• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Older Workers Could Face Cost Disparities in Health Law Glitch

roughdraft274 said:
In general about 90% of the stuff I've seen pointed out about Obamacare are things that don't even reflect poorly on the bill. This article is trying to say that people on social security will get more aid in buying a healthcare plan then an identical person not on social security. You might not like it but it doesn't create a problem within the bill. I can't even figure out a way to turn that into a bad thing. The permits for companies to get a little extra time to conform to the law, once again, it's being harped on by the right and in reality it was written into the law to give people that need the time a chance to adjust and it seems to be working just as planned. If there are any serious issues then I'd like to hear about them, but I haven't heard any that are actual problems.
Click to expand...

It does create a problem, it encourages more people to draw on SS earlier than otherwise because of the tax benefits.

Why should the person drawing income from SS get a better tax benefit?
 
God the blind support on this forum by some members for anything Obama does is absolutely incredible.

While I stood behind Bush on most stuff, some things I DEFINITELY was against. If he'd have passed this legislation, I'd have wanted his head on a platter.
 
tessaesque said:
There's a thread floating around with a link in it. I believe the title is something about health care and jobs. That should identify it for you pretty easily.

Also, funny you mention the CBO, since they came out with two different reports on that healthcare bill based on information provided to them by both parties. Also, CBO numbers in favor of the bill are based largely on projections, one of which being that unemployment would be considerably lower now (and GDP higher) than it is. When projections don't come true, neither do the CBO estimates. It's hard to rely on something that is based on speculation, isn't it?
Click to expand...

CBO scores can be incredibly onerous.

They are based on the bills as written and understood at that time.
They do not account for increased costs based on behavior changes and adjustments to bills after they are passed.

That's one of the major problems with people relying on the CBO scores to this bill in original form.
After they passed the doc fix, once the ObamaCare bill was passed, it practically erased all cost savings.
 
Whovian said:
The August 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act would reduce the amount of labor in the economy by about 0.5%

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf
Click to expand...

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org
A ‘Budget-Busting’ Law? | FactCheck.org
As for the GOP’s claim that "the bill would add over $700 billion in red ink over the next decade," we judge it to be mostly bogus.
It rests largely on a claim that hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare savings are being "double-counted." But CBO is simply not doing that.
The GOP’s $700 billion figure also includes more than $200 billion for a permanent "doctor fix" to prevent a cut in Medicare payments to doctors. But that is not even a part of the new law, and many Republicans endorse the "doctor fix" anyway.
The GOP claims the law will cost $115 billion to administer, but that isn’t true. CBO actually puts those costs at roughly $10 billion to $20 billion over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

Basically, the CBO is saying that some people right now are working mostly to keep their health insurance. Once they have other options -- to enroll in Medicaid, or to qualify for tax breaks to buy insurance from a health exchange -- they might choose to work less. The CBO describes this as a "small segment" of the population. And, because the CBO is describing reduced hours rather than lost jobs, it never uses the 650,000 number that the Republican document cites. The Republican extrapolated that number from the CBO's estimate of one-half percent of the labor supply. Finally, we should point out that a person who voluntarily chooses to work less is not having their job "killed" by federal legislation.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
CBO scores can be incredibly onerous.

They are based on the bills as written and understood at that time.
They do not account for increased costs based on behavior changes and adjustments to bills after they are passed.

That's one of the major problems with people relying on the CBO scores to this bill in original form.
After they passed the doc fix, once the ObamaCare bill was passed, it practically erased all cost savings.
Click to expand...

The doc fix needed to be passed anyways. That's why it wasn't included in the score.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The doc fix needed to be passed anyways. That's why it wasn't included in the score.
Click to expand...

No :lol:.
The doc fix is passed to put off the scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, because that program isn't saving money, but bleeding it.

It was passed separately because they are playing 3 card monty with the budget.
They want to use cuts in Medicare to say they're saving money but don't actually cut Medicare.

Hell the president payed bonuses to private Medicare Advantage plans that didn't meet the bonus requirements.
Another "cost savings" gone.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Did it count that this bill collects taxes for 10 years but provides benefits for 6?
Probably not.

Budgetary gimmicks.
Click to expand...
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...-says-health-care-reform-collects-1o-years-t/
So, Cantor’s argument that the "benefits" don’t kick in until 2014 is true if you’re looking at the biggest provisions of the law. But many other, smaller provisions to boost coverage have already taken effect. As PolitiFact has previously reported, there are plenty of examples:

• Small business tax credits. From 2010 through 2013, qualifying small companies could get a tax credit of up to 35 percent of the company's contribution to employee health coverage. Beginning in 2014, when the exchanges start up, small businesses could qualify for up to 50 percent of the cost.

• Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Soon after enactment, people with pre-existing conditions who haven't had coverage for at least six months could obtain coverage through a "high-risk pool" with subsidized premiums. This would be a temporary solution until the exchanges begin in 2014.

• Assistance for early retirees. Starting last year, a temporary reinsurance program will help cut the cost of health coverage for retirees not old enough to be eligible for Medicare.

• Dependent coverage to age 26. Shortly after enactment, all insurers were forced to accept dependent coverage for children up to age 26.

• No more recisions. Existing plans can no longer terminate beneficiaries when they get sick.

• Enhanced preventive care. Soon after enactment, qualified health plans were forced to provide certain preventive services without cost-sharing. Starting this year, patient cost-sharing for preventive services under Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated.
Click to expand...
ome of the tax provisions that help pay for the plan are already in effect. A 10 percent levy on indoor tanning began last year, and an escalating annual fee on drug makers begins this year. Individuals with flexible spending plans and health savings accounts -- tax-advantaged accounts linked to health care expenses -- have already been hit with certain exclusions and limits.

But many of the major tax changes will be delayed by a few years.

• Medical device taxes. A new levy on medical device makers worth about $20 billion over 10 years kicks in 2013.

• Taxes to benefit Medicare Part A. The bill's hike of payroll taxes for individuals earning $200,000 or couples earning $250,000 and a new tax on unearned income for higher earners will start in 2013.

• Insurance sector fees. Fees on health insurers totaling $67 billion over 10 years become effective in 2014.

• Mandated coverage. Two of the bill's provisions most controversial to Republicans -- the requirement that individuals buy health insurance and that employers of a certain size offer affordable health insurance, under penalty of a fine -- would not begin until 2014. The individual mandate would start low that year and then phase in through 2016.

• "Cadillac tax." The most recent version of the bill pushes back the tax on higher-cost health plans until 2018.
Click to expand...

I mean really, it's not that hard to look this crap up.
 
GOP Doctors Caucus Reflects on One Year Anniversary of Obamacare | Republican Doctors Caucus
Since its passage, state budgets have been crushed by rising Medicaid costs, businesses have struggled to keep their doors open due to onerous new administrative and tax burdens, and American citizens are being threatened with rising costs and less access to quality care.
Click to expand...
A year since Obamacare became law, the American people see its failure to address the cost crisis in health care and have a better understanding of the long-lasting negative impact it will have on our health care system and our federal budget. Obamacare is what the American people have been forced to reckon with – it has created uncertainty for our small businesses through burdensome regulations like the 1099 forms, and the law has accelerated rising premiums many were already struggling to pay.
Click to expand...
“In one year’s time, Democrats have managed to destroy every promise they made to the American people about healthcare reform,” said Congressman Broun. “They promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower the deficit, and expand health care coverage to those who need it most. Yet on the one year anniversary of Obamacare, we have seen abject failure in this massive government takeover of our healthcare system."
Click to expand...
As a physician I am the first to admit we must reform America’s health care system, but the way the last Congress and President Obama approached the challenge simply did not address the areas that needed improvement. Instead, it has created a system where we will pay more to get less
Click to expand...
I will be working on legislation to eliminate Obamacare "mandatory" slush funds and will pursue other de-funding and repeal bills to dismantle this ill-conceived law that increases the size and control of government, raises taxes and results in devastating regulations on small business owners.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Smaller provisions ≠ the most expensive provisions!
You're only reading what you want.

That also doesn't include the long term costs of the new entitlement for disability insurance.(Class act)
Click to expand...

I'm only reading what I want? I already proved your "6 years of benefits 10 years of taxes" tripe to be nothing more than a talking point. If you want to get into specifics then you can begin by showing the cost of each provision and the money collected by each tax change.
 
I just felt like giving a quick summary of this thread for those interested.

Con: People might pay different amounts!
Lib: But both of the amounts seem reasonable. What's the problem?
Con: There's so many problems!
Lib: yea?
Con: It rations care!
Lib: Any proof of this?
Con: It kills jobs!
Lib: yea, no it doesn't.
Con: It costs way to much!
Lib: Not according to the CBO.
Con: They scored it wrong!
Lib: Here's proof showing they scored it right. Some provisions and taxes start now, some start later. It's not 6 full years of all benefits and 10 full years of taxes. Besides, the twenty year scoring shows even more cost savings.
Con: You're just reading it the way you want! Keep drinking your kool-aid !!lol!!1
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm only reading what I want? I already proved your "6 years of benefits 10 years of taxes" tripe to be nothing more than a talking point. If you want to get into specifics then you can begin by showing the cost of each provision and the money collected by each tax change.
Click to expand...

It's not a talking point because even the politifact page points out that it is half true.
Maybe I oversimplified it but the point still stands.

The major entitlement benefits are not paid for during the whole 10 years but a great many of the taxes are collected prior to the establishment of those benefits.

You can't reliably show the costs of each provision, in reality, because it's very difficult to predict the behavior changes in people once those benefits are established.

The CBO scored the bill based on the scenario written in the bill and not any changes made after the bill was passed, nor is it scored based on behavior changes.
It's dishonest to say that ObamaCare saves money.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not a talking point because even the politifact page points out that it is half true.
Maybe I oversimplified it but the point still stands.

The major entitlement benefits are not paid for during the whole 10 years but a great many of the taxes are collected prior to the establishment of those benefits.

You can't reliably show the costs of each provision, in reality, because it's very difficult to predict the behavior changes in people once those benefits are established.

The CBO scored the bill based on the scenario written in the bill and not any changes made after the bill was passed, nor is it scored based on behavior changes.
It's dishonest to say that ObamaCare saves money.
Click to expand...

RoughDraft274 said:
If you want to get into specifics then you can begin by showing the cost of each provision and the money collected by each tax change.
Click to expand...
............................
 
roughdraft274 said:
I just felt like giving a quick summary of this thread for those interested.

Con: People might pay different amounts!
Lib: But both of the amounts seem reasonable. What's the problem?
Con: There's so many problems!
Lib: yea?
Con: It rations care!
Lib: Any proof of this?
Con: It kills jobs!
Lib: yea, no it doesn't.
Con: It costs way to much!
Lib: Not according to the CBO.
Con: They scored it wrong!
Lib: Here's proof showing they scored it right. Some provisions and taxes start now, some start later. It's not 6 full years of all benefits and 10 full years of taxes. Besides, the twenty year scoring shows even more cost savings.
Con: You're just reading it the way you want! Keep drinking your kool-aid !!lol!!1
Click to expand...

Here...
Obama%20Kool%20Aid%20Man.gif
 
roughdraft274 said:
Upset that you found out that talking points aren't a good way to win a debate?
Click to expand...

you're not very good at this.

Funny (in a sad, pathetic way) that every time you're confronted by reality (see Ryan post), you whine 'talking point!' and claim victory.

I think I'll take the word of the chairman of the Budget comittee over you, tyvfm. He's seen the data, you have not. He knows what was actually handed in to the CBO, you do not. He's been closely involved in the monitary end of this from the beginning, you have not.

Of course, he's also a conservative, so he must be lying. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The 39 Democrats who did not fall for Obamacare... the smart ones.

Adler
Altmire
Baird
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Artur Davis
Lincoln Davis
Chet Edwards
Gordon
Griffith
Herseth-sandlin
Holden
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Betsy Markey
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Melancon
Minnick
Scott Murphy
Nye
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Click to expand...

They deserve a medal.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a cop out you're presenting.

The bill has been modified and written with unrealistic assumptions, yet you still hold on to the faith that it will save money?
Click to expand...

It's very possible that the scores won't turn out to be dead on balls accurate. Will this be a huge catastrophe that will destroy jobs, kill granny and bankrupt us? Not by any stretch of the imagination. You're whole argument is boiling down to "it's my opinion that it will cost more than they say" and that's fine that that's your opinion, but excuse me if i don't take your opinion as the gospel.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's very possible that the scores won't turn out to be dead on balls accurate. Will this be a huge catastrophe that will destroy jobs, kill granny and bankrupt us? Not by any stretch of the imagination. You're whole argument is boiling down to "it's my opinion that it will cost more than they say" and that's fine that that's your opinion, but excuse me if i don't take your opinion as the gospel.
Click to expand...

And excuse us if we take the opinion of someone who knows what the **** he's actually talking about in this (Ryan) as opposed to some guy online (you).
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's very possible that the scores won't turn out to be dead on balls accurate. Will this be a huge catastrophe that will destroy jobs, kill granny and bankrupt us? Not by any stretch of the imagination. You're whole argument is boiling down to "it's my opinion that it will cost more than they say" and that's fine that that's your opinion, but excuse me if i don't take your opinion as the gospel.
Click to expand...

You don't have to take my opinion as gospel.
Just take the cost predictions of the CBO into account, especially when it involves government meddling with medical care.

They typically miss the mark by wide margins.
Medicare, Medicare part D, etc all were much more expensive than originally predicted.

There is a history here and it's not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom