Obamacare

[wiphan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...685080762.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by wiphan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...685080762.html

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

Naw. It's all just designed to get it to the Supremes asap. The "constitutional" rulings still outnumber the "not", but it needs to go to the Supreme court.

[dellinger63]

Obamacare is supposed to save billions (medicare) yet costs billions up front?

D.O.A.!

Give the seniors their money and get out of their wallets. They're owed before anyone to the tune of $3.6 TRILLION!

Then we can talk of Obama/Hillary care. or maybe not!

[Danzig]

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't? it's the one thing i've always questioned. everyone who is covered knows that the price per person would be lowered if everyone buys, but how do you force it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't?

The judges that have already ruled it constitutional have said it is so under the Commerce Clause.

I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them.

Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined.

Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The judges that have already ruled it constitutional have said it is so under the Commerce Clause.

I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them.

Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined.

Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.

lol

just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage.

at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right. commerce clause my tail, the constitution gives no right to force a purchase. it happens sometimes you know, that's why they have appeals, as many times lower courts get overridden. because they get it wrong.

and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right. just a itty bitty tweak needed...if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak. of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road. then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.

[dellinger63]

What is the cost of this 'healthcare' law in terms of legal fees, so far?

Once again the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill on both sides, but I suppose the cost of legally defeating this bill will be minor in the big scheme of things and the constitution will be preserved.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage.

I don't believe this. You diss the law repeatedly, then when you finally realize that what you've been dissing it for doesn't exist, you trash the law because it doesn't exist.

Seriously? Just stop making any pretense that your opinion about the law is remotely based upon any fact or objective observation regarding it's content.

at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right.

Guess that's why it's going to the Supreme Court, as has been the intention from day one. The lower court decisions already made say "constitutional" outnumbers "not", but maybe the minority opinion will prevail in the high court as you guess.

and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right.
just a itty bitty tweak needed...

You can either examine the math and predictions over decades from the government and from watchdog groups and believe it, or show where it's wrong. So show where it's wrong. Oh, wait! No, let's just dismiss it out of hand because we don't like what the answer is!

Social Security has been a success because we've run up against financial shortfall projections many, many times before, and we do tweek and fix them. The proof is there. Our success is there. We have never missed a Social Security payment. It is one of the most successful social programs ever created. We know the population, the amount of taxes taken in, changes over time, that why it's looked at regularly. This is just another one of those times, but we're not even really there yet - we have years.

if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak.

Geeshus cripes, 'Zig, do you not realize that we've done this 'tweek' multiple times in the past? That over 40 times, the conservative wing of government has threatened and screamed falsely about the imminent financial demise of Social Security? That projections have changed since it's inception, it's regularly reviewed, and yes, multiple "tweeks" are routinely done to Social Security all the time to keep it solvent?

The facts remain, the "outgoing current" with zero tweeks is 100% okay until 1937, then will continue to deliver 78% of current benefits for decades after that at current projections.

of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road

.

This sentence makes it clear you haven't looked even superficially at the long-term Social Security financing projections, based upon adjustments now and planned adjustments in the future, because the problem is due primarily to the baby boomer bubble (and was accurately predicted about 20 years ago), and the increasing population smooths out after that.

There is no "can kicked down the road". We have always made the best adjustments we have to the next 50 years or so, based upon projected populations. The fact that determining something now based upon future projections doesn't last for 100 years doesn't indicate any flaw in the system at all. It indicates responsibility and planning for the future, that we do these very projections! That's why we look at this repeatedly over the past, and have adjusted it repeatedly over the past!

then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.

Yeah - that's exactly why we should change things now. You want to completely eliminate the program? Fine. But I, and plenty of other Americans, don't care to see us become just another second-world country.

And again, Social Security is strong, Medicare is not. Medicare is a problem (actually Medicaid more so), not Social Security. That's just the right's continuing battle cry to try and privatize it.

Glad it wasn't privatized by Wall Street since 2008, or on Friday, where would have lost huge percentages of it's value like private 401K's and other retirement plans did. Instead, our Social Security funds have weathered that storm.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't believe this. You diss the law repeatedly, then when you finally realize that what you've been dissing it for doesn't exist, you trash the law because it doesn't exist.
er, you said they were playing as they went, the fines are listed-but its your contention that they won't actually charge a fine. i'll wait and see from the powers that be, whether they follow what they passed.Seriously? Just stop making any pretense that your opinion about the law is remotely based upon any fact or objective observation regarding it's content.
a difference in opinion doesn't mean anything about what facts are contained in the bill, or what will ulimately occur.
Guess that's why it's going to the Supreme Court, as has been the intention from day one. The lower court decisions already made say "constitutional" outnumbers "not", but maybe the minority opinion will prevail in the high court as you guess.



You can either examine the math and predictions over decades from the government and from watchdog groups and believe it, or show where it's wrong. So show where it's wrong. Oh, wait! No, let's just dismiss it out of hand because we don't like what the answer is!
i posted in another thread extensive excerpts as well as the link to the cbo report about ss-you conveniently ignored all of that.


Social Security has been a success because we've run up against financial shortfall projections many, many times before, and we do tweek and fix them. The proof is there. We know the population, the amount of taxes taken in, changes over time, that why it's looked at regularly. This is just another one of those times, but we're not even really there yet - we have years.




Geeshus cripes, 'Zig, do you not realize that we've done this 'tweek' multiple times in the past? That over 40 times, the conservative wing of government has threatened and screamed falsely about the imminent financial demise of Social Security? That projections have changed since it's inception, it's regularly reviewed, and yes, multiple "tweeks" are routinely done to Social Security all the time to keep it solvent?

again, the tweak as you call it is more than that, especially when one considers the cbo report referenced above, and that the report was based on numbers including the tax break expiring, which it didn't-and of course on the ss witholding not being cut, which it was.
.

This sentence makes it clear you haven't looked even superficially at the long-term Social Security financing projections, based upon adjustments now and planned adjustments in the future, because the problem is due primarily to the baby boomer bubble (and was accurately predicted about 20 years ago), and the increasing population smooths out after that.

again, untrue. go read the cbo report in the other thread in this room.



Yeah - that's exactly why we should change things now. You want to completely eliminate the program? Fine. But I, and plenty of other Americans, don't care to see us become just another second-world country.

i didn't say antying about eliminating anything. as for obamacare, the claim of medicare savings is more than lost by medicaid increases. again, it's not correct to believe in all or nothing-it's not that simple.

[Riot]

er, you said they were playing as they went, the fines are listed-but its your contention that they won't actually charge a fine. i'll wait and see from the powers that be, whether they follow what they passed.

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.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i didn't say antying about eliminating anything. as for obamacare, the claim of medicare savings is more than lost by medicaid increases. again, it's not correct to believe in all or nothing-it's not that simple.

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.

[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

[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.