• 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]

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.

Things are fine and there's no discord in the echo chamber, we get it. Quite a few of us live outside the cocoon.
 
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.

The 2015 cost per covered person in 2010 was estimated to be $5,200. In reality, it's been $3,960 per newly covered person. That's where your per person savings come from. Lower premiums, slower cost growth than expected. The same forces experienced economy-wide.

Things are fine and there's no discord in the echo chamber, we get it. Quite a few of us live outside the cocoon.

From your stunning lack of knowledge, doesn't seem like it.
 
That's everyone's opinion. The GOP-led CBO. Me. Numbers.

It doesn't matter who runs CBO, the CBO makes projections and what CBO gave you was the budget numbers provided by Congress and then spending against those budget numbers. Those numbers are irrelevant and don't trump Treasury data. There serve a purpose that seems to motivate people like you as you use CBO numbers when they benefit you and ignore them when they don't. Neither matter, what matters is what was spent and also what matters is there was no budget for ACA therefore any expense is going to cost the taxpayer more.
 
It doesn't matter who runs CBO, the CBO makes projections and what CBO gave you was the budget numbers provided by Congress and then spending against those budget numbers. Those numbers are irrelevant and don't trump Treasury data.

Are you still arguing for me to accept your lower spending numbers?

Okay!
 
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.


Stop with the budgeting and look at the 18.2 trillion dollar debt and 225 billion a year in debt service. Keep spinning what appears to be another Federal disaster. Let's stop with the BS why such passion on your part? How has ACA benefited you
 
Stop with the budgeting and look at the 18.2 trillion dollar debt and 225 billion a year in debt service. Keep spinning what appears to be another Federal disaster. Let's stop with the BS why such passion on your part? How has ACA benefited you

How has it benefited me? I could end up in a hospital someday. Tens of thousands of fewer people are killed by their hospital through a medical error than were pre-ACA. Also I pay federal taxes, and of course the ACA has significantly slowed health spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending growth has been negative for the first time ever.

In short, I live in the U.S. That's how it's benefited me.
 
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).

Then I ask you to do what I asked another poster, show me the healthcare costs on the budget of the United States? Healthcare expenses are mostly paid by the states and local communities, not the Federal Taxpayer. There seems to be an incentive for the states the handle the problem if the people of that state decide it is a problem. Obama and liberals have convinced the people that this is a federal expense when it truly isn't

Yes, healthcare money is being wasted, wasted on needless lawsuits, needless testing and retesting of drugs, needless tests spent to prevent law suits but probably most important personal choice issues that cause people to overeat, over drink, do drugs, and in general destroy their bodies

I am like you in that I was a staunch Democrat growing up but that party of JFK isn't the same party today. How anyone can support the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is beyond comprehension.
 
Are you still arguing for me to accept your lower spending numbers?

Okay!

I am arguing and you are ignoring there was no budget for ACA until ACA was passed thus any spending is an increase. You are taking projections and a reduction of spending from those projections as a success when the reality is there was more spending than the year before and the deficit was higher.
 
I am like you in that I was a staunch Democrat growing up but that party of JFK isn't the same party today. How anyone can support the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is beyond comprehension.

You're talking about JFK, the guy who pressed tirelessly for the first single-payer government program in American history, Medicare, for the elderly? That's where you're coming from?
 
How has it benefited me? I could end up in a hospital someday. Tens of thousands of fewer people are killed by their hospital through a medical error than were pre-ACA. Also I pay federal taxes, and of course the ACA has significantly slowed health spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending growth has been negative for the first time ever.

In short, I live in the U.S. That's how it's benefited me.

Yes, and the world could end tomorrow and all that money spent wasted. You think it is my responsibility to pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking. Tens of thousands killed by medical error? PROVE IT!

You do pay taxes and yet you cannot show me where those savings are going to hit the budget?

You do live in the U.S. and you are allowed to make stupid choices, not having insurance is a stupid choice but when you don't make that choice you want the taxpayers to bail you out? What has happened to this country?
 
You're talking about JFK, the guy who pressed tirelessly for the first single-payer government program in American history, Medicare, for the elderly? That's where you're coming from?

I am talking about JFK, the guy who knew that people keeping more of what they earn stimulates economic activity and that creates jobs.
 
Yes, and the world could end tomorrow and all that money spent wasted. You think it is my responsibility to pay for your health insurance?

You don't pay for my insurance. Not even close. I'm in a self-insured plan financed by a hospital system. If anything, I subsidize your idiot decisions.

That is what you are asking. Tens of thousands killed by medical error? PROVE IT!

Easly done.

Exhibit 5. Total Annual and Cumulative Deaths Averted (Compared to 2010 Baseline)
hacex5.jpg


You do pay taxes and yet you cannot show me where those savings are going to hit the budget?

You've been presented with entire budget tables contrasted with actual spending. You seem innumerate.

I am talking about JFK, the guy who knew that people keeping more of what they earn stimulates economic activity and that creates jobs.

Right, the single-payer guy. Got it.
 
You don't pay for my insurance. Not even close. I'm in a self-insured plan financed by a hospital system. If anything, I subsidize your idiot decisions.



Easly done.

Exhibit 5. Total Annual and Cumulative Deaths Averted (Compared to 2010 Baseline)
hacex5.jpg




You've been presented with entire budget tables contrasted with actual spending. You seem innumerate.



Right, the single-payer guy. Got it.

I feel sorry for people like you as you really have been indoctrinated well by the Democrat liberal machine. So if you pay for your own insurance please don't try and tell me you care about the uninsured because you really do not have any skin in the game but not only are you paying for the uninsured in your state, you are helping pay for the premiums of others in the nation. That indicates someone totally naïve and gullible when it comes to reality. One of these days I am sure your attitude will change. What does the debt have to be for that to happen? All that spending in the name of compassion yet never truly getting compassionate spending yet you blame the increase in deaths on hospitals all to sell another entitlement program. You support a single payer system and ignore you are giving more power to bureaucrats who have created the current debt.
 
I feel sorry for people like you as you really have been indoctrinated well by the Democrat liberal machine.

No worries, I feel the same about idiots like you.

So if you pay for your own insurance please don't try and tell me you care about the uninsured because you really do not have any skin in the game but not only are you paying for the uninsured in your state, you are helping pay for the premiums of others in the nation.

I don't particularly care about the uninsured, per se, I want well-functioning markets. We've already covered this. I want markets that work. They're now working. Thus I'm reasonably satisfied. Any questions?

That indicates someone totally naïve and gullible when it comes to reality.

Indeed, that's me. Somehow who knows infinitely more about health care economics, finance, markets, and care than you can ever hope to is just hopelessly naive and gullible about the subject. Egg on my face!
 
Then I ask you to do what I asked another poster, show me the healthcare costs on the budget of the United States? Healthcare expenses are mostly paid by the states and local communities, not the Federal Taxpayer. There seems to be an incentive for the states the handle the problem if the people of that state decide it is a problem. Obama and liberals have convinced the people that this is a federal expense when it truly isn't

Yes, healthcare money is being wasted, wasted on needless lawsuits, needless testing and retesting of drugs, needless tests spent to prevent law suits but probably most important personal choice issues that cause people to overeat, over drink, do drugs, and in general destroy their bodies

I am like you in that I was a staunch Democrat growing up but that party of JFK isn't the same party today. How anyone can support the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is beyond comprehension.
Well, you bring an interesting wrinkle to the discussion, because I was speaking to the macro-economic inefficiencies, treating healthcare as a 'commodity'. So you have me at a disadvantage here, because I do not have the specific figures you're requesting.

Medicare & Disability are federal programs. - MedicAid as you stated, is implemented at the state level but with a majority federal subsidy, which in my state is slightly over one-half. However, the ACA MedicAid expansion does receive federal funding to be sustained at 90%, and the subsidies for private insurance through the ACA are direct federal subsidy. So in effect, the feds are paying for virtually all costs associated with the ACA.

But you are essentially restating this as a philosophical problem as to whether it should be handled at the state or federal level, while I'm declaring it's currently not working at any level, including the state level. That's the crux of the matter - the current system fails. And the country as a whole is becoming more intolerant of healthcare failure, irrespective of it being allowed by individual states' legislatures.

And yes, the Dems not only left me, but hastened their retreat this past decade, and the GOP strikes me as an even worse faith, so at every national election the two-party system essentially presents me with a 'Hobson's Choice'.
 
Except the reality that I have history on my side on how the Federal Govt. runs social programs. I didn't make the claim of savings, I pointed out history.

No, you really don't. You have poor logic and misinformation based on what you present.
 
Whoa, I keep reading about how wonderful SCOTUScare is (in this thread, not real life) and the gobs and gobs of money we are saving because of it. Waaaaay under budget!

Okay, so where is my $2500 savings for the last 5 years? That's $12,500 I was promised by Obama. I mean, it's saving so much, right?
 
No, you really don't. You have poor logic and misinformation based on what you present.

Well one of these days I can only hope to be as good and smart as you THINK you are. I totally understand Treasury data cannot be believed and we need to focus on predictions and projections as being accurate. Thanks for the lesson.
 
You're talking about JFK, the guy who pressed tirelessly for the first single-payer government program in American history, Medicare, for the elderly? That's where you're coming from?

You have to understand...he was a big fan of socialism until he started getting Medicare and SS. Then he realized his socialist programs might get taken away by younger liberals.

A Conservative is born!
 
You have to understand...he was a big fan of socialism until he started getting Medicare and SS. Then he realized his socialist programs might get taken away by younger liberals.

A Conservative is born!

Neither of you understand taxes, what you pay and what you fund just like neither of you can show ACA numbers in the budget of the United States and the actual expenses of that budget. I did and neither of you understood the numbers posted and fall back on CBO projections? CBO projected costs for ACA, ACA is insuring millions fewer than were budgeted and liberals are claiming that because ACA is coming in under budget it is a success. Doesn't matter that healthcare costs are up because perception is reality
 
Well one of these days I can only hope to be as good and smart as you THINK you are. I totally understand Treasury data cannot be believed and we need to focus on predictions and projections as being accurate. Thanks for the lesson.

I'm not the one making self proclamations. That's you. And you always use the wrong information that really doesn't speak to the issue.
 
I'm not the one making self proclamations. That's you. And you always use the wrong information that really doesn't speak to the issue.

Right I understand that studies and opinions trump Treasury data. How about showing me healthcare costs in the budget of the United States and how ACA has lowered them?
 
Right I understand that studies and opinions trump Treasury data. How about showing me healthcare costs in the budget of the United States and how ACA has lowered them?

Data that doesn't apply, yes.

I said more people are insured, a victory in itself, and that the cost has been as great as feared. So, focus on what I said.
 
Data that doesn't apply, yes.

I said more people are insured, a victory in itself, and that the cost has been as great as feared. So, focus on what I said.

The cost was made based upon having more people sign up than actually did and that is why costs aren't what was projected. Projected costs mean nothing
 
The cost was made based upon having more people sign up than actually did and that is why costs aren't what was projected. Projected costs mean nothing

I'm not talking projected. Actual costs. No excuses. The sky has not fallen.
 
Back
Top Bottom