• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

clownboy said:
Do you? It would only be under budget if it were addressing the whole problem, not [maybe] 30% of it.
Click to expand...

No, it would be under budget if it cost less than budgeted for it. Which it has. Substantially.

So yeah, you could just say you don't understand numbers next time. Save this song and dance.
 
Greenbeard said:
You could raise rates a lot more than that this year and still be well under budget. I don't think you folks have quite appreciated how far below expectations (i.e., those used to present the "price tag" of the ACA when it passed) actual premiums have been.
Click to expand...

When your delivery is very far below expectations you can't really celebrate that costs are marginally below expectations.
 
Conservative said:
Are you going to ever address the issue of the ACA budget not being there prior to ACA thus the budget was ZERO?
Click to expand...

The law budgeted for the new spending. That's what the new revenue and cost savings were designed to (more than) cover. Turns out the real spending was way lower than expected and the savings way more than anticipated, so the total deficit reduction has been well above what was expected.
 
Greenbeard said:
Sorry, did you just claim that Medicare spending was $510 billion when it was budgeted to be $710 billion?

Because it seems like you did. So if you're asking how much under budget it came, that would be $200 billion or 28%. In fairness, my numbers are a bit more conservative than yours. But wow!



Medicare savings are relative to what Medicare spending was on track to be, before the ACA substantially slowed cost growth. Exchange spending can only be compared to what it was expected to be before it became clear that insurance premiums are way below what anyone expected.
Click to expand...

You don't get it, do you? we pay debt service on spending not the budgeted amount. I cannot believe how indoctrinated you and others are. It doesn't matter what the budget is, it matters what has been spent and what the actual deficit is and it was 1.1 trillion dollars according to Treasury.
 
clownboy said:
When your delivery is very far below expectations you can't really celebrate that costs are marginally below expectations.
Click to expand...

There's virtually no metric along which care delivery hasn't improved over the past 5 years.

Got anything else?
 
Conservative said:
You don't get it, do you? we pay debt service on spending not the budgeted amount. I cannot believe how indoctrinated you and others are. It doesn't matter what the budget is, it matters what has been spent and what the actual deficit is and it was 1.1 trillion dollars according to Treasury.
Click to expand...

Then don't repeal the ACA. The deficit and debt would both rise in its absence.
 
Greenbeard said:
No, it would be under budget if it cost less than budgeted for it. Which it has. Substantially.

So yeah, you could just say you don't understand numbers next time. Save this song and dance.
Click to expand...

Good grief. It was budgeted to insure 42 million not maybe 12. You go to buy a car and only the engine and the tires are delivered but you're told hey, we took 25% off the sticker price and you think you got a bargain? :lamo
 
Greenbeard said:
There's virtually no metric along which care delivery hasn't improved over the past 5 years.

Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the one YOU keep ignoring when it suits you. The 30 million plus still uninsured while the budget has been largely spent.
 
Greenbeard said:
The law budgeted for the new spending. That's what the new revenue and cost savings were designed to (more than) cover. Turns out the real spending was way lower than expected and the savings way more than anticipated, so the total deficit reduction has been well above what was expected.
Click to expand...

So you want to take credit for a budgeted amount that is much higher than actual even though there was no actual budget prior and budgets really don't matter, spending does? So in your real life you double your request for spending so that when you don't spend the amount you take a victory lap even though the company spent more money than the year before? It isn't deficit reduction when you spend more than you spent the year before, it adds to the debt!!
 
Conservative said:
So you want to take credit for a budgeted amount that is much higher than actual even though there was no actual budget prior and budgets really don't matter, spending does? So in your real life you double your request for spending so that when you don't spend the amount you take a victory lap even though the company spent more money than the year before? It isn't deficit reduction when you spend more than you spent the year before, it adds to the debt!!
Click to expand...

Budgets are always prospective. You set aside a certain amount of money and savings to pay for a thing.

How is this confusing?
 
Greenbeard said:
Then don't repeal the ACA. The deficit and debt would both rise in its absence.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but since you cannot show a reduction in the deficit or the cost of healthcare in the actual spending of the United States you really don't have a leg to stand on because this is just another Govt. program that costs the taxpayers more than the year before thus adding to the debt
 
Greenbeard said:
Budgets are always prospective. You set aside a certain amount of money and savings to pay for a thing.

How is this confusing?
Click to expand...

Yes, budgets are projections but when you budget for more people than actually signed up you are going to come in under budget. The reality is the expenses are higher than they were the previous year. Do you have anything else?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, budgets are projections but when you budget for more people than actually signed up you are going to come in under budget. The reality is the expenses are higher than they were the previous year. Do you have anything else?
Click to expand...

Per person spending is way below what was budgeted.

Be honest: have you looked at the projections vs. the actual numbers? No, you haven't. Obviously.
 
Greenbeard said:
What planet are you from? Look up the actual numbers, genius.
Click to expand...

I did. AND I asked you, these are numbers YOU supplied.

How many people were uninsured before Obamacare: 42 million.
How many of those are insured now: you say 12 million (30%).
How much of the money budgeted to insure those 42 million has been spent on 30% of the problem: you say three quarters (if we've "saved 25%" that means we spent 75% yes?).

No matter how you spin this, Obamacare has only addressed up to 30% of the problem that it was budgeted to solve 100% of. So if we've spent any more than 30% of that expected budget we aren't coming out in the black.
 
clownboy said:
I did. AND I asked you, these are numbers YOU supplied.

How many people were uninsured before Obamacare: 42 million.
How many of those are insured now: you say 12 million (30%).
How much of the money budgeted to insure those 42 million has been spent on 30% of the problem: you say three quarters (if we've "saved 25%" that means we spent 75% yes?).

No matter how you spin this, Obamacare has only addressed up to 30% of the problem that it was budgeted to solve 100% of.
Click to expand...

Who projected 42 million newly insured in FY14?

Oh right. No one.
 
Conservative said:
Who pays for the overhead of private insurance companies, the taxpayers?

The govt. doesn't do any social program better because social programs are individual responsibility and all the govt. cares about is buying votes. If someone gives you $100 do you treat that any different than if it was your $100?
Click to expand...
You're missing the point: we're not making efficient use of our healthcare moneys - we're getting short-changed.

I think I see your point you're attempting to make, but you're speaking from your point-of-view when you discuss healthcare as being an individual responsibility - many otherwise responsible people cannot afford adequate healthcare through no fault of their own, and it would seem a slight majority of the country does not see it your way (though I concede in purely logical terms 'majority' does not unequivocally mean 'right').

My octogenarian mother has a myriad of health issues due to her age, and I assure you there's no free-market for-profit private insurer model that will work in her case - that's why she has MediCare, which is predominately a single-payer model.

I will heartily agree with you on politicians buying votes through entitlements, though. It's a hideous activity, and one of the (many) reasons why I'm no longer a registered Democrat (after having literally been born into the hotbed of the Democratic Party).
 
Greenbeard said:
Who projected 42 million newly insured in FY14?

Oh right. No one.
Click to expand...

So, you indicate that you have a solid grasp of those numbers, tell us. How many of the 47 million uninsured (I see from the rah-rah Obamacare sites I was too low at 42 million) were supposed to be insured by now?
 
clownboy said:
So, you indicate that you have a solid grasp of those numbers, tell us. How many of the 47 million uninsured (I see from the rah-rah Obamacare sites I was too low at 42 million) were supposed to be insured by now?
Click to expand...

Through FY 14, 8 million through exchanges and 10 through expanded Medicaid. SCOTUS made expanded Medicaid optional and about half the states haven't yet expanded (including two with some of the biggest eligible populations, Texas and Florida). They will in time. But for those privately insured, premiums continue to be well below projections which is a large part of why the law (including per person spending) is so much below what we were promised.
 
Threegoofs said:
Wow. This is a total beatdown with the usual suspects getting chopped up like a Monty Python knight.

Hilarious. :popcorn
Click to expand...

Five years ago, plausible counterarguments were offered.

Today, the counter arguments are pathetic--which I take as a great victory for the ACA. You literally have ACA opponents arguing Medicare has been costing tens of billions below what I suggested (numbers which are in turn are tens of billions below what was budgeted)!

The arguments against have disintegrated. And the anti-ACA folks don't seem to have even noticed. That's the most amusing part.
 
Greenbeard said:
Through FY 14, 8 million through exchanges and 10 through expanded Medicaid. SCOTUS made expanded Medicaid optional and about half the states haven't yet expanded (including two with some of the biggest eligible populations, Texas and Florida). They will in time. But for those privately insured, premiums continue to be well below projections which is a large part of why the law (including per person spending) is so much below what we were promised.
Click to expand...

You're still avoiding the question and it was clear what the question is. How many did you project to have covered by now?

I can tell you right now that solving 30% of the problem was nowhere near the cost of the change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom