOL
Second, the car analogy still does not make sense, as Right On has already pointed out. There is no need for a nicer car, only a desire for a nicer car. Seriously-- only a desire.
I don't disagree with you on the content of your message in previous posts, I just think that this post seems a little too vitriolic when you compare it to the post you are responding to.
But Rational Conservative has been called a troll by Sue for no reason whatsoever and it's nothing more than her inability to honestly debate and anyone who dares challenge her is a troll. She can't handle another opinion.
There ARE needs for better cars - if you are just transporting yourself to the grocery store and an occasional party, you don't need the same kind of reliable transportation that a working stiff needs to be able to reliably get to work and back every day, on time. If you are having to look like a successful person, you have to dress nicer once you get out of college than you have to while IN college.
This is not rocket science, yet he can't/won't even try to understand it?
And he repeatedly uses repeatedly debunked talking points. He pretends not to understand how it could possibly cost less to have this improved healthcare than to stick with the status quo, even though it's been explained to others AND to him directly on several occasions why it will work that way.
Saying things in a calm voice doesn't make one reasonable or worthy of any respect. You're wrong when you assume he wants to have a reasonable, civil discussion. Nothing in his past or on this thread should lead you to believe that.
Listen, I've said to you before that you and I appear to agree on the policy issues and what should be done to combat those issues. I just happen to believe that it is more effective to be less confrontational, especially on an anonymous internet forum where the kind of language you use makes you look like a bully. I know I'm not the first person to write this kind of response to you, nor are these responses only written by people who disagree with you on the issues.
I know I'm probably going to get labeled as a concern troll or some such, but I wanted to speak my mind.
I don't attack ANYONE because of who they are.
Now, I know what YOU do, and how you and your sockpuppet trolls behave - targeting my posts that are virtually identical to another lefty's post, but repeatedly downrating mine simply because it's my post and not because of the content at all.
I've highlighted this behavior on several threads over the past 2 weeks.
You, on the other hand, couldn't provide a single example of ME behaving that way.
Your personal animus has once again reared its ugly head to destroy any credibility you might have on any issue, including this one.
But additionally, if you will note above, I did NOT put it in quotation marks anyway.
I don't EVER assume ANYONE's intent. I see what their clear intent is by their posts - by what they include in their posts. Civil language is not all that is required to actively be fairly participating in a debate, and I am baffled as to why you think it would be the sole requirement.
I don't CARE to be your friend or have you like me. You should feel free to hate my approach if that's what turns you on.
But you're totally wrong with your depiction of RC as being willing to have rational and reasonable debates on the facts, especially when you suggest that he IS that way because of the 'civil' way he writes his posts.
And in your own case it's never required.
Dolly, I never said that civility was the only requirement for a fair debate. What I said was that the tone of RC's post did not merit the venom that I saw in yours. By the way, if you could show me where I said that civility was the sole requirement that would be great.
If you somehow think that my post has language that contains hate towards you, I'd like to see your proof for that. I was responding to the language in your post. I don't know you, nor did I personally attack you.
I guess that I don't see it that way. Again, while RC and I disagree fundamentally on most issues, RC seems to actually want to converse and broaden his/her perspective. As RC and I can agree to disagree, so can you and I Dolly.
And you said, and I quote, "reasonable, civil conversation", so not sure how you think that you didn't say that I should behave differently because he's trying to have a "reasonable, civil debate" when EVERYTHING else he's doing is NOT reasonable and civil. If EVERYTHING but his tone (his civility) is NOT reasonable, then you sure ARE saying that all that's required is that civility in his tone.
And I never SAID you hate me, so again, get a clue. I said you hate my approach to trolls like this. But I said I don't care if you like it or not!
There's NO indication, other than his civil tone, that he wants what you describe him as wanting. NONE. Nothing else would indicate that he's interested in what you describe here.
Except for my express words.
I have always been frank and open to discussion. My express words are that I do seek an honest discussion. Yet, you don't want any part of it. Rather, you want to hurl insults from every direction possible.
Seriously and honestly, I'd love to know why you have such disdain for those like me who have a different point of view.
So don't expect someone to understand such blatant nonsense Sue, if you stop expecting that you'd be better off.
But neither analogy is ridiculous.
If someone gets a better job, and so can afford a $3000 a month mortgage payment instead of a $1500 mortgage payment, it doesn't mean that an affordable house has increased in cost suddenly. It means that they have determined that they can afford a better house.
If someone decides that because they have a job instead of no job, that they can now afford a better car, it hasn't magically increased the cost of the basic car they used to own as a college student.
The fact that YOU seem incapable of understanding this very basic and totally logical analogy is YOUR problem, not mine.
Or, the fact that you can't ADMIT that it totally makes sense shows us how controlling your personal animus is.
So, which is it? Are you ignorant or insincere?
I don't expect ANYONE to accept blatant nonsense. And that's why I point out YOUR blatant nonsense when you spew it! If YOU and other rightwingers would stop expecting people to understand and believe your blatant nonsense, the whole USA would be better off. Too bad YOU won't stop with that nonsense. But at least now, since I've been around, you don't get credibility you don't deserve. That's an accomplishment, since when I first started posting back in late summer, you DID get credibility and you DID get described as a reasonable righty!
Huh? I thought you were arguing that a nice, reliable car was a necessity. This has nothing to do with that. What you wrote is about being able to afford a nicer car, not its necessity.
I've also only been here about 3 weeks to a month...
It's not rocket science.
And I was saying that a college graduate does NEED a better car.
But it doesn't make a basic car become more expensive.
What a troll - and to think you had one person snowed on this thread - they actually thought you were behaving civilly with a great tone to your posts, as though that meant something!
You said at 2:07 this: "Oh, and if you can't understand that a college graduate with a job might need a nicer, more reliable car..."
Before that you said, "...that it's because college graduates have a lot more money to buy nicer cars and they have a greater need for a nicer car."
No, its not rocket science to see your own words, which include "they have a greater need for a nicer car" and "might need a nicer... car"
Words have meaning, Dolly. Perhaps you were simply careless above, but your words show that I am correct. If you meant something else, fine. But look at the words you wrote and clarify any mistake. I have actually done exactly that a couple of times in the time I have been here (and it is not since summer, another express thing you wrote).
You ARE a stupid fool. That's for sure.
Being able to afford a nicer car doesn't increase the price of a basic car.
Just like being able to AFFORD a better healthcare policy doesn't increase the price of a basic healthcare policy's premium.
Got that?
The fact that a college graduate needs a better, more reliable car than a college student needs doesn't affect the cost of basic navigation!
As I clearly said above
"That's like saying that college graduates have nicer cars than kids in college, without acknowledging that it's because college graduates have a lot more money to buy nicer cars and they have a greater need for a nicer car.
Without that info, one might be led to believe that college graduates are more foolish for having nicer cars than college students, or that a college degree is dangerous to a sound budget. It's not."
So, people can and DO buy nicer cars when they graduate. And people WILL buy better healthcare coverage when it's available at a relatively lower price - when it's more affordable given their income. Just like a college graduate will buy a better car when it's more affordable given the fact that they have a steady 40 hr a week income that they didn't have when in college. And for many people, getting better insurance for the same price or a little higher premium will be well worth the piece of mind it brings them - they NEED that piece of mind. Now, they don't NEED it like they need air to breathe, just like a college grad doesn't HAVE to have a better car. But it's undeniable that his life will be better with that better car, reliable transportation, something he's not embarrassed to park in the parking lot or to take others out to lunch in. People WANT more comprehensive healthcare with lower deductibles and better coverage.
So, you aren't correct here. I haven't seen you be "correct" once in your posting history, really. Give it up. No one believes you.
People will buy a better car because they want one, not because they need one.
Do not conflate wanting with needing.
So, try again Dolly.
Actually, don't, since there is no way you will ever see the problem with your position, especially when it is a conservative with whom you are debating.
As to the car analogy, you have to explain why it is a NECESSITY and not a WANT to have a nice car, which is different than a reliable car. You have changed the terms, and even reliable is questionable as to its necessity. Where I live, I could get by with a bike alone, and even then could probably get by with walking.
Do you doubt what it is I say? Do you not believe a thing any conservative says? May I ask why or why not?
There are plenty of rational reasonable liberals here who appreciate the back and forth, trying to reason with DollySue is futile.
You will see that soon enough if you haven't already.
And I have also appreciated the back and forth with those who disagree.
Call me dubious.