I'm asking you to provide your analysis of the points in gul's post. You've effectively admitted you're incapable of any thought on the topic. No need to pitch a hissy over it. Meanwhile:
You know, I tried to read the post FF linked, but the fail was so strong in the first paragraph that it would only have been masochism to continue: 1) Obama said that premiums went up at the lowest pace on record, not total per capita health care spending. The two are, of course, not comparable. 2) As an economist he shouldn't be comparing nominal spending increases even if they were relevant; he should be citing constant dollar numbers. 3) His cherry-picked endpoints are ridiculous even if his irrelevant comparison were relevant. Of course total spending on health care would increase relatively slowly at the height of the economic downturn; people delay medical care when they lose their insurance because COBRA is up and they don't have money to pay for it. That has nothing to do with how fast the cost of premiums or procedures goes up. And of course total spending per capita should goes up in the first year of a major expansion in coverage! That it went up only an unusually small amount with millions of additional insured is a miracle of Obamacare! Seriously, you couldn't pack more fail into a paragraph if you were Federal Farmer. John C Goodman may call himself an economist, but he isn't one judging by his writing.
Federal Farmer understands one thing about the article: the author doesn't like PPACA. Therefore, it must be well written and accurate, with perfect logical integrity. What a waste it is to even bother with that kid.
FF, all people are asking for is a short version of what is said and why it matters. Some of us don't have time to click every link posted without context. It's not even about your opinions, it's about common courtesy.