• 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]

It was smart of you quit, especially since you lack the ability to understand how taxes are used for funding.

What part is this sentence don't you understand?

"The "relevant taxes" for healthcare spending are equal to (or less than in the case of deficits) public spending on healthcare."
 
I've looked at a number of estimates from a variety of sources, expressed as PPP or % of GDP or nominal spending adjusted for different currencies. The pictures look the same no matter how it's done.

If you have other data, please show it.

No matter how it is done? Show me another country with 312 million people, 50 sovereign states, and a 17.5 trillion dollar economy that has freedom of the press to post perceived actual data and then compare the tax structure to those countries as well. Do you have any idea why taxes in Europe on gasoline are so much higher? Do you realize how dependent those countries are on govt. spending? Point, you have no idea what goes into those foreign countries nor the freedom of choice they have like we have in this country to affect our healthcare whether it be fast food, drugs, alcohol, obesity.

This is what liberals want to ignore

How Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries? - The Atlantic

But these numbers might understate how low taxes have been in the U.S. Unlike most advanced economies, the U.S. don't supplement personal income taxes with a national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). Consumption taxes accounted for about a fifth of total U.S. revenue in 2008 (mostly at the state and local level) compared to an OECD average of 32 percent. In other words, the U.S. relies uniquely on personal tax rates to raise revenue -- and we have relatively low personal tax rates.

Do you have any idea what their national sales taxes and VAT taxes fund?
 
"The "relevant taxes" for healthcare spending are equal to (or less than in the case of deficits) public spending on healthcare."

Taxes for healthcare are additional "spending" specifically by the people.
 
Taxes for healthcare are additional "spending" specifically by the people.

So, if you pay $1 to government in "healthcare" taxes, and government then spends $1 on healthcare, total systemwide spending on "healthcare" is $2.

Interesting! Wrong, fails basic math and reveals a deep misunderstanding of public finance, but interesting!
 
So, if you pay $1 to government in "healthcare" taxes, and government then spends $1 on healthcare, total systemwide spending on "healthcare" is $2.

Nope.
 

Then "Taxes for healthcare are additional "spending" specifically by the people" is wrong.

And the public healthcare spending in the graph is >= healthcare taxes.

But you're just trolling and I'm responding because I'm otherwise doing paperwork.
 
Then "Taxes for healthcare are additional "spending" specifically by the people" is wrong.

Your post wanting that to mean what you wrote was wrong, yes.
 
Your post wanting that to mean what you wrote was wrong, yes.

You're not making any sense. I hate to say it but figuring out my credit card bill is more interesting than this "debate."
 
The word "that" is hard for you?
 
The word "that" is hard for you?

Your incoherent statements are a problem, yes. I have no idea what "Taxes for healthcare are additional "spending" specifically by the people" means in actual English. I understand the words, but not how "taxes for healthcare" differs from "Public Expenditure on Health" in the graph, except that the former (taxes for healthcare) can be less than the latter (public spending) due to deficit spending.

And ALL "Public Expenditures on Health" are ultimately by the people as are private expenditures on health. Either we pay for health spending directly or through taxes paid to government which then spends some part of those taxes on healthcare.

So this is like arguing with a 1st grader. You've not attempted to make any point except to state gibberish, then debate my interpretation of that gibberish.
 
I understand the words, but not how "taxes for healthcare" differs from "Public Expenditure on Health" in the graph, except that the former (taxes for healthcare) can be less than the latter (public spending) due to deficit spending.

Spending is not taxes.
 
Spending is not taxes.

I deleted my earlier response because I went over the line, and I apologize for that, but this is the last on this thread unless you're interested in having an actual debate on the merits of something. You quoted me acknowledging that taxes can be less than spending because of deficits, so it's clear that I well know the difference between taxes and spending.

But if you have some other point, I'll be glad to address something more substantive than splitting hairs.
 
No, that's what I was saying- it didn't cut the budget for Medicare, it saved Medicare money. The ACA subsidies reduced some of the need for Medicare and so forth.

No, the deficit reduction absolutely did not disappear. For some reason Republicans have been continually claiming that the deficit reduction disappeared, or even that the CBO no longer will reduce the deficit, but that isn't remotely true. In fact, the CBO has confirmed many times, including recently, that it is reducing the deficit. What the Republicans are playing off is confusion about the difference between spending and deficits. Spending was higher than expected, but so were revenues, so it actually reduced the deficits a bit more than the CBO projected.

I am talking about the CBO and you harp back to Republicans for some reason. Oh well, I guess that I missed all that stuff by people claiming that the PPACA will bend the cost curve down and, coupled with cuts in Medicare payments to providers the PPACA would reduce the deficit. That was the claim that Democrats, PPACA supporters, and the CBO made. And current CBO projections are now stating that the PPACA will cost c. $140 billion a year, Net.
 
I am talking about the CBO and you harp back to Republicans for some reason. Oh well, I guess that I missed all that stuff by people claiming that the PPACA will bend the cost curve down and, coupled with cuts in Medicare payments to providers the PPACA would reduce the deficit. That was the claim that Democrats, PPACA supporters, and the CBO made. And current CBO projections are now stating that the PPACA will cost c. $140 billion a year, Net.

Yes, the ACA does save Medicare money- that's what bending the cost curve down means. But it absolutely does not cut the Medicare budget. You follow?

No, the CBO absolutely does not say, and has never said, that the ACA will add to the deficit. It has always said, every single time, that the ACA will reduce the deficit.

What may be tripping you up on the latter is that the CBO responds to questions it gets from legislators and sometimes Republicans try to play games with that. At one point, they asked the CBO to project the impact on the deficit if we kept all the ACA expenditures, but repealed all the revenue components. Obviously then it would add to the deficit. When they got that report, some of the shadier Republican legislators pretended that that meant that the CBO said the ACA would increase the deficit. It sounds like you may have gotten tricked by them.
 
Yes, the ACA does save Medicare money- that's what bending the cost curve down means. But it absolutely does not cut the Medicare budget. You follow? No, the CBO absolutely does not say, and has never said, that the ACA will add to the deficit. It has always said, every single time, that the ACA will reduce the deficit. What may be tripping you up on the latter is that the CBO responds to questions it gets from legislators and sometimes Republicans try to play games with that. At one point, they asked the CBO to project the impact on the deficit if we kept all the ACA expenditures, but repealed all the revenue components. Obviously then it would add to the deficit. When they got that report, some of the shadier Republican legislators pretended that that meant that the CBO said the ACA would increase the deficit. It sounds like you may have gotten tricked by them.
What I find interesting is how people tout the CBO when it supports their point of view and ignores CBO When it doesn't. You don't seem to understand that CBO makes projections and their accuracy is about as good as the Obama Administration when it predict things like a stimulus program keeping unemployment below 8%. CBO makes predictions based upon assumptions given them by Congress so if the assumptions are wrong the predictions are wrong. It also appears that you don't understand the difference between deficit and debt. Deficits are yearly and debt is cumulative. Please explain what you mean by reducing the deficit when deficits are yearly and neither you or CBO understand what the yearly deficit is going to be? ACA cannot increase access to millions of high risk people and lower costs, that is impossible no matter how many of the young "Invincible" forced to contribute. You want badly to believe with your heart and not think with your brain. Because you want something to happen doesn't mean that it will.
 
Yes, the ACA does save Medicare money- that's what bending the cost curve down means. But it absolutely does not cut the Medicare budget. You follow?

No, the CBO absolutely does not say, and has never said, that the ACA will add to the deficit. It has always said, every single time, that the ACA will reduce the deficit.

What may be tripping you up on the latter is that the CBO responds to questions it gets from legislators and sometimes Republicans try to play games with that. At one point, they asked the CBO to project the impact on the deficit if we kept all the ACA expenditures, but repealed all the revenue components. Obviously then it would add to the deficit. When they got that report, some of the shadier Republican legislators pretended that that meant that the CBO said the ACA would increase the deficit. It sounds like you may have gotten tricked by them.

In addition what you are doing is accepting predictions as fact and ignoring that they are predictions and no one will know the outcome until the program is fully implemented. Predictions are not reality and predictions from the CBO depend on assumptions given them. From CBO

•Therefore, CBO and JCT cannot readily provide a retrospective analysis of the ACA that is analogous to the cost estimate provided by the agencies in 2010. That problem is not unique to the ACA but is common to most legislation that affects preexisting federal programs.

The principal obstacle to producing a new estimate for the ACA is that CBO’s cost estimates represent the budgetary effects of legislation relative to the current-law baseline. Because the ACA is part of current law, its budgetary effects would now need to be estimated relative to a counterfactual benchmark that excluded the ACA. CBO does not construct such a counterfactual benchmark for all of the ACA, and attempting to do so would raise significant challenges
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447
 
In addition what you are doing is accepting predictions as fact and ignoring that they are predictions and no one will know the outcome until the program is fully implemented. Predictions are not reality and predictions from the CBO depend on assumptions given them. From CBO




https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447

From your link:

Moreover, determining the budgetary impact of previously enacted legislation that affects ongoing spending programs or tax receipts becomes more difficult over time as the conditions that would have prevailed in the absence of the original legislation become increasingly uncertain. Thus, in its estimate with JCT of the effects of a proposal to repeal the ACA in July 2012, CBO wrote: “Separating the incremental effects of the provisions in the ACA that affect spending for ongoing programs and revenue streams becomes more uncertain as the time since enactment grows.”

The largest changes in the estimated effects of the ACA during the past four years that CBO and JCT have separately identified are those associated with the estimated effects of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions and the elimination of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program.

CBO and JCT’s latest estimate of the cost of the coverage provisions is $100 billion lower than the March 2010 estimate for the period from 2014 through 2019 (2019 was the last year of the 10-year budget window used in the original estimate).

CBO now estimates the costs in period from 2014 to 2019 will be $100 billion lower than the March 2010 estimate.

CBO originally estimated that the CLASS program would yield federal budgetary savings of $70 billion through 2019 (and would have a budgetary cost in later years); however, the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced in 2011 that she did not “see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation.” Combining the reduction in estimated cost of $100 billion and the loss of estimated savings of $70 billion with the original estimate that the ACA would reduce deficits by $124 billion over the 2010–2019 period yields a projected reduction in deficits of more than $150 billion over that period.

In 2010 the original CBO estimated the ACA would reduce deficients by $124 through 2019.
The new CBO 2014 estimate is that the ACA will reduce the deficients by more than $150 over the same period.


The costs and savings that can be attributed to other provisions of the ACA have undoubtedly been affected by many developments in the four years since the law was enacted.
Economic conditions during the past four years and CBO’s projections of the economy in coming years are different from what CBO projected several years ago. The health care and health care financing systems have continued to evolve, and health care spending—both in federal programs and in the private sector—has been below the amounts that CBO expected in early 2010.

Read more:


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447
 
Here is the summery from The Updated Estimates of the Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, April 2014April 2014 cost estimate

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have updated their estimates of the budgetary effects of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that relate to health insurance coverage. The new estimates, which are included in CBO’s latest baseline projections, reflect CBO’s most recent economic forecast, account for administrative actions taken and regulations issued through March 2014, and incorporate new data and various modeling updates.

Relative to their previous projections made in February 2014, CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government: The agencies currently project a net cost of $36 billion for 2014, $5 billion less than the previous projection for the year; and $1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period, $104 billion less than the previous projections (see the figure below).

...read more:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231
 
From your link:



CBO now estimates the costs in period from 2014 to 2019 will be $100 billion lower than the March 2010 estimate.



In 2010 the original CBO estimated the ACA would reduce deficients by $124 through 2019.
The new CBO 2014 estimate is that the ACA will reduce the deficients by more than $150 over the same period.



Read more:


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447

Estimates, Predictions? do you understand what those mean? What happens if those assumptions don't happen? We have another entitlement program that will put us trillions more in debt or unfunded liabilities. Why doesn't that cross your mind.
 
Here is the summery from The Updated Estimates of the Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, April 2014April 2014 cost estimate



...read more:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231

Estimates, Opinions, and Predictions, everyone has one and CBO makes those based upon assumptions they are given or know about. It is the unknown. What cost are the high risk people now enrolled in Obamacare going to generate? What happens if enrollment of the Invincible doesn't meet the projections? What happens if the other projections don't happen?

Like all liberal social programs they sound good in principle but never achieve the desired goals.

"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

One meaning of the phrase is that individuals may have the intention to undertake good actions but nevertheless fail to take action.[4][5] This inaction may be due to procrastination, laziness or other subversive vice.[6] As such, the saying is an admonishment that a good intention is meaningless unless followed through
 
Last edited:
Estimates, Predictions? do you understand what those mean? What happens if those assumptions don't happen? We have another entitlement program that will put us trillions more in debt or unfunded liabilities. Why doesn't that cross your mind.

The fact is the rising cost of health care are slowing.
Since my husband has owned his own company for over 40 Yeats and we have had to pay for our family's coverage and his employees coverage for over 40 years , we know how much health costs have skyrocketed.

Since the ACA the sky rocketing costs have been slowing down.

See exhibit 3
In 1980 Heath care costs per individual were just over $1000 in the USA.
By 2005 they were about $7500 per individual.

And that was a stop shot of 25 years.
You can see how much slower health care costs rose in countries who had single payer insurance.

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-b...in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/
 
Last edited:
The fact is the rising cost of health care are slowing.
Since my husband has owned his own company for over 40 Yeats and we have had to pay for our family's coverage and his employees coverage for over 40 years , we know how much health costs have skyrocketed.

Since the ACA the sky rocketing costs have been slowing down.

The rising costs of healthcare slowing has more to do with an improving economy and nothing to do with ACA

You want badly to believe what you are being told but history isn't your friend when it comes to the Federal Govt. creating social programs. That isn't their role yet for some reason you keep buying the rhetoric. It is rather interesting as to what you are willing to accept as the new reality. Why such low standards?
 
The fact is the rising cost of health care are slowing.
Since my husband has owned his own company for over 40 Yeats and we have had to pay for our family's coverage and his employees coverage for over 40 years , we know how much health costs have skyrocketed.

Since the ACA the sky rocketing costs have been slowing down.

See exhibit 3
In 1980 Heath care costs per individual were just over $1000 in the USA.
By 2005 they were about $7500 per individual.

And that was a stop shot of 25 years.
You can see how much slower health care costs rose in countries who had single payer insurance.

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Before you start trumpeting ACA for lowering heathcare costs here is some good reading for you. When was ACA passed and when was it fully implemented?

The $2.7 trillion question: Are health-care costs really slowing? - The Washington Post
 
Yes, the ACA does save Medicare money- that's what bending the cost curve down means. But it absolutely does not cut the Medicare budget. You follow?

No, the CBO absolutely does not say, and has never said, that the ACA will add to the deficit. It has always said, every single time, that the ACA will reduce the deficit.

What may be tripping you up on the latter is that the CBO responds to questions it gets from legislators and sometimes Republicans try to play games with that. At one point, they asked the CBO to project the impact on the deficit if we kept all the ACA expenditures, but repealed all the revenue components. Obviously then it would add to the deficit. When they got that report, some of the shadier Republican legislators pretended that that meant that the CBO said the ACA would increase the deficit. It sounds like you may have gotten tricked by them.

MYTH 5: The new law "raids Medicare of $716 billion."

It's simply not true. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress' independent and nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, recently estimated that the changes to Medicare in the ACA will reduce spending by a total of $716 billion between 2013 and 2022.

"That's where the number comes from," says Guterman. The largest portion of these savings would come from changes to provider payments and correcting overpayments to insurance companies that offer private Medicare plans.
Health Care Reform and Medicare Myths vs. Facts - AARP

So, the AARP, a PPACA supporter, stated that the PPACA will cut payments to providers. They make a big deal about no cuts in benefits to Medicare recipients but it is a different story on Medicare providers. In my world, in the italicized portion, when cuts are made to providers cuts are made in the program.

And, yes, CBO estimates are based on the specific questions posed by the Congress. Funny, the CBO estimates were heralded in 2010 yet criticized in 2015.
 
The rising costs of healthcare slowing has more to do with an improving economy and nothing to do with ACA

...

I showed you the skyrocketing costs of healthcare from 1980 ( just over $1,000 per person ) to
2005 ( over $7,500 per person ) and you say the slowing of healthcare costs is because the economy is improving ?:confused:...:shock:... :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom