Obamacare

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The "structural language" for the fine system is built into the bill already, but the "IRS cannot collect" language was deliberately added so the fines are not collectable immediately.

Yes, they may remove that restriction in the future, if it is needed. They have to have the insurance exchanges up and running, first. Then they will revisit it if necessary.



I'm glad you support our social programs. Yes, Medicaid is a big problem, then Medicare, because the states are responsible for so much financial contribution to Medicaid, and they are broke and unable to contribute their share.

Obama does deserve kudos because the adjustments to eliminating the duplicate waste made in Medicare ($500 billion over several years) in the Affordable Care Act does indeed stretch out Medicare solvency for another 10 years or so (it could be 7, could be 15, I admit I would have to look that up for absolute accuracy)

The other good thing is that millions of older Americans have already benefited this year by noticeably decreased drug costs (thousands in a year) due to the donut hole elimination in the Affordable Care Act.

It's hard to continue doing things at a "current level" (Medicare) when your income streams have dropped from the recession, but majorly dropped due to tax cuts over the past 10 years. Our income, as a country, is down by over 3 trillion in just 10 years just due to the Bush tax cuts (and yes, Obama was wrong to extend them)

The government, if allowed to bargain for drug costs like the private section, could save literally billions a year for Medicare/Medicaid programs.

when you trumpet the 500 billion in savings, you conveniently leave out the corresponding 627 billion in medicaid increases. now, i don't know about you, but where i went to school that's a bad trade.
the cbo report i referenced extensively was done in 09, with two separate sets of figures made, two different sets of assumptions. one problem is that they did their figuring with the tax cut expiring in '10, which of course didn't happen. so now their figures would be that much worse. and we still are currently paying less into our ss than we're supposed to-one of the supposed economic fixes they passed. problem is, the few dollars in our pockets doesn't do much, but the widening gap between income and outlays regarding the federal govt is hampering our economy far more than any temporary increases in our take home pay can fix.
both parties must be willing to give a little on their favorite part of their party. there must be changes to the poorly named entitlements, and there must be tax reform, and an expiration of the bush/obama tax cuts.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when you trumpet the 500 billion in savings, you conveniently leave out the corresponding 627 billion in medicaid increases.

What are you specifically referring to? The increased cost of picking up more people into the plan under the ACA? That's financed elsewhere in the plan. The CBO did score the ACA a "zero increased cost" bill (meaning it's costs are paid for by savings within the plan)

one problem is that they did their figuring with the tax cut expiring in '10, which of course didn't happen. so now their figures would be that much worse.

Yes.

and we still are currently paying less into our ss than we're supposed to-one of the supposed economic fixes they passed. problem is, the few dollars in our pockets doesn't do much, but the widening gap between income and outlays regarding the federal govt is hampering our economy far more than any temporary increases in our take home pay can fix.

I agree. But that payrolls savings a temporary fix that does keep a bit of cash in our and our employers pockets during a recession, which is needed.

Again, long-term vs short-term debt in a recession. The stimulus was, in retrospect, only about half of what was needed. We need to get our spending down, but our income has to go back up, too.

I was massively disappointed to see every GOP presidential candidate would refuse even a 10-1 spending cuts vs tax increase offer. That's economic suicide for this country (as Standard and Poor's clearly said in their downgrade). I cannot vote for any one of them, including Perry, due to that.

both parties must be willing to give a little on their favorite part of their party. there must be changes to the poorly named entitlements, and there must be tax reform, and an expiration of the bush/obama tax cuts.

It was a start with the "big deal" $4 trillion Boehner-Obama deal, but the Tea Party nixed it.

Obama will give back some defense money in the "Cat Food Commission Two" for exchange of expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy (leaving tax cuts in place for what used to be the middle class and the poverty classes) Which is really no "exhange" at all, in my book, as the tax cuts will expire in entirety on their own if we just ignore them.

Do you support the idea of the infrastructure bank? It think that's great idea (google it)

[dellinger63]

Would Obamacare force millions of middle-class Americans to buy health insurance they can't afford, or would Obamacare end up costing taxpayers $500 billion more over 10 years? That was the question facing President Obama before the Treasury Department issued new regulations implementing his mammoth health reform law on Friday.

The problem begins with Obamacare's individual mandate, which forces every American to buy a federally approved health insurance policy. Obamacare then makes all insurance policies more expensive by forcing insurance companies to insure every customer who wants a policy, the healthy be damned while also limiting the prices they can charge.

Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act says an insurance plan is unaffordable if the employee portion of an employer-offered health insurance premium "exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable taxpayer's household income." So a family of four whose breadwinner earned $80,000 would be eligible for subsidies if the nominal premium for the plan that his employer offered exceeded $7,600 a year. The average family premium in 2010 cost $13,770, so millions of Americans would have been eligible for generous Obamacare subsidies.

But when the Congressional Budget Office scored the Obamacare legislation, analysts were instructed to use a different definition of affordable coverage. Instead of comparing a family's income to the cost of insuring a family, the CBO scored a family's income to the cost of insuring just the individual employee. The average premium for an individual policy costs far less than the average family premium ($5,049 compared with $13,770). So, all of a sudden, our typical family with household income of $80,000 would not have qualified for Obamacare subsidies. However, it still would have been on the hook for expensive health coverage because of the individual mandate. A recent study estimated that it would have cost $47.5 billion a year to close this subsidy gap.

Instead, the Treasury Department "fixed" this apples-to-oranges problem Friday by simply exempting affected families from the individual mandate. But while this regulatory fix may save the government hundreds of billions of dollars, it puts affected families in a worse position than they were before the reform law was passed. They may not have to buy insurance, but if they do want coverage their options are now more limited and more expensive. How many families are hurt by the Treasury Department's new regulations? We don't know. Members of Congress should call on the CBO to rescore Obamacare using the more accurate family premium data.

Should this really be a concern? How many actual 'families' are still in existence?

We can still save ourselves from the catastrophe that is Obamacare and as a by-product produce jobs! Another no brainer!


http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...-cost-estimate

[dellinger63]

Now here's an idea that will cost nothing, will actually save taxpayer money and put people to work at the same time. Don't agree with him all the time but bravo Sen. Hatch.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, citing an independent survey on rising costs to businesses, said Friday Obamacare repeal must be “on the table in any discussions to jump start the nation’s lagging economy.”

The top Senate Finance Committee Republican said it was “critical” to the nation’s economy that President Barack Obama shift his focus from preparing a new job stimulus plan to ending the overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

“The partisan health law is an assault on Americans individual liberty … It’s an also an assault on our economy and on our job creators, as this survey of employers demonstrates,” Hatch said, referring to the survey released Friday by the National Business Group on Health, which membership includes many of the top Fortune 500 companies.

The survey found that healthcare benefit costs are expected to rise about 7.2 percent next year under the health law and that two-thirds of the cost increases in premiums would be passed on to employees. The survey of 83 of the nation’s largest corporations was conducted in June.

“The President announced that he’s preparing a so-called jobs plan that will include more stimulus spending,” Hatch said. “I’d suggest he stop the spending and turn to his job-killing, budget-busting health law instead. This $2.6 trillion law must be on the table in any discussion about reviving our weak economy.”

[jms62]

Why is it everything that Big Business wants they basically lead us to believe that when they get it the jobs crisis will be solved. When they actually get it Execs further enrich themselves and the job crisis still exists. They are playing us.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Why is it everything that Big Business wants they basically lead us to believe that when they get it the jobs crisis will be solved. When they actually get it Execs further enrich themselves and the job crisis still exists. They are playing us.

You do realize your IRA or 401K, if typical, is primarily invested in ‘big business’? And small businesses especially those in service and manufacturing are also reliant on 'big business' as a client?

I'm far more inclined to believe the government is playing me rather than 'big business'. Specifically I believe my XOM stock is a safer, more conservative and potentially a far more profitable investment than the amount the fed is deducting from EVERY paycheck, I've EVER received with a current zero balance but a promise THEY will begin paying returns at an age and amount THEY will decide and change in the future.

Of course if I don't make it to THEIR movable finish line my investment is zero.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You do realize your IRA or 401K, if typical, is primarily invested in ‘big business’? And small businesses especially those in service and manufacturing are also reliant on 'big business' as a client?

I'm far more inclined to believe the government is playing me rather than 'big business'. Specifically I believe my XOM stock is a safer, more conservative and potentially a far more profitable investment than the amount the fed is deducting from EVERY paycheck, I've EVER received with a current zero balance but a promise THEY will begin paying returns at an age and amount THEY will decide and change in the future.

Of course if I don't make it to THEIR movable finish line my investment is zero.

I didn't think it needed to be said that the government is playing us. It is a Given but it is NOT a Democrat or Republican Issue. You are getting it from both ends.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Now here's an idea that will cost nothing, will actually save taxpayer money and put people to work at the same time. Don't agree with him all the time but bravo Sen. Hatch.

It's nonsense. The first lie is that it will save people money to cancel the ACA. And I suggest you read that "survey" he's quoting and see it's objectivity - or not.

Geeshus, you Obama-haters are gullible.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's nonsense. The first lie is that it will save people money to cancel the ACA. And I suggest you read that "survey" he's quoting and see it's objectivity - or not.

Geeshus, you Obama-haters are gullible.

If it's such a saver why all the up-front money needed? Why the need for exemptions?

What do you suppose a policy for an unhealthy 40 year old, obese, smoker with high blood pressure, previous heart problems and a family history of strokes and heart attacks costs a year?

And why should a healthy, 40 year-old, jogger, who never smoked and has a family to support be forced to chip in for his policy?

Rid the program of 'subsidies' and I'm onboard. Of course the program is all about the subsidy right?

Patients need rights but they don't need to be forced to pay for other patients. In terms of cost, uninsured ER visits and treatment will never come close to this monstrosity.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What do you suppose a policy for an unhealthy 40 year old, obese, smoker with high blood pressure, previous heart problems and a family history of strokes and heart attacks costs a year?

And why should a healthy, 40 year-old, jogger, who never smoked and has a family to support be forced to chip in for his policy?

Why? Because it was dreamt up by the socialists in office at the time, that's why.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

If it's such a saver why all the up-front money needed?

How is this remotely a serious question? Are you completely ignorant of how business works? Because when people work to set up systems, we pay them. We don't demand they work for free.

Why the need for exemptions?

Because of Republican fear that, god forbid, one American pay one penny they don't want to for another American's well-being.

Did you pay zero attention during the healthcare debates? It sure seems like it.

What do you suppose a policy for an unhealthy 40 year old, obese, smoker with high blood pressure, previous heart problems and a family history of strokes and heart attacks costs a year?

I don't know. Why don't you ask the private insurance companies that are going to continue to write those policies on the exchanges?

I assume you already know that won't have anything at all to do with you, as you are already insured.

And why should a healthy, 40 year-old, jogger, who never smoked and has a family to support be forced to chip in for his policy?

Because that's what happens now with your insurance, and the ACA doesn't change that. Maybe you don't understand the concept of "groups" and "spread risk"?

Rid the program of 'subsidies' and I'm onboard. Of course the program is all about the subsidy right?

So you' rather have people who are uninsured now, remain uninsured, than to pay for a portion of their health insurance? That's stupid. I want them to pay what they can, and stop costing me an arm and a leg by being uninsured, and having me cover 100% of their cost to go to the ER now. I'm paying for them now, and they can start paying a fair share. You are against that? Ridiculous.

Patients need rights but they don't need to be forced to pay for other patients. In terms of cost, uninsured ER visits and treatment will never come close to this monstrosity

Really? Prove it. Quote actual figures. Because every other financial organization that has looked at it has scored your contention as false.

Stop pretending to know anything about health care and the ACA and have "reasons" to dislike the ACA. It's clear you do not. You never mention anything factual. Just say you hate Obama, and everything he is associated with. That would be at least be respectable due to honesty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

What are you specifically referring to? The increased cost of picking up more people into the plan under the ACA? That's financed elsewhere in the plan. The CBO did score the ACA a "zero increased cost" bill (meaning it's costs are paid for by savings within the plan)

Yes.



I agree. But that payrolls savings a temporary fix that does keep a bit of cash in our and our employers pockets during a recession, which is needed.

Again, long-term vs short-term debt in a recession. The stimulus was, in retrospect, only about half of what was needed. We need to get our spending down, but our income has to go back up, too.

I was massively disappointed to see every GOP presidential candidate would refuse even a 10-1 spending cuts vs tax increase offer. That's economic suicide for this country (as Standard and Poor's clearly said in their downgrade). I cannot vote for any one of them, including Perry, due to that.



It was a start with the "big deal" $4 trillion Boehner-Obama deal, but the Tea Party nixed it.

Obama will give back some defense money in the "Cat Food Commission Two" for exchange of expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy (leaving tax cuts in place for what used to be the middle class and the poverty classes) Which is really no "exhange" at all, in my book, as the tax cuts will expire in entirety on their own if we just ignore them.

Do you support the idea of the infrastructure bank? It think that's great idea (google it)

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...t=43315&page=2

that's a start. cbo says that while medicare does decrease, medicaid increases by 127 billion more than medicare decreases. 500 billion vs 627 billion. the fed is trying to trumpet medicare savings, while hoping no one notices the increases the states would face in return.

[SOREHOOF]

If the tax rate was 100% across the board OBAMACARE would still bankrupt the Nation.

[horseofcourse]

Obamacare is pretty much a straight up Heritage Foundation plan word for word back from the 90s. It's a straight conservative health care plan as health insurance "mandates" was a straight up republican idea. It's brutal because it is a conservative plan and a straight out giveaway to insurance companies. Every single first world nation has some form of "socialized" or non-profit insurance plan or some type of combo. Obamacare ain't that. It ain't even remotely close to that and it never will be. It has a few nice points to it, but it economically is horrendous as any plan that doesn't vaporize healt insurance companies will be. We're a great country, but some countries actually do stuff better than us...especially much cheaper health care. It doesn't mean we're not a great country if we try to model something another country actually does better. We can get into all the talking points by political groups about the evils of minor socialization of stuff.

In the end my only points on this politcally side is Obama is so far and away the most conservative president in this country we have every had it's not even funny or debatable. He's the brutal continuation of the Goldwater/Reagan neo-liberal Chicago school economics which will never end. We're bought people. Nothing can change anything at this point.

[horseofcourse]

In essence everything done is backwards and common knowledge on any specific topic is 100 percent wrong. The deficit fetish is so outlandish it's insane. Every single person in America knows the worst thing to do right now is slash government spending. People aren't spending, business' aren't spending, the very last thing you need right now is drastic spending cuts by the government, yet that's what we do. At some point you address the deficit...mainly when the economy is good, (like in the aughts!!), but I believe dick cheney's direct quote was "deficitis don't matter". Somehow in 2009 deficits suddenly became the only game in town at exactly the opposite time it should be. The stimulus by Obama and company was so inadequate and meager it did nothing especially when 33 percent plus was just tax cuts...more of them. History has told us time and time again that tax cuts do not create jobs, have never created jobs and will not in the future creat jobs, and 100 eprcent of Americans know this, yet we do the exact opposite. Massive tax cuts coinciding with empire building did not create many jobs, yet that is what we do. And our bought masters will continue with this myth for infinity. Trickle down is a disaster and everyone knows it. The original author David Stockman has stated it as 100 percent fact, yet we continue it. His initial attempt with Reagan was a joke and he stated it as fact as having zero percent basis in reality.

We have one political party in this country. We're dead and we can't fix it. The class warfare is over and has been already been won hands down by the rich. We are completely owned. Obama, Bachman, Perry, Bush. If anyone thinks there is one iota difference between any of them you are crazy. They're completely owned. Inverted totalitarinaism is here completely.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

In essence everything done is backwards and common knowledge on any specific topic is 100 percent wrong. The deficit fetish is so outlandish it's insane. Every single person in America knows the worst thing to do right now is slash government spending.

Except those that don't realize they are insane.

People aren't spending, business' aren't spending, the very last thing you need right now is drastic spending cuts by the government, yet that's what we do. At some point you address the deficit...mainly when the economy is good, (like in the aughts!!), but I believe dick cheney's direct quote was "deficitis don't matter". Somehow in 2009 deficits suddenly became the only game in town at exactly the opposite time it should be.

I read something about Obama's current advisor inner circle. You might notice things have changed a bit since Rahm left. He was definitely a strong attenuating political force in there. They recommend to him that he compromise down to get anything passed (considered a success), rather than take the strong necessary stand that will be met with complete opposition. Thus we get weak tea, like patent reform, rather than an aggressive jobs program.

Trickle down is a disaster and everyone knows it. The original author David Stockman has stated it as 100 percent fact, yet we continue it. His initial attempt with Reagan was a joke and he stated it as fact as having zero percent basis in reality.

Stockman has since repudiated it completely as the nonsense it is.

Inverted totalitarinaism is here completely

I'd characterize it as a plutocracy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Obamacare is pretty much a straight up Heritage Foundation plan word for word back from the 90s. It's a straight conservative health care plan as health insurance "mandates" was a straight up republican idea.

Yet whenever that's been mentioned in the past, the current right screams out, "socialism, socialism!" as they've been taught to think. Clueless.