According to new CB article, "Younger Buyers could kill the Ford Mustang"

[friedmud]

Well.......that's probably because ACA started in march of 2010.

It was passed in 2010, but wasn't completely phased in (especially the major parts of it) until January 1st, 2014.

Sponsored

 

[LETHAL]

Soon as this admin is out in three years, car life may return back to normal.

That said, Just more Mustangs for us old guys.. (I'm 44) LOL

 

[friedmud]

https://www.governing.com/archive/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html

16.2 Million public employees - NOT counting Federal employees.

Add another 9-10 Million (depending on what agencies are counted or not) for Federal Government employees.

But you have to pay attention to all those "*" that appear in all those statistics. It all depends on how you want to define a government worker. If your argument is simply based on an internet link - no thinking required - then I don't know what to tell you.

What's ironic about your discussion with another member about ACA - is that plenty of Federal and State Government workers WERE affected by the ACA.

A Federal worker doesn't get magic access to better health plans, depending on the market, because of the SIZE of the employee pool, the companies providing those plans tend to offer better rates. But more than a few companies pulled out of different states after ACA - because of costs vs profit.

The same thing applies in the private sector. Let's take a large private employer............say Capital One. Their plans / rates are consistently BETTER than the vast majority of rates / plans that are available to most other private AND public sector workers - because of the SIZE of their employee base.

The GOAL of the ACA was admirable. The ACTUAL Law that passed was riddled with loopholes and DID Cause (Whether you want to admit it or not) SOME people to lose their current insurers (and have to change) and caused many to PAY more for the same, if not less coverage. See self-employed people.

Look at the states where the "co ops" were run by idiots with zero experience in the arena. Look at those states where ACA regulations COST states (and thus taxpayers) MORE money to provide the same coverage.

Hell, by the Summer of 2016 FOURTEEN of the original 23 ACA founded Co-Ops had FAILED.

Let's not even get started on the MANDATE that was rolled back (see numerous court cases) that literally was the basis for every study about how the ACA would "pay for itself" by FORCING people to pay for health insurance or pay a tax penalty. That was the entire idea......younger, healthy people - who use health insurance benefits on a smaller scale, would PAY for insurance and offset the additions. It didn't work.

So you stating that people didn't lose healthcare plans, options or get increased rates directly because of ACA regulations and the effects these had on the insurance market is ridiculous.

Are more people insured now under ACA? Yes more people now have health insurance. Unfortunately the number of UNDERINSURED people also increased greatly - because of you know......COSTS.

Arguing that the health insurance model in our country could be greatly improved is one thing............I'd agree. (A good start would be letting companies sell policies and compete across state lines - so you know - the CONSUMERS would get to pick what they need / want versus cost benefit.)

But defending ACA is ridiculous. Unintended consequences are still consequences.

Your numbers line up with what I said (almost perfectly). I said 24M people total. You said 16.2M + 9-10M... which is 25-26M.

There are 165M workers in the US... so that makes all government workers (even by your highest number) 15.7%... which is what I said.

You are absolutely right that government employees (and especially contractors) were also affected by the ACA. That's what I've been trying to tell @NoVaGT all along. Somehow he thinks that Government/Healthcare/Union workers weren't impacted by the ACA... and that ONLY "private sector" employees were... but he hasn't shown a single piece of evidence for any of that yet.

You are also correct that the ACA was not perfect (never said it was) and that some people lost their insurance at their job... and that premiums increased. However, tens of millions more people now have _some_ insurance than before. I was never arguing about individuals... we're talking about a nation of 300M people... any policy change needs to look at the overall effect. I've posted multiple sources that say the overall effects have been positive for the health of the country.

The real debate here was @NoVaGT started this whole thing by claiming that "90%" of private sector employees had their insurance destroyed... with rates being 2x-5x what they were before... which has not been shown.

Anyway: I don't have any beef with anything you've said here. There are definitely valid criticisms of the ACA.

BTW: I didn't vote for Obama and I was against the ACA when it was proposed. But ~7 years after it's been in effect I'm willing to look at the data and agree that overall it was successful in impacting the health of the US. It could definitely be improved though... and I hope that more health reform comes quickly.

 

[friedmud]

Honestly, the Mach E looks good lol. I saw a blue one in person the other week that was pretty optioned. Way more interesting to me than a Tesla.

I like them too... I just really wish that it wasn't called a "Mustang"!

 

[mysta_sandman]

 

[friedmud]

So, we'll start with the first name on the list; Charles Courtemanche, PhD

https://gatton.uky.edu/faculty-research/faculty/courtemanche-charles

Who pays his salary???

".. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration."

He gets grants for his "scientific research" from not one....not two....but three fucking US government agencies.

Now onto the second name on the list from your article; James Marton, PhD

This is precious....absolutely hysterical.

According to the NBER, he's been a co-author on 5 "sceintific research" papers. And ALL of them have been written psoitively about the ACA. And ALL of them have been co-authored with what appears to be the same authors;

https://www.nber.org/people/james_marton?page=1&perPage=50

Yes, lots of researchers receive money from the government. But to make the jump from that to 5 scientist from multiple institutions colluding to falsify results... is insane. The database that particular paper utilized is something you can go get and check their work if you want to! Anyone can... that's the point.

Do you realize what kind of career suicide it is for scientists to falsify results or doctor numbers? I'm not saying it doesn't happen (there are bad actors in every industry) but scientific journal publishing is set up specifically to catch these errors and punish the people who make them. A paper retraction (a journal pulling your paper because of an issue) is one of the worst things that can happen to a scientist.

Like I said a bazillion posts ago: I'm now late for my Zoom meeting with all the other scientists in the world where we collude on how to deceive the public... so I gotta go.

 

[NoVaGT]

Yes, lots of researchers receive money from the government. But to make the jump from that to 5 scientist from multiple institutions colluding to falsify results... is insane. The database that particular paper utilized is something you can go get and check their work if you want to! Anyone can... that's the point.

Do you realize what kind of career suicide it is for scientists to falsify results or doctor numbers? I'm not saying it doesn't happen (there are bad actors in every industry) but scientific journal publishing is set up specifically to catch these errors and punish the people who make them. A paper retraction (a journal pulling your paper because of an issue) is one of the worst things that can happen to a scientist.

Like I said a bazillion posts ago: I'm now late for my Zoom meeting with all the other scientists in the world where we collude on how to deceive the public... so I gotta go.

I think you're heading into a place of being deliberately obtuse. Or willfully ignorant, just to continue arguing a position that can't be defended.

If you have the slightest knowledge or experience with reading such "scientific research", you understand the concept of "confirmation bias", and that anything you want to support or deny, you can create "scientific research" to achieve whatever goal you have in mind.

Want to show that ACA is great!!?? Easy. You create research to support that. It's not even the slightest bit difficult. Want to show it's crap? Easy peasy......but there's no money in it.

All of the "research scientists" involved in that paper get funded by various government grants. Their research is paid for by the government. If they create research that shows that ACA is crap, they're out of a job. They get paid to do research that supports whatever their benefactor wants them to support.

They either do that, or they starve.

And not one of those mother fuckers have ever worked outside of the world of academics. They've been sucking at the tax-payer teat all their professional lives.

Now.....on to the 3rd author;

It was passed in 2010, but wasn't completely phased in (especially the major parts of it) until January 1st, 2014.

No semantics son.

It started in March of 2010.

 

[Rocketeer]

Honestly, the Mach E looks good lol. I saw a blue one in person the other week that was pretty optioned. Way more interesting to me than a Tesla.

On those pizza cutter wheels? Hell no. That might be a great compact crossover, but then they put pony badge on it.

 

[TheSnowmanMafia]

On those pizza cutter wheels? Hell no. That might be a great compact crossover, but then they put pony badge on it.

The base wheels look terrible. This was one I saw had the giant red 6 piston front brakes and not the pizza cutter wheels.

Edit: They're 4 pots not 6

 

[NoVaGT]

.....I've told you before: I am a scientist. I literally publish articles in journals all the time. I know exactly how this works - and the rigor and review that is applied to this work.....

No, you didn't tell me before. But I'd already figured that out, more or less.

Thanks....I appreciate that.

I'm good. I'm done with you.

 

[TheSnowmanMafia]

And this is why the Mustang is dying. 55+ years of heritage are being thrown out the window to market ANOTHER crossover. Electric or not, it simply has nothing in common with the previous six generations of Mustang. Ford can call it whatever they want, it's their brand to dilute. Doesn't make it any less an electric Escape with pony badges.

There's only one other American car that can boast that kind of continuous production that's stuck close to the original intent of the car, and that's the Corvette. Say what you will about the C8's design and styling, it's still a Corvette at heart. It remains a dedicated 2-seat sports car. Plus, the mid-engine Corvette has been simmering for decades. Even GM isn't dumb enough to slap those flags onto an electric Equinox.

As much as I hate the Mach E sharing a Mustang badge it was a good move by Ford. It wasn't stupid in the least bit. It pissed off enthusiasts and simply generated more press for the general public to see.

As they say, any press is good press.

 

[friedmud]

I think you're heading into a place of being deliberately obtuse. Or willfully ignorant, just to continue arguing a position that can't be defended.

If you have the slightest knowledge or experience with reading such "scientific research", you understand the concept of "confirmation bias", and that anything you want to support or deny, you can create "scientific research" to achieve whatever goal you have in mind.

Want to show that ACA is great!!?? Easy. You create research to support that. It's not even the slightest bit difficult. Want to show it's crap? Easy peasy......but there's no money in it.

All of the "research scientists" involved in that paper get funded by various government grants. Their research is paid for by the government. If they create research that shows that ACA is crap, they're out of a job. They get paid to do research that supports whatever their benefactor wants them to support.

They either do that, or they starve.

And not one of those mother fuckers have ever worked outside of the world of academics. They've been sucking at the tax-payer teat all their professional lives.

Now.....on to the 3rd author;


No semantics son.

It started in March of 2010.

Look - I've provided multiple pieces of evidence, backed by data, from multiple authors that lay out the positive outcomes of the ACA and definitely disprove your your original "90%" assertion and your one and only citation of a New York Post article.

Like I said before, if there is literally NO evidence that runs counter to your belief that you would ever accept... then you are detached from reality. If every single thing that experts are publishing that you don't "like" you can just say "they're biased!"... then why are you even having conversations with anyone? Just believe what you want to believe and keep your head in the sand. I love how you think that multiple papers with many authors are biased... but _not_ the New York Post _opinion_ article

I, myself, was against the ACA when it was being discussed (and definitely didn't vote for Obama)... BUT as a scientist I can't ignore the data that says that on the whole the ACA has been positive for the United States. There are definitely problems, and there is a lot more to do - but the ACA itself is not evil.

As far as the start date. You can look at the full timeline here: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/re...-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca

Note that the exchanges plans didn't go into effect until 2014.

Not too mention - several of your plots go back much further and show that health care costs have been rising at a pretty constant rate. That is a problem - but it wasn't the ACA that (solely) created it.

 

[Sivi70980]

Well if younger buyers keep buying them and crashing them, Ford will have to make more...

 

[shogun32]

MY insurance went from$80 (through work) a month to $450-$500 (through ACA).

I used to pay full freight at $120-200/mo. Thanks to the ACA it's now $800. The problem of a healthcare industry that used to extract 1% of GDP is not to write laws that allow them to siphon off 6%. People who were "uninsured" were so by choice. Oh sure, some poverty-stricken souls did exist but that is not what the ACA "solved".

THere is ONE and ONLY one way to solve the "high premiums" problem: POSTED prices for EVERY operation, and CRIMINAL charges for price variability (you do know it's a CRIME for your mechanic to charge different prices depending on what you're wearing and what car you drive, and if you have AAA or not). Insurance is for life-altering, low probability events - cancer, major bodily trauma, bypass surgery, transplants.

Everything else is CASH on the barrelhead. You want to see an example check out the prices of the Surgery Center of Omaha. They charge a FRACTION of what your local hospital bilks out of you and your insurance company. Not only that it's firm-fixed-price. Just like your auto mechanic and grocery store, hair dresser etc.

Implement it and see your healthcare "prices" crash to 1/10th or lower. Yes, absolutely massive numbers of "healthcare-industry-involved" people who suddenly be out of work. GOOD! they were rotting dead wood that served no purpose than to wildly inflate cost of service. The administrative overhead in the midical provision of services is way beyond preposterous.

GOV'T CREATED the problem, and they think that "just one more" entitlement program (nee ACA) will 'fix' their previous unending streams of F'kups. NEVER WORKS!

I can fly to Japan, pay full price for a procedure and 2 week stay for follow-up and convalescence and fly back for vastly cheaper than if walked into Inova down the street.

 

[dx2]

I like them too... I just really wish that it wasn't called a "Mustang"!

Problem solved, let's call them Moo-stangs.

Sponsored