1615: KeithCare

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

Ron complained about his premium prices, not an augmented rise in price.

As such, he has an issue with the price of the good, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

He did not claim, as you have, that the pre-existing condition ban and extension of coverage under parental plans to dependents younger than 26 precipitated a rise in the cost of his plan. Instead, he complained about the price of his plan.

That's very, very slippery of you, Dave. Obviously I am trying to talk about something broader. I took issue with Rich basically saying that nobody can link Obamacare with current health care insurance costs.

Originally Posted by RichSPK

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but 1 part of Obamacare that has gone into effect and is helping people already: kids can stay on their parent's insurance until 26.

See Timeline of the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov for more.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The issue is that he used his current rate of premiums to indicate his displeasure with the law, yet the law has not created that state as of yet.

For example, it would be like complaining about how soda is currently very expensive before a soda tax goes into effect. Instead of actually indicating displeasure with a law, it instead suggests displeasure with reality.

And you very clearly agreed with that.

By linking the two costs, I was addressing your implication bolded above that the law has not affected the price. I directly responded to something you said, and then you acted like I was talking about something irrelevant.

I am not talking about Ron. I am talking about you and Rich insisting that Obamacare has not affected insurance premiums. If I talked about Ron previously, it was just an attempt to get at the real question. If you want to say what I'm saying has nothing to do with what Ron said, fine. But I am still directly countering things the two of you said.