• 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]

minnie616 said:
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:
Click to expand...

I gave you an article showing that healthcare costs started dropping in 2009 long before ACA so tell me again why ACA that is going to insure millions and millions of high risk people is going to reduce costs? You buy what you are told and ignore logic and common sense as well as history.
 
Conservative said:
I gave you an article showing that healthcare costs started dropping in 2009 long before ACA so tell me again why ACA that is going to insure millions and millions of high risk people is going to reduce costs? You buy what you are told and ignore logic and common sense as well as history.
Click to expand...

History shows us that costs of uncontrolled health care for profit has had skyrocketing increases over the 4 decades between 1965 and 2005.
 
minnie616 said:
History shows us that costs of uncontrolled health care for profit has had skyrocketing increases over the 4 decades between 1965 and 2005.
Click to expand...

So how has ACA lowered those costs in 2009-2010 before it was even passed?
 
Conservative said:
CBO makes predictions based upon assumptions given them by Congress so if the assumptions are wrong the predictions are wrong.
Click to expand...

Right. That's what I just explained to you. When congress asks them "what effect will the ACA have on the deficit?" they have always said the same thing- it will reduce the deficit. In fact, it has been reducing it slightly more than they predicted.

The Republicans tried to game it by asking the CBO "what effect would the ACA have on the deficit if we cancelled all the revenue-making parts?" Obviously the answer that is that it would increase the deficit, which the CBO said, but then followed up in the same report by reiterating that the ACA as a whole will reduce the deficit.

Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're arguing. It reduces the deficit because it creates more revenue than it spends.

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course increasing access can lower costs. When people lack coverage and as a result they let things go too long without catching them, they can end up costing radically more to fix. It's like anything else. If you don't fix a small leak in your roof, you end up having to replace the whole thing before long, but with a small amount of maintenance, you can save a ton of money.

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

You brought up the CBO. The CBO says it will reduce the deficit, and thus far, it has in fact been reducing the deficit.
 
tuhaybey;1064791739]Right. That's what I just explained to you. When congress asks them "what effect will the ACA have on the deficit?" they have always said the same thing- it will reduce the deficit. In fact, it has been reducing it slightly more than they predicted.
Click to expand...

So you believe a law that was passed the end of 2010 and hasn't fully been implemented has reduced the deficit? Wow, doesn't take much to impress you but the reality is ACA is PROJECTED to reduce the deficit meaning that we will continue to run deficits and the deficit reduction will only happen IF the assumptions come true and the track record of CBO isn't that good.

The Republicans tried to game it by asking the CBO "what effect would the ACA have on the deficit if we cancelled all the revenue-making parts?" Obviously the answer that is that it would increase the deficit, which the CBO said, but then followed up in the same report by reiterating that the ACA as a whole will reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

Again, the assumptions have to be accurate for the CBO projections to be accurate. How do you know the assumptions will be accurate?


Not really sure what you're arguing. It reduces the deficit because it creates more revenue than it spends.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion but I am still waiting for you to explain how insuring millions of high risk people and not getting the invincible youth to enroll is going to increase revenue?

Yes, of course increasing access can lower costs. When people lack coverage and as a result they let things go too long without catching them, they can end up costing radically more to fix. It's like anything else. If you don't fix a small leak in your roof, you end up having to replace the whole thing before long, but with a small amount of maintenance, you can save a ton of money.
Click to expand...

You really are naïve in believing everyone that is uninsured is just like you, taking preventative care of themselves which just goes to show how inexperience you are in dealing with people. I cannot believe how naïve and gullible far too many are


You brought up the CBO. The CBO says it will reduce the deficit, and thus far, it has in fact been reducing the deficit.
Click to expand...

Opinions IF THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE CORRECT and their track record isn't good because the assumptions are so bad. Why do you give CBO such credit when their record is so poor?
 
Threegoofs said:
I seem to remember something major happened with the economy in 2009.

Gee. What was it?

Maybe that had something to do with it?
Click to expand...

I am also having problems remembering exactly what that was but Conservative has ensured us that the slowdown in medical inflation is due to a growing economy so, obviously, 2009 must have been a year of remarkable economic growth
 
sangha said:
I am also having problems remembering exactly what that was but Conservative has ensured us that the slowdown in medical inflation is due to a growing economy so, obviously, 2009 must have been a year of remarkable economic growth
Click to expand...

Yep, forgot that people don't get sick during a recession and all those people who lost their jobs didn't go to the ER's for treatment either. Guess ACA is a waste of money and time, isn't it.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, forgot that people don't get sick during a recession and all those people who lost their jobs didn't go to the ER's for treatment either. Guess ACA is a waste of money and time, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Of course they get sick during a recession and the unemployed go to ER's for treatment. That's why those two had nothing to do with decrease in medical inflation in 2009. It must have been all that economic growth in 2009 that accounted for the decrease.
 
sangha said:
I am also having problems remembering exactly what that was but Conservative has ensured us that the slowdown in medical inflation is due to a growing economy so, obviously, 2009 must have been a year of remarkable economic growth
Click to expand...

Yes. Conservative understands that good economies somehow correlate with lower healthcare spending (wtf?), so a massive economic crash would have actually increased spending, right?


It's confusing, but I know that if something is bad, it's all Obamas fault, and if it's good, credit the upstanding conservative principles in place.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Conservative understands that good economies somehow correlate with lower healthcare spending (wtf?), so a massive economic crash would have actually increased spending, right?


It's confusing, but I know that if something is bad, it's all Obamas fault, and if it's good, credit the upstanding conservative principles in place.
Click to expand...

Isn't it great that we have ACA now to provide those cost savings that occurred without ACA?

What really is confusing is why people like you still believe Obama has been good for the country? Guess liberals really do have very low standards
 
Conservative said:
So how has ACA lowered those costs in 2009-2010 before it was even passed?
Click to expand...

The bab economy did lower health care costs in 2009 -2010. We were in the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
People with co pays and deductibles put off elective surgery, things like knee and hip replacements, and a lot of regular doctors visits to save money.

The was stim package that jump started ACA computerizing medical records also helped to lower health care costs.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
The economy actually lowered health care costs in 2009 -2010. We were in the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
People with co pays and deductibles put off elective surgery, things like knee and hip replacements, and a lot of regular doctors visits to save money.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing about this being the worst recession since the great depression but I lived during the 81-82 recession compounded by record high interest rates and inflation which created a misery index of 20 compared to the 12 Misery index Obama had. What I see are people who have either very short memories or are simply too gullible to research and find out which recession affected the most people, hint, it wasn't this one.

I find it quite concerning that people like you have no problem having money taken from a faceless person in the form of subsidies but bet you would have a problem going to your neighbor and asking that neighbor to give you money to pay for your health insurance. Guess you don't see the comparison.
 
Conservative said:
I keep hearing about this being the worst recession since the great depression but I lived during the 81-82 recession compounded by record high interest rates and inflation which created a misery index of 20 compared to the 12 Misery index Obama had. What I see are people who have either very short memories or are simply too gullible to research and find out which recession affected the most people, hint, it wasn't this one.

I find it quite concerning that people like you have no problem having money taken from a faceless person in the form of subsidies but bet you would have a problem going to your neighbor and asking that neighbor to give you money to pay for your health insurance. Guess you don't see the comparison.
Click to expand...

I guess when you've been clowned this badly in a thread, redirecting the conversation to a non sequiter involving the Reagan years is almost reflexive.
 
Conservative said:
I keep hearing about this being the worst recession since the great depression but I lived during the 81-82 recession compounded by record high interest rates and inflation which created a misery index of 20 compared to the 12 Misery index Obama had. What I see are people who have either very short memories or are simply too gullible to research and find out which recession affected the most people, hint, it wasn't this one.

I find it quite concerning that people like you have no problem having money taken from a faceless person in the form of subsidies but bet you would have a problem going to your neighbor and asking that neighbor to give you money to pay for your health insurance. Guess you don't see the comparison.
Click to expand...

I remember and lived through the 1980s recession too.
In fact I was married with a family and our 3rd child was born in 1981.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double diget interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

The financial crisis hit before President Bush left office.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
I guess when you've been clowned this badly in a thread, redirecting the conversation to a non sequiter involving the Reagan years is almost reflexive.
Click to expand...

I find that people like you have such passion for ignorance. When someone claims it was the worst recession in history and I respond with information proving that 81-82 was worse because it affected more people that isn't derailing the thread that is responding to someone who already did that.
 
minnie616 said:
I remember and lived through the 1980s recession too.
In fact I was married with a family and our 3rd child was born in 1981.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double diget interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

The financial crisis hit before President Bush left office.
Click to expand...

If you were around during the 81-82 recession you would understand how inflation affected that recession and why more people were hurt and affected. Foreclosures were rampant and interest rates were over 17%. This recession did not affect ALL Americans whereas that one did because interest rates affected every American, the difference is leadership then vs. now. This recession had an incompetent and a supportive Congress implementing policy. You want badly to believe what you are being told but think about it
 
minnie616 said:
I remember and lived through the 1980s recession too.
In fact I was married with a family and our 3rd child was born in 1981.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double diget interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

The financial crisis hit before President Bush left office.
Click to expand...

If you were around during the 81-82 recession you would understand how inflation affected that recession and why more people were hurt and affected. Foreclosures were rampant and interest rates were over 17%. This recession did not affect ALL Americans whereas that one did because interest rates affected every American, the difference is leadership then vs. now. This recession had an incompetent and a supportive Congress implementing policy. You want badly to believe what you are being told but think about it
 
Conservative said:
I find that people like you have such passion for ignorance. When someone claims it was the worst recession in history and I respond with information proving that 81-82 was worse because it affected more people that isn't derailing the thread that is responding to someone who already did that.
Click to expand...

You're just undermining your credibility when you say the recession of 81-82 was worse. By the time the current Great Recession was just hitting an employment bottom, the jobs market had already completely recovered from the 81-82 recession. The closest parallel to the current recession in the past century was the Great Depression.

EmployRecJuly2013.jpg
 
JasperL said:
You're just undermining your credibility when you say the recession of 81-82 was worse. By the time the current Great Recession was just hitting an employment bottom, the jobs market had already completely recovered from the 81-82 recession. The closest parallel to the current recession in the past century was the Great Depression.

View attachment 67186872
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring is leadership and economic policy. Pointing out the worse numbers today are an indication of poor leadership and poor economic policy not the severity of the recession. How can anyone say that this recession with a 12 misery index was worse than the 81-82 recession with a misery index that exceeded 20? We elect leaders to implement economic policies to improve our economy not the incompetent we elected in 2008 who prolonged the recession.
 
Conservative said:
If you were around during the 81-82 recession you would understand how inflation affected that recession and why more people were hurt and affected. Foreclosures were rampant and interest rates were over 17%. This recession did not affect ALL Americans whereas that one did because interest rates affected every American, the difference is leadership then vs. now. This recession had an incompetent and a supportive Congress implementing policy. You want badly to believe what you are being told but think about it
Click to expand...

Goodness, you're comparing apples and dump trucks. The recessions had different causes and were completely different in kind. The Reagan era recession was marked by runaway inflation. This last one was a WORLD WIDE credit bubble bursting, with a deflationary spiral the biggest risk. Again, the last time that a credit bubble burst, we had the Great Depression. That's just a start of the differences, in our economy and the worldwide economy, etc.
 
Conservative said:
What you are ignoring is leadership and economic policy. Pointing out the worse numbers today are an indication of poor leadership and poor economic policy not the severity of the recession. How can anyone say that this recession with a 12 misery index was worse than the 81-82 recession with a misery index that exceeded 20? We elect leaders to implement economic policies to improve our economy not the incompetent we elected in 2008 who prolonged the recession.
Click to expand...


Not that the "misery index" holds any real value, or meaning, but it's funny you went out of your way to bring it up,
and in the process, told a lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)#Misery_index_-_era_by_U.S_president
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom