• 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!

Budget Office Lowers Its Estimate on Federal Spending for Health Care

ludin said:
he still hasn't acknowledged the fact that nothing is going down and everything is going up.
anyone looking at the chart can see that costs continue to rise. while they might not rise as much they thought they are still rising.
there is no down trend in that chart at all.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the liberal world when costs rise but not as much as in the past that is a cut. They use that logic with the budget. Spending more isn't a problem in the liberal world because percentage change is all that matters.
 
CBO 2014 outlook is scored assuming a 24% reimbursement rate cut for Medicare, theoretical PAB cuts, and algorithmic post 2024 forecasts that assume nothing every changes, all the while they state that cost per capital will rise beyond the rate of inflation.

And you wonder why its a different projection than 2009.
 
Samhain said:
CBO 2014 outlook is scored assuming a 24% reimbursement rate cut for Medicare, theoretical PAB cuts, and algorithmic post 2024 forecasts that assume nothing every changes, all the while they state that cost per capital will rise beyond the rate of inflation.

And you wonder why its a different projection than 2009.
Click to expand...

(Citation needed)
 
Threegoofs said:
Goalposts moved.
Click to expand...

IE i dont' have an argument to actually combat what he said so i will make something up.

No i didn't move the goal post.

The fact is that the chart still see costs going up. They might not be going up as much as they thought but the fact is they are still going up.
there is not a downturn in the the graph headed down.

if there was a down turn in the graph then you would have been correct.
 
Conservative said:
Remember, in the liberal world when costs rise but not as much as in the past that is a cut. They use that logic with the budget. Spending more isn't a problem in the liberal world because percentage change is all that matters.
Click to expand...

Well that isn't just liberals that is washington talk in general. IE

we cut the education budget by 20b. this really means. the current budget is 40b we wanted 80b and we only got 60b so we cut education spending by 20b. if you want to get political about it then you go " they cut educational spending by 20 billion dollars".

logically it is insane, but that is how it works.

in the real world if you cut 20b from education then you go from 40b to 20b. in washington not getting the amount of money you want is a cut.
 
Samhain said:
CBO 2014 outlook is scored assuming a 24% reimbursement rate cut for Medicare, theoretical PAB cuts, and algorithmic post 2024 forecasts that assume nothing every changes, all the while they state that cost per capital will rise beyond the rate of inflation.

And you wonder why its a different projection than 2009.
Click to expand...

I see nothing about a 24% cut to Medicare reimbursements or theoretical PAB cuts. What page are those on?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45471-Long-TermBudgetOutlook.pdf
 
ludin said:
IE i dont' have an argument to actually combat what he said so i will make something up.

No i didn't move the goal post.

The fact is that the chart still see costs going up. They might not be going up as much as they thought but the fact is they are still going up.
there is not a downturn in the the graph headed down.

if there was a down turn in the graph then you would have been correct.
Click to expand...

IE i understand that the OP was about projections and said 'less' and 'lower' so i'll pretend im outraged by medicare costs not going down in the future.
 
Threegoofs said:
IE i understand that the OP was about projections and said 'less' and 'lower' so i'll pretend im outraged by medicare costs not going down in the future.
Click to expand...

If by "'less' and 'lower'" you mean .1% of GDP in 25 years, then you are correct.
 
Threegoofs said:
Evidence from predictably biased sources, you mean?

Read these for your edification:


Health Cost Increases in 2013 Were Lowest in Decade: Aon Hewitt

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/2...t-rise-in-health-insurance-premiums.html?_r=0

Obamacare Premiums Aren't Living Up to Doomsayers? Predictions - NationalJournal.com


Blind partisan, indeed. I mean....the Daily Caller?

You present the debunked study earlier discussed in the thread, a story of someone with crap health insurance being forced to get conforming insurance and not liking the price, and some nutty story about a 39% premium rise (absurd on its face, even though it clearly says it didn't bother to include subsidies in the calculation).

You have to understand the issue before you criticize it, man.
Click to expand...

The Washington Post and Forbes are biased ????

You are getting desperate aren't you?

Just wait until these people with subsidies get hit with a $5,000. out of pocket bill. They won't be so supportive of it then.
 
Samhain said:
If by "'less' and 'lower'" you mean .1% of GDP in 25 years, then you are correct.
Click to expand...


Much like the woman who would gladly agree to sleep with me for a million dollars, I guess now we both agree that the ACA has had a positive impact on budget projections. Now we can just haggle on the price. And I'd say the 25 year projection is quite generous.
 
Gill said:
The Washington Post and Forbes are biased ????

You are getting desperate aren't you?
Click to expand...

No, he was referring to the biased study their articles were based on

Just wait until these people with subsidies get hit with a $5,000. out of pocket bill. They won't be so supportive of it then.
Click to expand...

I bet they will wish for the days when there was no limit on their out of pocket expenses :roll:
 
sangha said:
No, he was referring to the biased study their articles were based on



I bet they will wish for the days when there was no limit on their out of pocket expenses :roll:
Click to expand...

What was the % of plans available in the individual, small group, and large group that didn't have a limit on out-of-pocket expenses? I've been unable to find any survey on that rate. Additionally, those caps still aren't in effect yet for small or large group policies.
 
Samhain said:
What was the % of plans available in the individual, small group, and large group that didn't have a limit on out-of-pocket expenses? I've been unable to find any survey on that rate. Additionally, those caps still aren't in effect yet for small or large group policies.
Click to expand...

The % of no limit on OOP costs was 100% for people who were previously uninsured
 
Gill said:
The Washington Post and Forbes are biased ????

You are getting desperate aren't you?

Just wait until these people with subsidies get hit with a $5,000. out of pocket bill. They won't be so supportive of it then.
Click to expand...

As we've heard before.. 'wait til next year'!

Forbes is definitely biased in a lot of its reporting. Its like the WSJ editorial page sometimes.

The WaPo just got that article wrong. It focused in on a woman who may have been in the relatively small percentage of people who actually are paying more and getting the same thing. But 90% of people are either getting better insurance, or insurance for the first time ever, or getting the same insurance and not paying a whole lot more than they would have historically paid in terms of year over year premium increases.

And when you have to resort to a Daily Caller piece to bolster the other two....

The OOP costs, of course, will not necessarily apply to everyone, no matter how much you wish that would happen. Thats an OOP maximum. I consintue to see people misrepresent it as some type of deductible they have to meet before they draw dollar one of insurance. And I guess you wont bother to mention the folks who wont be hitting their lifetime cap.

images
 
Threegoofs said:
IE i understand that the OP was about projections and said 'less' and 'lower' so i'll pretend im outraged by medicare costs not going down in the future.
Click to expand...

:doh less would mean a down turn in the graph it isn't less or lower. it is still going UP. going down means a decrease to anyone that knows how to read a graph.
the graph isn't going down it is going UP.

so while it might not be as much as before the costs are still going UP.
 
Gill said:
The Washington Post and Forbes are biased ????

You are getting desperate aren't you?

Just wait until these people with subsidies get hit with a $5,000. out of pocket bill. They won't be so supportive of it then.
Click to expand...

to them anything that goes against their ideology is bias.
 
ludin said:
:doh less would mean a down turn in the graph it isn't less or lower. it is still going UP. going down means a decrease to anyone that knows how to read a graph.
the graph isn't going down it is going UP.

so while it might not be as much as before the costs are still going UP.
Click to expand...

Accuses others of not being able to read graphs.

Reads graph wrong.


I realize the graph doesnt say what you want it to say, or what you pretend i said it says. It also doesnt say that the national debt is falling as a percentage of GDP, that crime is falling rapidly in the US, or that hat sizes in US males have increased at a slow rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom