Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What did I or the authors of the article "presume with certainty"?

"Recent national surveys seem to confirm this presumption"

The words "seem to" and "certainty" do not mix.

Originally posted by whodey
"Recent national surveys seem to confirm this presumption"

The words "seem to" and "certainty" do not mix.

So... what did I or the authors of the article "presume with certainty"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It would probably be a very good thing for the economy if we got away from the perverse system where employers provide health insurance.

It might surprise you, but I agree. The problem is that it may be too late to return to a market based system, which is what we had when most health insurance and other payments came from consumers.

Higher marginal tax rates for individuals made fringe benefits attractive to both employees and employers, but all third party payor systems remove consumer pressure from producers.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Up to 20 million people have gained coverage due to the ACA; the CBO projects that the figure is around 12 million, while polling suggests that 5 to 9 million people have gained insurance due to the ACA, with the percentage of uninsured people dropping from 18% to 13%.

Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1405667

Those numbers seem to be in absolutes, insured and uninsured. How many of the insured are insured at significantly poorer terms than before. And how many of the newly insured also are nearly as bad off as without any coverage?