The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Not on a societal level. But, people have figured out that they can get others to pay for their lunches, at least for awhile, so on a short term micro level there are free lunches for some.

Glad to see you are finally coming around on regulation.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Just thinking about this another way...maybe the way it should be thought of...

The real question comes down to benefits and costs. We probably should be focusing on the benefits by themselves of the healthcare legislation. If the benefits are solid, then perhaps its a matter of shifting funds from other areas where the benefits are weak.

Again I don't know that we have enough to know the real benefits of the law...but if they turn out to be real, why don't we shift resources from other govt outlays. US taxpayers fund nearly half the world's military much of it stationed in Germany, one of the world's safest locations. Cuts there would take us far with this healthcare...and a reduction in the deficit.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Glad to see you are finally coming around on regulation.

Your statement has more irony than you know.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Just thinking about this another way...maybe the way it should be thought of...

The real question comes down to benefits and costs. We probably should be focusing on the benefits by themselves of the healthcare legislation. If the benefits are solid, then perhaps its a matter of shifting funds from other areas where the benefits are weak.

Again I don't know that we have enough to know the real benefits of the law...but if they turn out to be real, why don't we shift resources from other govt outlays. US taxpayers fund nearly half the world's military much of it stationed in Germany, one of the world's safest locations. Cuts there would take us far with this healthcare...and a reduction in the deficit.

Beyond healthcare, the only other huge bucket of money in the federal budget is defense. And there isn't enough money to strip away from defense to remotely pay for Obamacare. Without even taking into consideration the deficit. When I watched to final House vote on this and saw all the Democrats celebrating my first thought was that these people don't care that the federal government doesn't have a single penny to pay for any of this.

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Beyond healthcare, the only other huge bucket of money in the federal budget is defense. And there isn't enough money to strip away from defense to remotely pay for Obamacare. Without even taking into consideration the deficit. When I watched to final House vote on this and saw all the Democrats celebrating my first thought was that these people don't care that the federal government doesn't have a single penny to pay for any of this.

If total spending goes down, it doesn't matter a bit that it shifts from personal to government spending. The net cost is what matters.

Let's say we used to spend 25% of our total income on health care and it was divided as 15% out of pocket and 10% taxes. If now we spend 20% of our total income, 5% out of pocket and 15% taxes, then we win, even if taxes increase.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

If total spending goes down, it doesn't matter a bit that it shifts from personal to government spending. The net cost is what matters.

Let's say we used to spend 25% of our total income on health care and it was divided as 15% out of pocket and 10% taxes. If now we spend 20% of our total income, 5% out of pocket and 15% taxes, then we win, even if taxes increase.

The net cost of course matters, but it also matters if money comes from the government or our pocket. If we push spending onto the government, bu then there's no funding, we keep a little money in our pocket (or more likely spend it being Americans), but the federal deficit balloons even faster. In a fashion you have a point, but it ignores the bottom line impact on the federal deficit.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The net cost of course matters, but it also matters if money comes from the government or our pocket. If we push spending onto the government, bu then there's no funding, we keep a little money in our pocket (or more likely spend it being Americans), but the federal deficit balloons even faster. In a fashion you have a point, but it ignores the bottom line impact on the federal deficit.

This is exactly why I say the government is a corporation. We are shareholders, Congress/President is the Board of Directors, and SCOTUS is the auditing firm.

[MinnFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

If total spending goes down, it doesn't matter a bit that it shifts from personal to government spending. The net cost is what matters.

Let's say we used to spend 25% of our total income on health care and it was divided as 15% out of pocket and 10% taxes. If now we spend 20% of our total income, 5% out of pocket and 15% taxes, then we win, even if taxes increase.

I see what you're saying, but SS is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. Virtually every gov't program has huge cost overruns. I don't understand how people think that somehow its going to be different this time.

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

So how many companies do we think will drop coverage for their employees? Its pretty simple math. They can either pay $18K to cover them or pay a $2K tax.

How many people are going to skip buying coverage until they need it? For them its either pay a $700 tax or pay thousands to get coverage.

Can anyone else see how this whole thing is going to blow up?

Why hasn't this already happened in Massachusetts then? Seems the debate is between knuckledragger speculation and a real life test case with 5 year track record.

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Beyond healthcare, the only other huge bucket of money in the federal budget is defense. And there isn't enough money to strip away from defense to remotely pay for Obamacare. Without even taking into consideration the deficit. When I watched to final House vote on this and saw all the Democrats celebrating my first thought was that these people don't care that the federal government doesn't have a single penny to pay for any of this.

I'm sorry, but when did you become more of an expert than the CBO?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I'm sorry, but when did you become more of an expert than the CBO?

You don't understand how the CBO works if you have to ask me that question.

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

You don't understand how the CBO works if you have to ask me that question.

I'm more questioning your qualifications Bob. I've already rendered my verdict as to your judgement...

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The net cost of course matters, but it also matters if money comes from the government or our pocket. If we push spending onto the government, bu then there's no funding, we keep a little money in our pocket (or more likely spend it being Americans), but the federal deficit balloons even faster. In a fashion you have a point, but it ignores the bottom line impact on the federal deficit.

When I wrote "cost" I meant... "cost." Not the amount funded by the government for the program but the true costs. How the government pays for it is a whole other question (just as if not more important, and upon which I think we agree very closely). Take the wars as another example. They cost a certain amount, somewhere between $2T and $3T. The government borrowed the money rather than raising revenue to pay for them. That was terrible fiscal policy, but it had nothing to do with the merits of the wars (which were in large part also terrible policy, but in a whole different way).

I am all for paying as we go. This is something I am willing to pay for. The political debate should be about what are we willing to pay for, not (as they are now) whether we are willing to pay. We gotta pay, period. Bills are bills.

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I see what you're saying, but SS is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. Virtually every gov't program has huge cost overruns. I don't understand how people think that somehow its going to be different this time.

My response to Bob covers this. The program and whether it is intelligently funded are two separate questions. The underfunding of programs comes from tax aversion, which is understandable but misguided *after we have already spent the money.* Not acquiring commitments is prudence. Refusing to collect revenue for commitments already made is check-kiting.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Beyond healthcare, the only other huge bucket of money in the federal budget is defense. And there isn't enough money to strip away from defense to remotely pay for Obamacare. Without even taking into consideration the deficit. When I watched to final House vote on this and saw all the Democrats celebrating my first thought was that these people don't care that the federal government doesn't have a single penny to pay for any of this.

Ever heard of Social Security?