• 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!

Health care repeal will cost $230 billion

Boo Radley said:
Which were going up before reform. You still haven't addressed that.
Click to expand...

The government didn't forcibly reduce the authorized operating captical, before Obamacare was passed.

But, again, with more people paying, then more are likely to be younger and healthier, therefore it adds to capital, and thus the market would provide enough to cover additional costs.
Click to expand...

You can't cut operating capital, increase operating costs and expect anything other than an increase in premiums. To think that volume is going to displace the increase in operating costs in this situation is the dumbest thing that anyone could ever think of.

At some point common sense has to take over.
 
Boo Radley said:
Harvard Economist Estimates Health Repeal Would Destroy Up To 400,000 Jobs Per Year Over Decade
Just as House Republicans gear up to repeal the “job killing” Affordable Care Act, the Department of Labor is reporting that the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs last month, pushing the jobless rate down to a 19-month low of 9.4 percent.
Click to expand...

Where are these 400,000 jobs? Were they created in the last six months? They just passed the stupid thing.

And I thought Harvard was an institution of higher learning.

Doesn't it seem like the politically expedient thing to say?
 
tlmorg02 said:
He means the European model, not our model.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what he meant but as was pointed out the countries of Europe are going the opposite direction of this country. Any idea why?
 
apdst said:
The government didn't forcibly reduce the authorized operating captical, before Obamacare was passed.



You can't cut operating capital, increase operating costs and expect anything other than an increase in premiums. To think that volume is going to displace the increase in operating costs in this situation is the dumbest thing that anyone could ever think of.

At some point common sense has to take over.
Click to expand...

Where do you keep saying that? Operating funds are not cut, nor are costs increased. The system will be streamlined, that is a cut in cost. More will pay into the system, that is an increase. Is that not common sense to you? Perhaps you just can't see the forest for the trees?
 
apdst said:
The government didn't forcibly reduce the authorized operating captical, before Obamacare was passed.



You can't cut operating capital, increase operating costs and expect anything other than an increase in premiums. To think that volume is going to displace the increase in operating costs in this situation is the dumbest thing that anyone could ever think of.

At some point common sense has to take over.
Click to expand...

You're not listening. You're stuck on a talking point, repeating it without addressing the point. Premiums were raised, for some like me doubled, before reform. What caused that? Companies were dropping insurance coverage, before reform. what caused that?

Costs in opperating should be offset by new customers, most of which are more likley to be well and not in need of immediate service. Logically, there should be nmore profit for insurance companies and no need to raise premiums.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Where do you keep saying that? Operating funds are not cut, nor are costs increased. The system will be streamlined, that is a cut in cost. More will pay into the system, that is an increase. Is that not common sense to you? Perhaps you just can't see the forest for the trees?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you support Obamacare and the question is why? Do you buy the liberal hype that you can add another 40 million to the health care roles and lower costs? Did you read the assumptions in the Healthcare bill that the CBO scored? Suggest you read those assumptions and ask yourself how many are realistic. Want to see how Obamacare is going to work, check out MA.
 
liblady said:
you read wrong, it seems. companies can no longer DEDUCT over 500k. so, they can pay them whatever they choose, and face the stockholders' wrath.
Click to expand...

Really??? So it doesn't state this:

The AARP is also exempt from the new law's $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit's last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.)
Click to expand...

Oops !! :3oops:

Upon further review, it appears you are correct. However, I don't see how its legal to limit salary deductions from only one industry and not others. Don't see how this could pass constitutional muster.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
you read wrong, it seems. companies can no longer DEDUCT over 500k. so, they can pay them whatever they choose, and face the stockholders' wrath.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why so many companies are seeking and receiving exemptions from Obamacare?
 
Conservative said:
Sounds like you support Obamacare and the question is why? Do you buy the liberal hype that you can add another 40 million to the health care roles and lower costs? Did you read the assumptions in the Healthcare bill that the CBO scored? Suggest you read those assumptions and ask yourself how many are realistic. Want to see how Obamacare is going to work, check out MA.
Click to expand...

I do not support it wholesale, but I support much of it. It needs work to avoid the pitfalls of European models, but I do that Europe's and Japan's life expectancy, birth mortality rate, and health overall are better than that in the US, who ranks way towards the bottom on many health areas.
 
Erod said:
Where are these 400,000 jobs? Were they created in the last six months? They just passed the stupid thing.

And I thought Harvard was an institution of higher learning.

Doesn't it seem like the politically expedient thing to say?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the article.
 
What planet does a person live on where an increase in customers, decreases operating costs? :lamo
 
tlmorg02 said:
I do not support it wholesale, but I support much of it. It needs work to avoid the pitfalls of European models, but I do that Europe's and Japan's life expectancy, birth mortality rate, and health overall are better than that in the US, who ranks way towards the bottom on many health areas.
Click to expand...

What role does lifestyle play in life expectancy? Healthcare is a personal responsibility and thus do you believe it is your responsibility to fund my healthcare if I over eat, take drugs, and drink too much? We have a country of over 308 million people with 308 million different lifestyles. Anytime you try to regulate or manage someone else's lifestyle all you do is create a disaster. I believe in personal responsibility not govt. regulation to save people from themselves. There is a reason that the U.S. ranks near the bottom and it has nothing to do with healthcare access.
 
Conservative said:
Explain to me why so many companies are seeking and receiving exemptions from Obamacare?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with what i posted? you were wrong in your assertion, and i don't have any problem with limiting deductions for salaries. the gov't did it with tarp, and there's absloutley NO REASON for insurance execs to make millions of dollars for denying coverage to people who need it.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I do not support it wholesale, but I support much of it. It needs work to avoid the pitfalls of European models, but I do that Europe's and Japan's life expectancy, birth mortality rate, and health overall are better than that in the US, who ranks way towards the bottom on many health areas.
Click to expand...

I would say to be fair, some of that life expectancy, and health overall comes from better diet overall and better habits in general, especially in Japan and in Asia in general. Not nessecarily as a result of better Health Care.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I do not support it wholesale, but I support much of it. It needs work to avoid the pitfalls of European models, but I do that Europe's and Japan's life expectancy, birth mortality rate, and health overall are better than that in the US, who ranks way towards the bottom on many health areas.
Click to expand...

It certainly needs work. It is no where near any European model. There is no universal payer. It has right now many of it's own problems. But we certainly agree that we can move forward, make improvements. And if congress actually tackled this with the idea of making it better, and not with maintaining the status quo, we could create something better than Europe has. I know it is too much to ask for, but if one is going to dream, one migth as well dream big. ;)
 
What I find interesting from the GOP/Boehner is that while they were quick to jump on the initial cost estimated published by the CBO - figures that were based largely on the original health care reform bill that passed the House, but never got through the Senate - they are now dismissing CBO figures that state plainly that repealling the health care law will cost billions over the next 10-years.

How is it that the CBO's figures are good enough to support the GOP's original position of "big health care price tag" then, but dismiss the CBO when it warns against the cost of repeal?

(And no, Conservative...you don't get to use the claim that the CBO's estimates are just estimates, are meaningless and the CBO is never right.)

If the CBO's figures were good enough to use as a political tool to "inform" (and by that I really mean "scare") the public of the high cost of implementing health care reform legislation, then they should be just as good to "inform" the public (and thus, warn the GOP) that repealling same will also have negative economic consequences.

You can't have it both ways - using a non-partisan government agency's estimates to support your cause but dismiss them when your cause is no longer defensable economically.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
I would say to be fair, some of that life expectancy, and health overall comes from better diet overall and better habits in general, especially in Japan and in Asia in general. Not nessecarily as a result of better Health Care.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of factors involved, to be sure. We should not ignore that overall. But I think that while we can say health care is pretty good here for those who have access to good health care, we can also say that we have a lot with limited access to care who are not doing as well. We do have an access problem here in the US.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's why it should be mandatory that all have insurance. If you don't get it before you're broken, and you can't get it after you're broken, then you either have to suffer, or we pay for you one way or another. And people who are not covered do get treated after they are broken. And we do pay for them.
Click to expand...

Its the government that said everyone must get care, so your argument has little to no value to me when it comes to the idea it costs us one way or the other.

Still, all groups cost the hospital and the people money. Its just a matter of how much.
 
Objective Voice said:
What I find interesting from the GOP/Boehner is that while they were quick to jump on the initial cost estimated published by the CBO - figures that were based largely on the original health care reform bill that passed the House, but never got through the Senate - they are now dismissing CBO figures that states plainly that repealling the health care law will cost billions over the next 10-years.

How is it that the CBO's figures are good enough to support the GOP's original position of "big health care price tag" then, but dismiss the CBO when it warns against the cost of repeal?

(And no, Conservative...you don't get to use the claim that the CBO's estimates are just estimates, are meaningless and the CBO is never right. If the CBO's figures were good enough to use as a political tool to "inform" (and by that I really mean "scare") the public of the high cost of implementing health care reform legislation, then they should be just as good to "inform" the public (and thus, warn the GOP) that repealling same will also have negative economic consequences.

You can't have it both ways - using a non-partisan government agency's estimates to support your cause but dismiss them when your cause is no longer defensable economically.
Click to expand...

Sounds simple to me:

They thought the assumptions used by the CBO initially were sound, but those used in the second were garbage. No Republican that I've heard has criticized the CBO, they've only criticized the assumptions that the Dems gave the CBO.
 
liblady said:
what does that have to do with what i posted? you were wrong in your assertion, and i don't have any problem with limiting deductions for salaries. the gov't did it with tarp, and there's absloutley NO REASON for insurance execs to make millions of dollars for denying coverage to people who need it.
Click to expand...

I have a huge problem with the government reducing deductions for salaries.
 
Boo Radley said:
There are a lot of factors involved, to be sure. We should not ignore that overall. But I think that while we can say health care is pretty good here for those who have access to good health care, we can also say that we have a lot with limited access to care who are not doing as well. We do have an access problem here in the US.
Click to expand...

No argument from me on that one.

I believe what we should start putting much more emphasis on is Preventative care as opposed to the sometimes dogmatic approach of only dealing with a problem once it arises.

Countries like Japan are way ahead in this field, and a lot of that is down to the individual habits of the society in general.
 
liblady said:
what does that have to do with what i posted? you were wrong in your assertion, and i don't have any problem with limiting deductions for salaries. the gov't did it with tarp, and there's absloutley NO REASON for insurance execs to make millions of dollars for denying coverage to people who need it.
Click to expand...

It is the entire point, Hundreds of companies are seeking and getting exemptions to opt out of Obamacare thus exempting them for limiting deductions. If they aren't included then they are exempt from the regulations in the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom