• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I have insurance so I won't be paying for it. Not that I would object if I was....


I have insurance also, but I do mind being forced to pay a TAX that was solid as NOT A TAX.

So my question was = who's gonna foot the bill for all the NEW DOCTORS that will be needed?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The Romney campaign disagrees very strongly with you. :mrgreen:





Listen you hate Romeny right? So you've got a dog in the Romney fight, yes? Thanks.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What? Adding 45 MILLION people, almost all of them getting PUBLICLY subsidized insurance policies (with LEGAL 20% overhead) is not going to cost YOU anything? What planet are you on?

At your income, PPACA will give you free or nearly-free health insurance and you won't pay any additional taxes. So what makes you think that the same isn't true of many other people too? Basically, with PPACA you'll come out massively ahead if you're older, sicker, and/or have a lower income. You'll come out slightly behind if you're young, healthy, and have a pretty good income. The only people who will come out substantially behind (in dollar terms) are those earning more than $250,000...and even those tax increases will only amount to 0.9% of their earned income.

Please explain this "new math". Even if YOU pay no taxes YOU are part owner of the $16 TRILLION national debt, whether Obama tells you so or not;

Well, that will be paid for via taxes too. In the absence of any legislation to the contrary, it's logical to assume that your share of the debt is roughly the same as your share of the tax burden. In any case, the CBO says that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the debt.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So my question was = who's gonna foot the bill for all the NEW DOCTORS that will be needed?

Hopefully states will be encouraged to open more medical schools and break the AMA's monopolistic reign of terror over our health care system. We can also allow more doctors to immigrate to the United States; this costs virtually nothing.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

In any case, the CBO says that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the debt.

Can you substantiate this?

thx
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Can you substantiate this?

The CBO's most recent estimate of all provisions of the ACA and their budgetary impact, from February 2011:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...s-images/43xxx/net_budgetary_impact_total.png

Right now, the ACA is a net positive on the budget. It will continue to be a net positive until 2015, then dip into a deficit for a couple years, before returning to a surplus around 2017/2018.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The CBO's most recent estimate of all provisions of the ACA and their budgetary impact, from February 2011:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...s-images/43xxx/net_budgetary_impact_total.png

Right now, the ACA is a net positive on the budget. It will continue to be a net positive until 2015, then dip into a deficit for a couple years, before returning to a surplus around 2017/2018.

AH, so it is reducing the DEFICITS but not the DEBT...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

At your income, PPACA will give you free or nearly-free health insurance and you won't pay any additional taxes. So what makes you think that the same isn't true of many other people too? Basically, with PPACA you'll come out massively ahead if you're older, sicker, and/or have a lower income. You'll come out slightly behind if you're young, healthy, and have a pretty good income. The only people who will come out substantially behind (in dollar terms) are those earning more than $250,000...and even those tax increases will only amount to 0.9% of their earned income.



Well, that will be paid for via taxes too. In the absence of any legislation to the contrary, it's logical to assume that your share of the debt is roughly the same as your share of the tax burden. In any case, the CBO says that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the debt.

This "logic" is very faulty, simply because more people will benefit than will APPEAR to be taxed is irrelevant. Taxes paid by "the rich" and by businesses are not paid by mere minor reductions in rediculously high profits, as many on the left pretend, they are simply passed along to all as inflation; higher prices for the same goods produced and services provided. Consumption is a higher percentage of income, as income levels go down, so those at the bottom income levels will EVENTUALLY pay all of the "invisible" taxes caused by inflation.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The CBO's most recent estimate of all provisions of the ACA and their budgetary impact, from February 2011:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...s-images/43xxx/net_budgetary_impact_total.png

Right now, the ACA is a net positive on the budget. It will continue to be a net positive until 2015, then dip into a deficit for a couple years, before returning to a surplus around 2017/2018.

The CBO has revised their projections. You are using data where they weren't able to calculate Obamacare when it had actually taken effect yet. Obamacare will have 4 full years of tax increases and revenue allocation to pay for just 6 years of implementation. It's when you start calculating past all the front loaded money thrown at this turkey that the true cost starts to take shape.

Obamacare will be no more positive to the budget than Medicare and Medicaid are. Trillions and trillions in unfunded liabilities. Not even a massive tax increase on the poor and middle class can make Obamacare a "net positive" to the budget.

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AH, so it is reducing the DEFICITS but not the DEBT...

The debt is nothing more than the collective deficits, year after year. The ACA's budgetary impact is to reduce the deficit every year into the forseeable future, with the exception of a slight deficit from 2015-2018. Therefore it ALSO reduces the debt.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The CBO has revised their projections.

No they have not. This is the most recent calculation that they have performed on the cost of all provisions.

You are using data where they weren't able to calculate Obamacare when it had actually taken effect yet. Obamacare will have 4 full years of tax increases and revenue allocation to pay for just 6 years of implementation. It's when you start calculating past all the front loaded money thrown at this turkey that the true cost starts to take shape.

:roll:
I've already debunked this numerous times in this thread, but what the hell, I'll do it again. The ten-year *cost* increases each year as we get closer to the actual implementation in 2014 (as anyone who understands accounting/finance always knew that it would, including the CBO). But the *impact on the budget* does not. This is because revenues from the Affordable Care Act are projected to exceed the costs, for every year into the foreseeable future except for a small deficit in 2015-2018.

Obamacare will be no more positive to the budget than Medicare and Medicaid are. Trillions and trillions in unfunded liabilities. Not even a massive tax increase on the poor and middle class can make Obamacare a "net positive" to the budget.

So on the one hand, we have the CBO's estimates. On the other hand, we have your completely uninformed opinion.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The debt is nothing more than the collective deficits, year after year. The ACA's budgetary impact is to reduce the deficit every year into the forseeable future, with the exception of a slight deficit from 2015-2018. Therefore it ALSO reduces the debt.

No, it reduces the increase in the debt. The debt does not go down one dollar therefore it does NOT ALSO reduces the debt.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Listen you hate Romeny right? So you've got a dog in the Romney fight, yes? Thanks.

Don't take my word for it. The Romney campaign said so, or do you believe that aliens from outer space played trick or treat in that video and substituted one of their own for Romney's spokesman? :mrgreen:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Taxes paid by "the rich" and by businesses are not paid by mere minor reductions in rediculously high profits, as many on the left pretend, they are simply passed along to all as inflation; higher prices for the same goods produced and services provided. Consumption is a higher percentage of income, as income levels go down, so those at the bottom income levels will EVENTUALLY pay all of the "invisible" taxes caused by inflation.

That might be true if the money were being spent on some new good/service that the economy had not previously been counting (e.g. buying all Americans a new pony). But the cost of shoddy health care coverage has always been priced into our economy...we just pay for it in one of the least efficient ways possible. Rather than actually pay for those people to get health care, we've been paying for it in the form of decreased productivity (due to worker absenteeism and presenteeism), medical problems diagnosed too late (because people wait until they have a real emergency), reduced human capital (because people die earlier and stop working earlier), and increased risk aversion (because people are less willing to start a business or go back to school).

These are all economic costs of the uninsured that have already been priced into our economy. Actually paying for them to get health care isn't some brand new cost that is just now being incurred.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

No, it reduces the increase in the debt. The debt does not go down one dollar therefore it does NOT ALSO reduces the debt.

So it's the Affordable Care Act's fault if Congress decides to spend more than it earns on other things? :roll:
That isn't how budgetary impacts are calculated.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So it's the Affordable Care Act's fault if Congress decides to spend more than it earns on other things? :roll:
That isn't how budgetary impacts are calculated.

Don't change the subject...YOU posted the ACA would reduce the DEBT...you were wrong...YOU meant 'DEFICIT' I'm sure but now you cannot admit the error...is it that hard?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

How is it possible to expand coverage, increase availability, and reduce costs at the same time?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The CBO's most recent estimate of all provisions of the ACA and their budgetary impact, from February 2011:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...s-images/43xxx/net_budgetary_impact_total.png

Right now, the ACA is a net positive on the budget. It will continue to be a net positive until 2015, then dip into a deficit for a couple years, before returning to a surplus around 2017/2018.


correct me if I amwrong, but these estimates are based on the law being fully implemented, something the CBO even seems skeptical about

CBO | Health Costs and the Federal Budget
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The debt is nothing more than the collective deficits, year after year. The ACA's budgetary impact is to reduce the deficit every year into the forseeable future, with the exception of a slight deficit from 2015-2018. Therefore it ALSO reduces the debt.

Well if you are right then all of America's problems are solved. But in real life nothing goes according to plan.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

How is it possible to expand coverage, increase availability, and reduce costs at the same time?

I've only got one question about insurance, what do they provide besides taking a slice of money out of the system? They're not a doctor, nurse, technician or any kind of health service they simply get in between the patient and their medical providers for a fee driving up medical costs. How would not eliminating them not bring down costs?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Don't change the subject...YOU posted the ACA would reduce the DEBT...you were wrong...YOU meant 'DEFICIT'

No, I meant both. The debt = the year-on-year deficits. Since the ACA will indeed reduce the year-on-year deficits, then it will reduce the debt. See below for further clarification.

I'm sure but now you cannot admit the error...is it that hard?

I assumed that when I said "It will reduce the debt," it was understood that that meant "It will reduce the debt assuming that all other taxing/spending occurs as it otherwise would." Sorry if I overestimated your understanding of how budgetary accounting works.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

How is it possible to expand coverage, increase availability, and reduce costs at the same time?

Expand coverage and increase availability - By providing more people with health insurance.

Reduce costs - By giving the government more leverage over health care providers, by steering funding toward effective procedures, and by eliminating some of the hidden costs of having millions of uninsured people.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

correct me if I amwrong, but these estimates are based on the law being fully implemented, something the CBO even seems skeptical about

CBO | Health Costs and the Federal Budget

This is true; the CBO's job is to look at the legislation and determine its impact if it is implemented. The CBO can't guess what future congresses will do, any better than you or I can.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Expand coverage and increase availability - By providing more people with health insurance.

Reduce costs - By giving the government more leverage over health care providers, by steering funding toward effective procedures, and by eliminating some of the hidden costs of having millions of uninsured people.

What? The LARGEST "hidden" cost is "private" medical care insurance itself! Even the "thrifty" PPACA allows 20% of insurance premium money to NOT be spent going directly to the medical care providers. That ALONE would save up to 20%, simply by eliminating the third party involved. Hmm...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What? The LARGEST "hidden" cost is "private" medical care insurance itself! Even the "thrifty" PPACA allows 20% of insurance premium money to NOT be spent going directly to the medical care providers. That ALONE would save up to 20%, simply by eliminating the third party involved. Hmm...

Oh, I agree. I'm all for cutting private insurance companies out of the loop entirely, but there doesn't seem to be enough congressional support for that. Nevertheless, 20% is the MAXIMUM they're allowed to spend on things other than medical care, which is at least a step in the right direction. Prior to PPACA, there were no financial restrictions on them at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom