What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Bob Gray said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

MinnFan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Bob Gray said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when did you become more of an expert than the CBO?
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Bob Gray said:
You don't understand how the CBO works if you have to ask me that question.
Click to expand...

I'm more questioning your qualifications Bob. I've already rendered my verdict as to your judgement...:cool:
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Bob Gray said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

MinnFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Bob Gray said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of Social Security?
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
You can't separate deciding to do a program from what the program costs. Thinking like that is part of what's gotten the federal government in a horrible fiscal mess. Everyone agrees the overall cost of things should go down if possible. That's a no brainer. But, if you have the government spend more and more money it doesn't have, somehow telling yourself that some money is saved in the private sector (these kinds of determinations are notoriously fuzzy) is of little use when the federal deficit eventually crushes us all.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
I'm more questioning your qualifications Bob. I've already rendered my verdict as to your judgement...:cool:
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised at my qualifications.

Maybe you can pull a Roberts with your verdict?
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Overshadowed by excitement that surrounded the mandate that was repealed and replaced by a tax was the 7-2 ruling that states could opt out of the Medicare expansion provision if they wanted without forfeiting existing Medicare dollars that come from the Federal government.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
Overshadowed by excitement that surrounded the mandate that was repealed and replaced by a tax was the 7-2 ruling that states could opt out of the Medicare expansion provision if they wanted without forfeiting existing Medicare dollars that come from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

I hope you're getting paid to follow the "crushing loss is really a resounding victory" theme that you're slavishly obeying since its the same attempt the RNC, Romney campaign, Congress etc is attempting today. Its pretty d@mn amusing I must say!

The funny part about this point is that while states can opt out of the expansion, that wouldn't stop the feds from collecting your citizens' tax revenue to finance Obamacare. It would just be going to other states instead of yours. Frankly that would be about time as wealthy successful liberal states tend to finance shiftless conservative ones. Good luck running on that platform...
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
The funny part about this point is that while states can opt out of the expansion, that wouldn't stop the feds from collecting your citizens' tax revenue to finance Obamacare. It would just be going to other states instead of yours. Frankly that would be about time as wealthy successful liberal states tend to finance shiftless conservative ones. Good luck running on that platform...
Click to expand...

It would be about time.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Great quote from Bruce Bartlett:

A government with the power to force us to buy health insurance can also force restaurants to serve black people.
Click to expand...

There's also a really wonderful irony in the Neocons over at NRO screaming their heads off about Obamacare when their dream state, Israel, has full on socialized medicine. :D
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
The funny part about this point is that while states can opt out of the expansion, that wouldn't stop the feds from collecting your citizens' tax revenue to finance Obamacare. It would just be going to other states instead of yours. Frankly that would be about time as wealthy successful liberal states tend to finance shiftless conservative ones. Good luck running on that platform...
Click to expand...
Republican cranks running in slave state primaries talk about pulling out of Medicare and Medicaid all the time. When then win, somehow they never actually do it. I wonder why?

It would be very funny, though, to see the governors and legislatures of southern states actually exercise their opt out. Rugged individualism sounds great until Tea Party members realize its their own kids who are benefitting from them (at a huge discount, since liberal states fund the conservative states).
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Kepler said:
Republican cranks running in slave state primaries talk about pulling out of Medicare and Medicaid all the time. When then win, somehow they never actually do it. I wonder why?

It would be very funny, though, to see the governors and legislatures of southern states actually exercise their opt out. Rugged individualism sounds great until Tea Party members realize its their own kids who are benefitting from them (as a huge discount, since liberal states fund conservative states).
Click to expand...
Kepler

We live in a slave state - :D

of course the loony left is in charge, not the loony right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top