• 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]

Oh.

So the impressive amount of improvement shown already (bent cost curves, plummeting uninsured rate, higher quality of care, stabilized premium costs etc etc) is only going to get BETTER?!?

Thanks, Obama!

(FYI- here, in the real world, we know the law is virtually fully implemented, with the employer mandate which affects only a small number of businesses still not implemented.)

Unfortunately what you are doing is taking CBO estimates as gospel ignoring the accuracy of the CBO and the reality that their assumptions are made based upon information given them by Congress. Until there are real actual savings all you do is give us opinions of someone else. There isn't any Federally created Social program that cost what it was supposed to cost and do what it was supposed to do.
 
How do you run numbers on a program that hasn't been fully implemented? All you have seen are the tax increases not many of the costs as the enrollment hasn't been what was expected and much of the numbers are due to the expansion of Medicaid and insuring people already eligible for Medicaid but didn't sign up. What you and others show is that you buy the rhetoric, ignore history, and the costs of Govt. entitlement programs


Care to back up this rhetoric with actual sources and facts that aren't from fox news, or a libertarian think tank?
 
Care to back up this rhetoric with actual sources and facts that aren't from fox news, or a libertarian think tank?

I gave you the quote from the Medicare Center on healthcare costs per capita but it is you and supporters of ACA who claim that the cost curve has been bent downward. It does seem that you have the same disease as most Clinton supporters who claim he had a surplus as those were PROJECTIONS not reality just like the CBO Projections NOW!! CBO is not projecting lower healthcare costs due to assumptions they are receiving. If the assumptions are wrong what do you think that does to the projections?

The per capita cost of health care expenditures in 2012 was $8,915, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It was $8,170 in 2009, $8,411 in 2010 and $8,658 in 2011. In other words, it’s rising year after year.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statist...NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
 
Last edited:
I gave you the quote from the Medicare Center on healthcare costs per capita but it is you and supporters of ACA who claim that the cost curve has been bent downward. It does seem that you have the same disease as most Clinton supporters who claim he had a surplus as those were PROJECTIONS not reality just like the CBO Projections NOW!! CBO is not projecting lower healthcare costs due to assumptions they are receiving. If the assumptions are wrong what do you think that does to the projections?






http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statist...NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

yes, yes, it is. What is the rate at which is i rising from 2001 to 2009? How does that compare to 20010 to 2014?
 
yes, yes, it is. What is the rate at which is i rising from 2001 to 2009? How does that compare to 20010 to 2014?

So anything that increases in cost but at a slower rate is good in the liberal world? How does that eliminate the deficit ultimately reducing the debt and how do you know the CBO PROJECTIONS are going to be accurate?

Why do you buy what the Federal Govt. and CBO tell you when their history is so bad and they have already generated an 18.2 trillion dollar debt? What is going to happen when the newly high risk individuals now covered under ACA hit the market with their higher costs healthcare treatments? Do you realize that an increase in Medicaid Patients does not lower healthcare costs but rather shifts some of those costs to the state?

Please stop buying what the liberal elite tell you but rather research what they tell you and verify the rhetoric with actual results.
 
I showed you the skyrocketing costs of healthcare from 1980 ( just over $1,000 per person ) to
2005 ( over $7,500 per person ) . The U.S. spent $8,402 per person on health care in 2010.
 
I showed you the skyrocketing costs of healthcare from 1980 ( just over $1,000 per person ) to
2005 ( over $7,500 per person ) . The U.S. spent $8,402 per person on health care in 2010.

Yes, and 8900 in 2012. Again why do you believe insuring more people many of whom are high risk and formerly uninsured are going to lower healthcare costs and can you name for me Just one Federal Social program that ever cost what it was projected to cost and actually do something other than create dependence?

Do you realize that CBO only gives PREDICTIONS based upon the assumptions they are given? If the assumptions are wrong what does that do to the predictions?
 
So anything that increases in cost but at a slower rate is good in the liberal world? How does that eliminate the deficit ultimately reducing the debt and how do you know the CBO PROJECTIONS are going to be accurate?

Why do you buy what the Federal Govt. and CBO tell you when their history is so bad and they have already generated an 18.2 trillion dollar debt? What is going to happen when the newly high risk individuals now covered under ACA hit the market with their higher costs healthcare treatments? Do you realize that an increase in Medicaid Patients does not lower healthcare costs but rather shifts some of those costs to the state?

Please stop buying what the liberal elite tell you but rather research what they tell you and verify the rhetoric with actual results.


I think you really should show that your projections are accurate , if you are making claims. But no, that is for other people.
 
I think you really should show that your projections are accurate , if you are making claims. But no, that is for other people.

I point to actual results NOT predictions. CBO has PROJECTED that ACA will cost less but ACA hasn't been fully implemented so there are no official results yet. You do realize that much of ACA was front loaded with tax increases which obviously will lower projected costs but the reality is there haven't been significant reductions because the program is still relatively new. You want badly to believe what you are told but history presents a different picture and is reality.
 
If the assumptions are wrong it would be because lawmakers repeal some of the revenue neutral funding.
 
If the assumptions are wrong it would be because lawmakers repeal some of the revenue neutral funding.

Exactly but the point remains these are projections based upon assumptions not actual reality thus cannot be passed of as factual savings from ACA but rather projections. People did the same thing with Clinton's so called surplus, they took CBO Projections as fact and ignored actual reality. CBO projections did not include the recession the Country had in March 2001 and no one projected 9/11. Clinton left the Country with an additional debt of 5.7 trillion or up 1.6 trillion in 8 years. Projections are nothing more than an honest attempt to predict the future and the future is unpredictable.
 
... People did the same thing with Clinton's so called surplus, they took CBO Projections as fact and ignored actual reality. ....

Actually ,President CW Bush taking the Clinton Surplus and using it tax cuts from a Feb. 2001 CBS article.
President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans,
Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.
 
There you go again projections!!!! there WAS NO SURPLUS
 
It was a projected surplus and tax cuts have nothing to do with spending
 
President GW Bush said there was a surplus so he spent it on tax cuts.

It really is concerned to me that so many people have been indoctrinated into believing that tax cuts are an expense to the govt. and that it is the Government's money first. To believe that one has to believe that their spending or saving of that additional money in their paychecks doesn't benefit economic growth and job creation.

The Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003 and if you check the economy growth from 2004-2007 you will find some incredibly good numbers including job creation. Much of that was lost when the housing bubble burst but Bush generated 4.5 trillion GDP growth with his tax cuts and economic policies and that includes the disaster in 2008
 
Problem is when president G W Bush cut taxes he counted on more revenue being generated from all the people businesses would hire when they got tax breaks. That revenue was never forthcoming and his tax cuts were NOT
deficit neutral.
The tax cuts raised the deficit.

Bush Deficits:
2007 $ 161 billion
2008 $ 459 billion
2009 $1,413 billion
 
Problem is when president G W Bush cut taxes he counted on more revenue being generated from all the people businesses would hire when they got tax breaks. That revenue was never forthcoming and his tax cuts were NOT deficit neutral. The tax cuts raised the deficit. Bush Deficits: 2007 $ 161 billion 2008 $ 459 billion 2009 $1,413 billion
Bush took office with the debt at 5.7 trillion and left it at 10.6 trillion or a 4.9 trillion increase Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) Obama inherited that debt of which 350 billion was due to TARP Loans which were repaid in 2009 but recycled thus not repaid to the Treasure. In addition 9/11 cost the Treasury 1 trillion dollars according to GAO. That means of the 4.9 trillion Bush generated, it was actually 3.6 trillion Obama also signed the 2009 budget in March knowing that people like you would blame Bush. The debt today is 18.2 trillion. Let's see if you can do the math to see how much Obama generated?


By the way the tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003
 
Do you realize that CBO only gives PREDICTIONS based upon the assumptions they are given? If the assumptions are wrong what does that do to the predictions?

We're at a point where we can start comparing their projections of yesteryear to actual reality.

Take exchange subsidy spending this year (FY15). Five years ago in their much-touted price tag for the ACA, the CBO projected they would cost $45 billion this year:

5p1ouo.png


We're now 75% of the way through the fiscal year (just 3 months left to go) and spending on exchange subsidies so far has been...$18 billion.

9k5mh1.png
 
We're at a point where we can start comparing their projections of yesteryear to actual reality.

Take exchange subsidy spending this year (FY15). Five years ago in their much-touted price tag for the ACA, the CBO projected they would cost $45 billion this year:

5p1ouo.png


We're now 75% of the way through the fiscal year (just 3 months left to go) and spending on exchange subsidies so far has been...$18 billion.

9k5mh1.png

Do you realize that subsidies come out of tax revenue and thus are a reduction in revenue the govt. but subsidies are an expense? So what you have done is reduce healthcare expenses and reduced the amount of revenue to the govt. thus increased the debt?
 
Do you realize that subsidies come out of tax revenue and thus are a reduction in revenue the govt. but subsidies are an expense? So what you have done is reduce healthcare expenses and reduced the amount of revenue to the govt. thus increased the debt?

Exchange subsidies are new federal spending, true. But the ACA was designed to more than offset that new spending with (1) relative spending reductions (savings) elsewhere, and (2) new revenues.

As mentioned in post #1041 in this thread, the ACA intended to find about $50 billion in savings in FY15; in reality, it's on track to find more like $110 billion. Meanwhile the new spending that needs to be offset is turning out to be less than expected (see post above).

The ACA was "sold" as reducing the deficit a certain amount. Turns out it's reducing it a lot more than promised.
 
Exchange subsidies are new federal spending, true. But the ACA was designed to more than offset that new spending with (1) relative spending reductions (savings) elsewhere, and (2) new revenues.

As mentioned in post #1041 in this thread, the ACA intended to find about $50 billion in savings in FY15; in reality, it's on track to find more like $110 billion. Meanwhile the new spending that needs to be offset is turning out to be less than expected (see post above).

The ACA was "sold" as reducing the deficit a certain amount. Turns out it's reducing it a lot more than promised.

So where are those cost savings going to come from? I don't see an answer to the question as to how taking subsidies lowers the deficits? Let me know how it turns out but stop claiming that predictions are reality. It has reduced PROJECTIONS and no one pays debt service on PROJECTIONS
 

What the hell does ACA have to do with Medicare? Medicare is a program that everyone contributes to and becomes available when they turn 65. This red herring of yours is typical of liberalism, diversion from reality. The uninsured have nothing to do with Medicare
 
What the hell does ACA have to do with Medicare? Medicare is a program that everyone contributes to and becomes available when they turn 65. This red herring of yours is typical of liberalism, diversion from reality. The uninsured have nothing to do with Medicare

LOL.

Hates Obamacare.

Doesn't understand the relationship between Obamacare and the ACA.
 
Back
Top Bottom