• 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]

Greenbeard said:
I want a well-functioning market, not a utopia.



So your alternative would be an approach that "offers the same thing." That sounds like a tacit admission that the ACA is achieving exactly what you'd want a health reform plan to be achieving.

At this point you're just quibbling.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything the Govt. does that is well functioning, too many politicians buying votes to care about quality. History is my guide not ideology.

The alternative is to let the states and local governments do what you expect the Federal Govt. to do only on a scale closest to the people. That was the govt. our Founders set up yet here we are today 250 plus years later with an 18.2 trillion dollar govt, 312+ million people, and another group of liberals trying to what the last group of liberals didn't do. I am sure you mean well but a massive Central govt. will never generate what good hearted liberals think.

At this point you are still regurgitating liberal rhetoric from the past.
 
Conservative said:
The alternative is to let the states and local governments do what you expect the Federal Govt. to do only on a scale closest to the people.
Click to expand...

I wanted the states to do it. Some did, most deferred to the federal government.

It was a great natural experiment. As it turns out, the federal government has shown itself to be much better at doing this than the states (admittedly the opposite of what I expected). C'est la vie.
 
So what you want is a massive central government to force more social engineering
 
Greenbeard said:
I wanted the states to do it. Some did, most deferred to the federal government.

It was a great natural experiment. As it turns out, the federal government has shown itself to be much better at doing this than the states (admittedly the opposite of what I expected). C'est la vie.
Click to expand...

Better? How do you define better? The Federal Govt. has no limit on what it can spend which is what they do better than anyone else because they don't have the constraints that states have since the states have to balance their budgets and cannot print money. Your definition of better seems to be unlimited spending, creating dependence, and never solving a social problem.

It truly is what it is, the Federal Bureaucrats are more interested in keeping their job by buying votes than doing their job and the intent of the Founders. Logic and common sense tells me that any entity that spends money in the name of compassion that generates over 100 million Americans dependent on it for social programs and an 18.2 trillion dollar debt isn't better but rather a Greece style disaster waiting to happen.
 
Threegoofs said:
(Line # 22, Sean Hannity's random Conservative boilerplate quotes)
Click to expand...

You seem to have an obsession with Hannity. I stopped listening and watching Hannity 3 years ago when I lost my wife. I prefer focusing on results and what truly is important, taking care of my remaining family and handling all my personal responsibility issues not expecting you to do it for me. Then there is logic and common sense or you would say a Hannity conservative boilerplate quote as we have a govt. that has over 100 million Americans on taxpayer funded welfare(excluding SS and Medicare) and a national debt exceeding our yearly GDP. Guess that fact escaped you
 
Conservative said:
Better? How do you define better?
Click to expand...

Primarily in terms of functionality (healthcare.gov works better than what most of the states working on their own created) and customer satisfaction.

Among the three types of health insurance Marketplaces, enrollment satisfaction among re-enrollees is highest among those who enrolled through the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (739), followed by State-Partnership Marketplaces/Federally Supported State-Based Partnerships (Partnership Marketplaces) (730) and State-Based Marketplaces (713). Among new enrollees, satisfaction is highest among those who enrolled through a Partnership Marketplace (680), followed by the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (669) and State-Based Marketplaces (668). - See more at: 2015 Health Insurance Marketplace Exchange Shopper and Re-Enrollment (HIX) Study | J.D. Power
Click to expand...
 
Greenbeard said:
Primarily in terms of functionality (healthcare.gov works better than what most of the states working on their own created) and customer satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Love how you take victory laps over a program that hasn't fully been implemented yet as if to prop up the disaster called Obama. It is easy to spend your way to prosperity but never actually achieving prosperity but that doesn't stop people like you from wanting to spend more. You see, you buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality and expenses because expenses apparently don't matter to you. How much of an insurance policy do you think could be provided by the 250 billion spent yearly on debt service? Write a check and stop thinking with your heart.
 
Conservative said:
Love how you take victory laps over a program that hasn't fully been implemented yet as if to prop up the disaster called Obama. It is easy to spend your way to prosperity but never actually achieving prosperity but that doesn't stop people like you from wanting to spend more. You see, you buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality and expenses because expenses apparently don't matter to you. How much of an insurance policy do you think could be provided by the 250 billion spent yearly on debt service? Write a check and stop thinking with your heart.
Click to expand...

No worse than whining about before anything has happened. So far, so good. That's where we are.
 
Boo Radley said:
No worse than whining about before anything has happened. So far, so good. That's where we are.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
Love how you take victory laps over a program that hasn't fully been implemented yet as if to prop up the disaster called Obama.
Click to expand...

What is it that you're expecting to change in the future? Is there some shoe to drop you're waiting for? Because it's been five and a half years. The reforms to health care delivery has been ongoing for years, the coverage expansions have had two open enrollments now. What it is now is pretty much what it's going to be.

In a word: effective.

It is easy to spend your way to prosperity but never actually achieving prosperity but that doesn't stop people like you from wanting to spend more. You see, you buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality and expenses because expenses apparently don't matter to you. How much of an insurance policy do you think could be provided by the 250 billion spent yearly on debt service? Write a check and stop thinking with your heart.
Click to expand...

I don't want to spend more. I'm honestly stoked that it's hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper to do all this than we thought. That's great news!
 
Greenbeard said:
What is it that you're expecting to change in the future? Is there some shoe to drop you're waiting for? Because it's been five and a half years. The reforms to health care delivery has been ongoing for years, the coverage expansions have had two open enrollments now. What it is now is pretty much what it's going to be.

In a word: effective.



I don't want to spend more. I'm honestly stoked that it's hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper to do all this than we thought. That's great news!
Click to expand...

What you continue to post are PROJECTIONS, do you now what a projection is? What happens if the projections are based upon false assumptions or those assumptions don't happen? Every assumption ever given on social programs has been wrong and that is why we have an entitlement society today. What happens if you are wrong? You have built another entitlement program that no one can eliminate.
 
Conservative said:
What you continue to post are PROJECTIONS, do you now what a projection is? What happens if the projections are based upon false assumptions or those assumptions don't happen?
Click to expand...

...the projections were wrong. Two years of data on actual spending and trends has shown that pretty conclusively. The 2009/10 projections severely overestimated the cost of the ACA and underestimates its savings.
 
Greenbeard said:
...the projections were wrong. Two years of data on actual spending and trends has shown that pretty conclusively. The 2009/10 projections severely overestimated the cost of the ACA and underestimates its savings.
Click to expand...

Keep believing what you read as you continue to support programs that increase our 18.2 trillion dollar debt. ACA hasn't even been fully implemented so tell me what happens when the high risk people start using hospital and doctor services. You want badly to believe what you read and ignore history. What happens after the first few years and costs continue to rise? A slowing of the costs still grows the deficits and debt
 
Conservative said:
Keep believing what you read as you continue to support programs that increase our 18.2 trillion dollar debt. ACA hasn't even been fully implemented so tell me what happens when the high risk people start using hospital and doctor services. You want badly to believe what you read and ignore history. What happens after the first few years and costs continue to rise? A slowing of the costs still grows the deficits and debt
Click to expand...

You think the high-risk people are just sort of waiting on the sidelines?

Here's a hint: they signed up first (2014). The covered population gets healthier with each passing year, not less.
 
Greenbeard said:
You think the high-risk people are just sort of waiting on the sidelines?

Here's a hint: they signed up first (2014). The covered population gets healthier with each passing year, not less.
Click to expand...

Here is what you want to ignore

The estimated cost of President Obama's signature health care law is continuing to fall.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September and there truly aren't any actual costs to make an assessment?
 
Conservative said:
Here is what you want to ignore

You do realize that the fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September and there truly aren't any actual costs to make an assessment?
Click to expand...

FY14 ended in September 2014. And the CBO releases actual spending numbers every month in the Monthly Budget Review (the latest, from this month, covers the first nine months of FY15). Of course we have actual costs. Are you even reading this thread?
 
Greenbeard said:
You think the high-risk people are just sort of waiting on the sidelines?

Here's a hint: they signed up first (2014). The covered population gets healthier with each passing year, not less.
Click to expand...

From the Obamacare website

•As of March 2015, the net cost of ObamaCare is projected at $1.207 trillion over the 2016 – 2025 period.

Do you realize that includes subsidies which are a reduction in revenue? So please stop with the bs. We get it, you want a massive central govt. to provide for your own personal choice issues. The 1.2 trillion cost is irrelevant to you but it does come with quite a price, reduction in revenue because of subsidies, increases in the debt because healthcare costs were mostly borne by the states and local communities and now are on the Federal Taxpayers.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize that includes subsidies which are a reduction in revenue? So please stop with the bs. We get it, you want a massive central govt. to provide for your own personal choice issues. The 1.2 trillion cost is irrelevant to you but it does come with quite a price, reduction in revenue because of subsidies, increases in the debt because healthcare costs were mostly borne by the states and local communities and now are on the Federal Taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has been covered in this thread: the increases in federal spending on exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion are more than paid for by new revenues and cost savings in Medicare (which themselves are coming in way above what was expected). The net result is deficit reduction. So you don't need to play the world's smallest violin over the ACA.
 
Greenbeard said:
FY14 ended in September 2014. And the CBO releases actual spending numbers every month in the Monthly Budget Review (the latest, from this month, covers the first nine months of FY15). Of course we have actual costs. Are you even reading this thread?
Click to expand...

Here is the deficit for fiscal year 2014 that started on October 1, 2013 and ending in September 30, 2014

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

16.7 trillion debt to 17.8 trillion. With no wars it looks like costs continue to rise
 
Conservative said:
16.7 trillion debt to 17.8 trillion. With no wars it looks like costs continue to rise
Click to expand...

And the debt continues to be lower than it would be in the absence of the ACA. Every time the GOP tries to repeal it, (even now using their BS dynamic scoring methodology employed by their hand-picked CBO head) it turns out doing so would increase the deficit and the debt.

If you're a fiscal conservative, you're pro-ACA.
 
Greenbeard said:
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread: the increases in federal spending on exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion are more than paid for by new revenues and cost savings in Medicare (which themselves are coming in way above what was expected). The net result is deficit reduction. So you don't need to play the world's smallest violin over the ACA.
Click to expand...

So you believe cost savings pay for cost increases? Since there weren't federal subsidies before ACA, there were no exchanges and Medicare expansion these are new costs to the Treasury thus an increase in the deficit and debt regardless of any so called projected reductions.
 
Greenbeard said:
And the debt continues to be lower than it would be in the absence of the ACA. Every time the GOP tries to repeal it, (even now using their BS dynamic scoring methodology employed by their hand-picked CBO head) it turns out doing so would increase the deficit and the debt.

If you're a fiscal conservative, you're pro-ACA.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but obviously since you have no idea that the states and local communities pay most of the healthcare costs you are totally wrong about saving money. It is a new expense to the Federal govt. What you are going to find is that this program is going to cost more than projected, do less than intended but because it is a new entitlement program it is here to stay
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion but obviously since you have no idea that the states and local communities pay most of the healthcare costs you are totally wrong about saving money. It is a new expense to the Federal govt. What you are going to find is that this program is going to cost more than projected, do less than intended but because it is a new entitlement program it is here to stay
Click to expand...

Friend, we've got data. 21 months worth now, encompassing the spending of the most high-cost and high-needs people likely to enroll. You're just ignoring it. Because the costs are way less than projected. As have been, by the way, the savings--which you've clearly acknowledged exist in this very thread (e.g., post #1029). So let's not pretend you've suddenly forgotten how much money the ACA is also saving.

But I'm glad you recognize these programs are here to stay. You're ahead of many of your ideological stripe in that respect.
 
Greenbeard said:
Friend, we've got data. 21 months worth now, encompassing the spending of the most high-cost and high-needs people likely to enroll. You're just ignoring it. Because the costs are way less than projected. As have been, by the way, the savings--which you've clearly acknowledged exist in this very thread (e.g., post #1029). So let's not pretend you've suddenly forgotten how much money the ACA is also saving.

But I'm glad you recognize these programs are here to stay. You're ahead of many of your ideological stripe in that respect.
Click to expand...

No. Tell us, how many of that original 42 million uninsured are now insured? That was supposed to be the problem addressed. Second question, of the ones already insured (270 million of us) when Obamacare passed, how many of those are still insured?

Obamacare isn't free to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom