Did insurance premiums really increase because of Obamacare? I am continuing to write my essay on Universal healthcare, showing both the pros and cons, but I haven't been able to find any evidence Obamacare actually increased premiums, all I can find are conservative media outlets saying so. Trump often claimed Obamacare caused insurance prices to rise, and even some to lose their insurance, but I'm have trouble finding any evidence of that. Does anyone know anymore about this, or have any links to credible sites showing evidence of it?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Its anecdotal. Unless you can get your sample size incredibly high it'll always be a weak link in your data. Great for starting points, and establishing trends if given, but easily dismissable.
Dismissing firsthand experience is a redditism. Especially in place of massaged data.
My mother survived chemo without losing a strand of hair. Firsthand experience tells me chemo doesn't usually result in hairloss. Using only firsthand experience gives you such a fractional picture that it can often end up wildly wrong.
But anything you disagree with is reddit, so you'd prefer to be wrong just to own them.
Your firsthand experience would be howled at by reddit, who would call you a liar and vehemently persecute you because aside from perversion they don't believe in outliers. Because muh science, muh data. Nevermind the reproducibility crisis, of course. That is a deep rabbit hole indeed.
I for one don't care, nor am I sufficiently arrogant as to tell someone not to believe their own eyes.
Except for when the firsthand experience fits with their own narrative and worldview. Because everything they approve of is perfect science and anything otherwise is "word we goggled to sound smart when dismissing it." The same way stats are fake when we don't like it here, except when its 13/52 or 41% then stats/data are infallible truth.
Their retardation doesn't mean we need to gimp ourselves just to be their opposite. Firsthand is greatly beneficial for many things. Writing essays and compiling "credible evidence" like OP is not one, because it fails to hold up when poked. The same way "my gay uncle never molested anyone" doesn't pass versus the sheer number of predators out there.
You shouldn't dismiss firsthand. You need only consider how small of a person you are and how that gives you a very narrow field of view on the world, and factor around that.
Nah, just define your population of interest narrowly.
Stats are fake and gay anyway.