Many of the Republicans who are on board with tax reform are only supportive with the caveat that such reform not be allowed to generate one dollar in additional revenue...thus defeating the whole purpose of it, as it relates to the deficit.
this is wildly incorrect. what they argue is that we will not raise
effective tax rates by a single dollar. the effects of tax reform, however, will be amazingly pro-growth. Currently we waste $431
Billion a year in tax compliance - tax code simplification shifts much of this funding back into production and growth. Faster growth makes for rising revenues, at the same time that it produces jobs, increased salaries, and generally pulls people off of the government safety net. So Effective Tax Rate Neutral Tax Reform actually attacks the deficit from
both sides; by increasing revenues
and reducing costs.
I don't disagree; there have been lots of good Republican-backed health care plans in the states (the ACA was modeled on one). But the NATIONAL party has failed to embrace any good cost control mechanisms
there you are (again) wildly incorrect. the House 2012 (which again, all but 4 Republicans in the House voted for) produced precisely such a plan. You seem to have "good" confused with "increasing the power of government".
Medicare’s chief actuary: Paul Ryan’s plan could control health-care costs better than ObamaCare
And that is correct. Introducing a market element to the healthcare market has had salutary effects not only elsewhere in healthcare, but in Medicare. That's critical - because of their size, Medicaid and Medicare drive costs in the healthcare market. For example; while the cost per person in the "private market" rose rapidly, and the cost per enrollee in Medicare did the same, the effects on Prescription Drug Coverage (which was covered by Part D, which instituted patient choice) averaged a rise of only
1.2%!.
That's huge - and it was part of why that program came in at 41% below projections, whereas Obamacare is
already bending the cost curve
up.
At least, according to the CMS Actuary
which is precisely what we should expect. because that Republican Model you mention that the ACA is built on? well, it's
failing. Health care costs there are the
highest in the country, they are facing a critical shortage of doctors,and have had waiting times averaging 44 days for a primary physician imposed. Emergency room visits have spiked as people who are desperate for medical attention but can't get it seek out the one venue left to them for somewhat quick care.
Unfortunately, most of their proposed solutions involve reining in costs by cutting benefits, kicking people off the programs, or allowing insurers to continue discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions. Right now the best cost-control mechanism we have for health care is the ACA
why do you
continue to ignore that the ACA is built upon fairy-tale numbers that no sane man believes will come to pass. there is no Magic Money Fairy that allows you to spend the same money twice. Order the CBO to account for Unicorns and Pixies, and they will account for Unicorns and Pixies.
fortunately; others are not so bound:
Former CBO Director: Obamacare Will Bankrupt US
as for the pre-existing conditions; many of us are fine setting up high-risk pools for those that need it already; but banning an insurer from altering costs due to a preexisting condition merely destroys it's ability to operate as
insurance. the incentive for the individual becomes to avoid the costs of health insurance until an injury or disease has already struck. prices quickly spiral out of control.
as for cutting benefits - Republicans plan put off the necessary reductions in medicare expenditures as long as possible. They gave people time to plan. Obamacare begins to cut Medicare in 2014 - current seniors are not exempt.
which was opposed by every single Republican in Congress, with the cost control measures generating the staunchest opposition of all.
which is excellent, given that government-imposed rationing is precisely the kind of cost controls we want to
avoid. I'll admit, I was worried at first that the Democrats would go for something juuuuust enough over the line to tempt in a Snowe or some other character so they could claim "bipartisanship"; but it seems they were only interested in getting the most liberal law that could pass the Democratic Party.
I responded to this in the other thread...none of these points are correct.
i have never seen you "address" them and they are indeed correct.
HHS Secretary Sebelius Admits Double Counting in Obamacare
CBO: To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
CBO Confirms That Without Accounting Gimmicks, Obamacare Adds to Deficits
Recession-related spending naturally causes the deficit to explode; the tax base shrinks, unemployment and social security payments grow, various one-shot measures like stimulus bills and TARP are enacted, etc. None of these things continue on their own.
recession does not necessitate that the deficit explode at all. as America tightens it's belt, government can tighten it's belt as well.
Were the economic conditions the same in both situations? I'm less interested in the deficit over the period of a few years during a recession
Democrats took over the Congress in 2006. we were not in a recession.
than I am in the long-term structural deficit facing the country.
then you of all people should be worried about the long term structural deficits
increase under Obama. EVERY SINGLE DEFICIT called for in his budget was larger than Bush's
largest deficit.
Moreover, let's look at the bigger picture.
cute. it's almost as if you didn't know that spending comes (as per the Constitution) from the House of Representatives.
and so the truth is a bit more mixed: