Stopping ACA will increase deficit per CBO and others

(for Eaton Bush, the ACA is one reason I don't support Obama. He should not have supported it, we will never get Universal Healthcare now that we have the conservative, Heritage Foundation ACA)

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 4:10:28 PM

Quote :

" haha I do think the republicans are much more likely to pass a balanced budget(hopefully an admendment) than the dems."

You're right, that is hilarious. I lol'd pretty hard myself.

10/30/2012 4:14:10 PM

^^LOL. Ever look at the cost estimates for other redistribution programs? Medicare/Medicaid. Hell just look at those free phone costs.

Ill save you some time. Medicare was projected(in 1967) to cost taxpayers 12B in 1990. Actual costs was 98B. Last year I think Medicare spending was 550B.

Oh and remember that Iraqi war was going to cost a projected 60B, turned into what 800B?

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/health/healthcare/story/2011/08/Medicare-Medicaid-tab-keeps-growing/49776998/1

This is the iceberg. It is basic economics. Lower the cost of a valued good or service to the consumer they will consume more. Thus driving up demand and raising the costs to those who actually pay the bills. How one can think the ACA taxes will keep up with the rising demand is being ignorant of history and human nature.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 4:18:36 PM

So we should elect Romney, who wants to give the Pentagon even more money than they have requested?

Really if we want to talk deficit, we have to start with defense spending. Romney is even worse than Obama here.

10/30/2012 4:21:57 PM

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

Quote :

"What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits? Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions: The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. The costs of those coverage expansions—which include the cost of the subsidies to be provided through the exchanges, increased outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for certain small employers—will be partially offset by penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 2013–2022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion. The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion. The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 2013–2022 period."

10/30/2012 4:25:41 PM

Quote :

"Really if we want to talk deficit, we have to start with defense spending."

according to who? to you?

10/30/2012 4:29:08 PM

attn people arguing that we should not take care of poor people b/c we can't find it in the budget while maintaining our massive military and allowing the continuation of massive profits in the healthcare industry: you're terrible human beings.

10/30/2012 4:29:48 PM

Quote :

" It is basic economics. Lower the cost of a valued good or service to the consumer they will consume more. Thus driving up demand and raising the costs to those who actually pay the bills."

there are basically two alternatives here

1) the current structure. force those who can't afford basic healthcare to wait until their easily corrected illness becomes critical, and then go to the ER, don't pay their bill because their $10/hour job isn't going to pay for the $20,000 bill they just incurred, and ultimately the taxpayers foot the bill.

2) fuck the poor and let them die when they get sick. no money, no medicine.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 4:29:56 PM

Because its 20% of our outlays, but no one wants to cut it they all want to increase it. Because it feeds imperialism. Because we spend more than the next top 14 militaries combined, and that includes our allies. Because unlike social programs, it is not helping Americans, etc...


[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 4:31:32 PM

Yeah, its always only 2 alternatives.

10/30/2012 4:37:22 PM

everyone else is doing a great job with a real discussion except you, Eaton Bush

10/30/2012 4:38:01 PM

here's what i don't get: normal people's "wealth" has been stagnant over the last decade. rich people's wealth has gone up, and the richer you are, the more it's gone up. the middle class has basically turned into the working poor in a lot of ways. and people want to continue this! you will be those poor people that you voted to not take care of in ten years. you are fucking yourself.

10/30/2012 4:38:24 PM

You all spew the same shit over and over. Dtownral, you just plain bore the shit out of me.
You are only interested in your own bloviations and really have no interest in what anyone says except only to counter it.

10/30/2012 4:41:32 PM

not true!

/message_topic.aspx?topic=631160

(i got very few actual responses. like, on the order of one.)

10/30/2012 4:42:42 PM

^^how old are you and what do you do for a living?

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2012 4:42:53 PM

who's your daddy and what does he do?

10/30/2012 4:43:13 PM

Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/29/working-class-voters-america-republican?newsfeed=true

it's a good read if you're curious

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : "Dtownral, you just plain bore the shit out of me." classic troll response]

10/30/2012 4:44:23 PM

post deleted due to strange refresh error on my end

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ?]

10/30/2012 4:51:13 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6

Quote :

"1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. ... 2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades."

if only we just lowered taxes they'd hire more people! i know it!

10/30/2012 4:53:42 PM

even if romney loses, we'll still probably get his promised 12 million jobs in 4 years: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/26/163719000/economists-romneys-12-million-jobs-target-realistic-even-if-he-loses

10/30/2012 4:54:00 PM

Quote :

"Because its 20% of our outlays, but no one wants to cut it they all want to increase it. Because it feeds imperialism. Because we spend more than the next top 14 militaries combined, and that includes our allies. Because unlike social programs, it is not helping Americans, etc..."

Quote :

"Yeah, its always only 2 alternatives. "

The US sweeps up on some metrics, like prison population and military, true. But what's more interesting (and by that I mean terrifying) is the issue we are NOT different from the rest of the world on - debt.

This is what the EU is struggling with. It's actually something China is going to struggle with, in spite of the sun-shiny cooked books it shows us today. It's what crushed the Roman Empire, and all other empires. It's endemic to all of the developed world, not because the developed world was less responsible, but because that's who the banks will lend to. This debt flow of cash is central to the phenomenon of globalization. It's what caused the problems the Occupy movement talks about. It's what has driven the world for the last 2 decades.

Republicans want us to think that this civilization-busting problem is something that they can fix with control of Congress and Executive by just passing a balanced budget because they are more responsible.

Let's not even look at history. This is easier to do if I pretend the Republican party is the Libertarian party. Honestly, the only shot Ron Paul would have if he became president would be to monitize the debt. Like everyone else ideologically close, he talks about reducing taxes first.

People don't understand what austerity means. People don't understand deleveraging. People don't understand interest rates, and the effect it's had. The story is larger that what it's given credit for.

How can you say we're not socialist when we have >100% GDP in government debt? I've fought that theological inconsistency my entire life. We were in a cold war against a form of socialism, and it's still a boogeyman that it brought up over and over again. Why on God's green Earth is ownership worse than debt? I don't understand this. The government is socialist when it has a positive value of assets, but completely economically permissive when it owes mountains of cash.

Bush was a socialist, maybe Obama is too. The more you borrow, the more you've created a government-run economy. It's not run from the front door, but it is run from the back door. I'm not saying we don't have economic choice, but that is also true for socialism.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2012 5:07:18 PM

Quote :

"How can you say we're not socialist when we have >100% GDP in government debt?"

what? b/c we provide next to nothing for our citizens?

10/30/2012 5:23:36 PM

Quote :

"Really if we want to talk deficit, we have to start with defense spending. "

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy so I want to explain why I believe this to be wrong.

1. The biggest expenses are entitlements. They also are having the largest cost growth and are set to really take off as the boomers get on these programs. Defense isnt anywhere close to what we spend on these programs currently, much less when they explode over the next decade.

Currently our mandatory spending (entitlements and servicing the debt) is more more money than we take in. And this doesnt count all the other areas of that the fed is in, including defense.

2. Entitlements(which arent the responsiblity of the federal govt) consume our revenue we dont have money to spend on things that are explicitly the resonsiblity of the federal govt. Defense is one of those jobs.

With that said, do I think Defense should be cut? Yes. But it is not the cause of our debt. Our govt creating a redistribution scheme that is virtually untouchable and also unstainable is.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Here is a great website to actually track expenses.

10/30/2012 5:47:38 PM

Now would be a terrible time for austerity

10/30/2012 5:57:09 PM

Quote :

"the current structure. force those who can't afford basic healthcare to wait until their easily corrected illness becomes critical, and then go to the ER, don't pay their bill because their $10/hour job isn't going to pay for the $20,000 bill they just incurred, and ultimately the taxpayers foot the bill. "

Bobby let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is responsible for "the current structure"? Who makes teh taxpayers foot the bill? Who requires that anyone can go to the hospital for any reason and not pay? Who moved our insurance to an employer provided model? As the share of govt in healthcare increases why does the cost increase? With all that said, why the hell do people keep turning to govt to "fix" it? I just cant understand it.

Current system DRIVES up the cost to people who pay bc there are so many that dont pay directly, so they consume more. (you are seeing the exact same thing in education, btw. The 2 industries with the largest govt subsidies education and health care have the highest cost growths)

Your example is exactly why medicaid was created to FIX the problem of people going to ERs instead of PCPs and its cost to the taxpayers. Yep, same exact shit you hear now. They were told it would SAVE money to give them free health insurance so that they would go to a PCP and cost 60 bucks vs going to the ER and cost 500 bucks for a routine visit. The result? Visits to the ER skyrocketed and so did the costs. Medicaid is now the number 1 cost of every state or will be within the end of this decade. Costs continue to grow. They failed to consider that the cost to the consumer was still the same 0 if they go to a PCP or an ER, they pay nothing. Certainly some of the reasons they still use the ER is bc of unreliable transportation and hours.

^I agree. But you can either plan to wean people off these programs or have it end abruptly when the nation runs out of money or can no longer borrow. I think one is the much better way to go about it.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:01:34 PM

Instead of this terrible funnel government money to private companies model, lets save money and get universal government healthcare.

This would not need to replace private healthcare, but would decrease costs and stop the flow of federal money to private companies.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:03:09 PM

I would say you get it out of healthcare completely. Only way you can still deliver the best care, encourage innovation, at the lowest cost to the most people.

^I think you are failing to understand what the govt intervention does to the price. That is the big point. Just as telling people they can go to the ER for free for any reason, why would you pay? Totally distorts the market

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:04:33 PM

Healthcare shouldn't be profit driven, making money shouldn't be the goal. It creates inefficiencies.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:18:05 PM

^I disagree again with you. That is exactly what keeps costs down, competition and the drive to do something better and cheaper than your competitor. How the market works. Health care is no different. Im talking about getting the consumer back to paying the doctor directly. Insurance for UNEXPECTED events... like insurance is meant to be.

inefficiencies in private sector can result in going out of business, so there is pressure to eliminate them. inefficiencies in govt results in more funding.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:24:40 PM

Competition doesn't keep prices down, it centralizes resources in areas where they are competitive. You have multiples of very expensive diagnostic equipment in some areas and none in others because of profit motives.

10/30/2012 6:43:06 PM

healthcare is a service performed by individuals for others. a very crucial service, but a service nonetheless. fundamentally, it's no different than paying someone to paint your house or mow your lawn.

people who say healthcare is a right and the government should control it are absolutely crazy. if, in a completely hypothetical situation, all the doctors in the country decided to stop practicing, how would be enforce this "right" then?

10/30/2012 6:47:49 PM

Access to affordable healthcare is an inalienable right

10/30/2012 6:50:26 PM

^you're wrong. consumption requires production.

10/30/2012 6:51:10 PM

Quote :

"Competition doesn't keep prices down"

You are missing some basic economics dtown. I guess we have no reason to bust monopolies anymore.

Good post Mr green. Dtown. How does one person have a right to anothers labor? Wouldnt that mean that one has a right, but the other has a responsiblity? What about his rights? What if the provider wants to refuse? He is a slave at this point?

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 6:53:18 PM

Why do we have the rights to another's labor? Because our government is allowed to tax.

Providers aren't allowed to refuse if they receive federal money. What I propose is that private healthcare should be allowed to do what they want and not get federal money, and the government should provide healthcare themselves too.


[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 7:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 7:13:20 PM

^^^^^healthcare public education is a service performed by individuals for others. a very crucial service, but a service nonetheless. fundamentally, it's no different than paying someone to paint your house or mow your lawn.

people who say healthcare public education is a right and the government should control it are absolutely crazy. if, in a completely hypothetical situation, all the doctors teachers in the country decided to stop practicing, how would be enforce this "right" then?

10/30/2012 8:53:40 PM

Quote :

"if, in a completely hypothetical situation, all the doctors teachers in the country decided to stop practicing, how would be enforce this "right" then?"

well? how would we?

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 9:06:08 PM

Another video for dtownral (j/k)


This is an anti-obama vid, but it's in no way a pro-romney. I am posting this anti-obama vid here because romney is equivalent to obama

10/30/2012 9:07:46 PM

Quote :

"What I propose is that private healthcare should be allowed to do what they want and not get federal money, and the government should provide healthcare themselves too. "

But you are forced to pay for it regardless if you use it or not? Where does the money come from to pay for the doctors? You dont see how your scenerio would drive up the costs (again, to those who have to pay?)

You are getting confused what a right is and what government is. You dont have a right to a road or police protection. These are benefits of living in this country and are paid for with your tax revenues. If those revenues run out, do you expect those same people to pave roads or man a police station for free? Some people will choose to VOLUNTEER to repair roads or help their neighbors, but it has nothing to do with your Right to their labor.

10/30/2012 9:12:17 PM

It's paid for by taxes and federal revenue, but now that money is staying in healthcare and not going to profit margins at private for-profit companies.

10/30/2012 9:24:31 PM

^^i'm glad somebody here gets it.

10/30/2012 9:31:14 PM

health care is not a basic human right, but it is a basic service provided by a legitimate government and healthy society. education likewise. food likewise. shelter likewise. what civilized person would prefer to amass excess wealth rather than help their neighbor? that's a barbaric, medieval way to live.

regarding private health care: we currently have a health care system that is largely run for profit. it actively discourages developing new technologies to maintain the bubble that it's in (and it is in a bubble), is unaffordable to nearly every single citizen (legitimizing a terrible, bloated health insurance industry), the only accountability is in the form of lawsuits, i could go on. meanwhile, people in countries that have universal health care (read: the first world) mock us, which indicates to me that it's not the miserable mess of waiting in lines that politicians stateside threaten that it is. how can you argue that running health care for profit leads to better service and better prices, given that it is currently run for profit and is terrible?

10/30/2012 9:31:20 PM

Quote :

"Chrysler Group LLC’s top executive said any statements by presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggesting the company was moving Jeep production from its assembly complex in Toledo, Ohio was simply not true. “Chrysler Group’s production plans for the Jeep brand have become the focus of public debate,” Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said in a statement on Tuesday. “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” he continued. “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. … It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has begun running ads in Ohio, stating Chrysler planned to move Jeep production to China. Analysts described the ads as part of Romney’s efforts to pry the state’s pivotal 18 electoral votes from President Barack Obama."

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/10/30/jeep-were-staying-in-u-s-and-romney-is-wrong/

10/30/2012 9:40:24 PM

And private healthcare will still exist alongside it, only now they would be free of government money

10/30/2012 9:40:53 PM

Quote :

"health care is not a basic human right, but it is a basic service provided by a legitimate government and healthy society."

I certainly agree with the first part of this statement. I can understand the view on the second part I simply disagree that it is in societies best interest to go through govt for these services. Evidence and history help form that opinion.

Quote :

"what civilized person would prefer to amass excess wealth rather than help their neighbor? that's a barbaric, medieval way to live. "

I think it is up to the person who earned to the money to decide what they want to do with it. Just as it is up to you whether or not you go to work or school in the morning. You should own your labor. It isnt up to you to determine what someone else does with thier own time or moeny. It is theirs. Yes as a part of society we have certain responsiblities to that society that we all benefit from(roads, police, etc), but we are well beyond that. As like most govt programs that start out with good intentions and then grow and cause harm. Medicaid is a great example. A good statement would be in a country this rich you should not go without having your broken arm fixed bc you cant afford it. I think the majority of people would agree. However, it has now grown to cover color contacts and braces.

Quote :

"regarding private health care: we currently have a health care system that is largely run for profit. it actively discourages developing new technologies to maintain the bubble that it's in (and it is in a bubble), is unaffordable to nearly every single citizen (legitimizing a terrible, bloated health insurance industry), the only accountability is in the form of lawsuits, i could go on. meanwhile, people in countries that have universal health care (read: the first world) mock us, which indicates to me that it's not the miserable mess of waiting in lines that politicians stateside threaten that it is. how can you argue that running health care for profit leads to better service and better prices, given that it is currently run for profit and is terrible? "

This is rich. The govt is taking over a larger and larger share of health care, what is the price doing? You are really barking up the wrong tree blaming the profit motive. Health care and health insurance is very regulated and far from a free market. WIth that said, we produce most medical breakthroughs and new drugs. We have the best health care, which is why when you compare actual CARE we are the best. Leaders from other countries and our neighbors to the south and NORTH come into this country to receive care they cant receive in their own countries. Please tell me sir how you think health care in this country works. Also tell me what you feel is driving up the cost. You feel it is insurance companies? Ok, look at their profit margins. You will also find that many of the largest insurance companies (and probably the one you have) are non profit. North Carolina Blue Cross/Blue shield comes to mind.

The more free the market is the pressure is to provide a better product or service at a cheaper price. Perhaps in your many years as a consumer you have noticed advancements in these areas and as costs have declined as well. Probably even saw some crappy businesses go out of business. It works.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 10:19:04 PM

Ites regulated because its federal money. They don't have to participate in most of those programs, they just don't get the money if they don't. Lets keep the federal and state money in federal and state programs and not private companies.

10/30/2012 10:21:10 PM

^^ everything you said is only true from the point of view of a wealthy person, so i'm only going to address this:

Quote :

"I think it is up to the person who earned to the money to decide what they want to do with it. Just as it is up to you whether or not you go to work or school in the morning. You should own your labor."

if all we were doing was trading labor, then no one would be poor. what we're actually doing is trading services and goods taken out of the earth. you should own your own labor, but you should not own anything that you find in the environment, that belongs to everyone. i'm not proposing that people are forced to be physicians at gunpoint. what i'm saying is that this country as a whole makes a lot of money, and most people see none of that, and thus cannot afford to see a doctor and are at the mercy of someone with more money to provide health insurance, b/c otherwise it is completely unaffordable. the people who live in a level of luxury that is frankly irresponsible should have to give that back to everyone so that they can do things like eat, get a checkup, not live on the street. we live in modern day serfdom and half the population will fight you if you point it out.

money is not just a reward for your labor. if it were the richest people around would probably be small farmers and construction workers.

10/30/2012 10:33:53 PM

^^So you cant shop for health insurance across state lines bc of federal money? Forcing all insurance companies to cover XYZ is because of federal money? Forcing insurances to cover you regardless of your condition or lifestyle, then limiting the amount they can charge you is because of federal money? I dont think so.

All of those things add tremendous costs to health insurance and restrict choice and competition.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 10:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2012 10:35:09 PM

WANTS TO PRIVATIZE FEMA

COLLECTS CANS OF FOOD FOR HURRICANE VICTIMS THAT HAVE FOOD, BUT NO TRANSPORTATION OR ELECTRICITY

10/30/2012 10:36:04 PM

Quote :

" but you should not own anything that you find in the environment"

Even if you have the ability to do great things and improve society with it? You dont feel they should be rewarded for that? Interesting take.

I think you are missing some easy steps Simonn.
1. Health insurance is not the same as health care. Yes health care has gotten more expensive as a result of the expansion of third party payers and govt getting more involved over years. Which is very predictable and basic economics.

2. If you respect individual rights and properties then it shouldnt matter if you have more money than I do. I should not be able to take your money and do with it as I see best. Regardless of how good your intentions might be.

btw, you mentioned forcing physicians and gunpoints. I think you are going to see a pretty big doctor shortage in this country (we have a good one currently) and many will stop seeing MEDICARE patients (most dont see medicaid as is). There is a HUGE number of voters in that group and I think in my lifetime the govt will force doctors to see Medicare patients bc they have the votes. Politicians will vilianize doctors ,like they do successful businesses now ,to sell the idea of making them servants to the state. They OWE us, type shit.

10/30/2012 10:50:31 PM