399 replies to this topic

[TrackerNeil]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

That's a whole lot of verbiage, but I don't think you actually disputed my underlying point, which was that the creation of the new entitlement program in the ACA will increases government spending.  Or are you truly saying it really actually reduces government expenditures?

If she is, the CBO agrees with her.

[Fez]

Looks like things have gotten even more complicated in the Maine senate race:

Quote

Former Maine Gov. Angus King — an independent — will announce a run for retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) seat in the Senate

The article points out that its really unknown if he is more likely to siphon Democratic or Republican votes.  And if he wins the race, its not known which party he would caucus with.  Although if he is the 50th vote there's gonna be a hell of a lot of promises being made to him.

[Shryke]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

That's a whole lot of verbiage, but I don't think you actually disputed my underlying point, which was that the creation of the new entitlement program in the ACA will increase government spending.  Or are you truly saying it really actually reduces government expenditures?

That would be quite the arithmetric trick, and that's certainly not what the CBO said, but I'd be interesting in seeing your support for that.

Unless you wanna get rid of Medicare too, you are gonna need to bring down medical costs and the way you do that, according to all the evidence, is with government intervention.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

TrackerNeil, on 05 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

If she is, the CBO agrees with her.

No, it doesn't.  Not even remotely close.

What the CBO claimed is that, if you accepted all the government promises about cutting future Medicare spending, that the additional spending required by the ACA entitlement would be paid for by 1) new taxes (primarily) and 2) those future Medicare cuts.  But claiming that all that additional spending would be paid for by higher taxes and Medicare cuts isn't remotely the same as saying the entitlement results in less spending.  Indeed, the only reason the ACA needed to be financed was precisely because it contained a shitload of new spending.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 05 March 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[TrackerNeil]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

No, it doesn't.  Not even remotely close.

What the CBO claimed is that, if you accepted all the government promises about cutting future Medicare spending, that the additional spending required by the ACA entitlement would be paid for by 1) new taxes (primarily) and 2) those future Medicare cuts.  But claiming that all that additional spending would be paid for by higher taxes and Medicare cuts isn't remotely the same as saying the entitlement results in less spending.  Indeed, the only reason the ACA needed to be financed was precisely because it contained a shitload of new spending.

There are also some cost-saving measures built into the law, but I'm not going to get into this with you. The fact is that it is not unreasonable or crazy to claim that the ACA will reduce government spending, as you seemed to imply upthread.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

TrackerNeil, on 05 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

There are also some cost-saving measures built into the law, but I'm not going to get into this with you. The fact is that it is not unreasonable or crazy to claim that the ACA will reduce government spending, as you seemed to imply upthread.

Yes, it is completely unreasonable.  The estimated cost of the bill includes all those magical cost control factors generating every bit of savings promised.  You can accept everything the CBO, Congress, and Obama all said, and they'd all agree that the bill overall (even including the Medicare and other cost savings) increases federal spending by more than $600B over the next decade.

I didn't even think this was controversial.  You're providing health insurance for tens of millions of people who don't have it.  The idea that you could do that without spending money is something even the ACA's most fervent supporters never claimed.  I mean, it would be one thing to claim that the new system was more efficient, but you can't get around the cost of insuring all those additional people.

ETA:  Of course, the key to the ACA not costing any more than expected is that more businesses than expected (budgeted at only 7%) cannot drop coverage.  If more employers than that drop coverage, the price tag skyrockets.  The bad news for ACA proponents is that surveys of businesses show that the number likely to drop is substantially higher than that, and my guess is that it going to be particularly true for employers who are lower down on the wage scale.  When the various insurance mandates kick it, the cost of policies is going to increase, and so those employers are either going to have to pay higher costs for coverage, or boot those employees out.  That's not as big a harm to employees as it would seem given that low wage employees (in particular), will be eligible for the largest government subsidies.  But what that does is create a huge imbalance between the $2000/employee penalty for not offering insurance, and the up to $7500 in subsidies that employee may receive from the government.

In any case, to get back to the original point, a lot of Republicans believe that serious, bipartisan entitlement reform is impossible if one side, rather than limiting entitlements, is so strongly in favor of creating a new one.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 05 March 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[TerraPrime]

I think as it is, we will see an increase in total spending, because we're not allowed to do other forms of price control, e.g. capping costs of non-generic medication, limiting amount per procedure, forcing medical insurance to be not-for-profit, etc., which are methods that other countries with single-payer system implemented in one way or other to make all the math works out. What the Obama plan does is that it gives us part of the good results of a single-payer plan, but witholds the true cost. Once people get to liking it, then there'll be less objection to paying for it through various means, including some government regulation of the healthcare industry.

But for me, it really doesn't matter. I still support government trying to deliver some basic forms of health care to the uninsured even if it costs more, and even if it raises my taxes. It's an entitlement? Fine with me. You can make it not an entitlement, and I will still support it, as long as the end-game is single-payer. You can call it Rush Limbaugh's wilted cock, and I will still support it, if that's what it does.

[Jon Sprunk]

FLoW, you're main problem is that the republican position on the ACA (it's hurting business, it costs too much) are abstract claims compared to the tangible positive changes that it has done in people's lives.

This is why people don't vote based on the national debt. It's abstract, an accounting thing. People vote on the economy as it affects them. Jobs, relative wealth across generations, the ability to send their kids to (snobbish) college, whether Tommy or Sally can stay on their parents' insurance after age 21.

As much as I don't want another repub president, I'd be very interested to see them put their money where their mouth has been concerning the ACA. All this talk about executive orders and such. I'd like to see the faces of their political advisers as they scream, "No! Do you want to get tossed out in your first week?"

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Typical Woman, on 05 March 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I think as it is, we will see an increase in total spending, because we're not allowed to do other forms of price control, e.g. capping costs of non-generic medication, limiting amount per procedure, forcing medical insurance to be not-for-profit, etc., which are methods that other countries with single-payer system implemented in one way or other to make all the math works out. What the Obama plan does is that it gives us part of the good results of a single-payer plan, but witholds the true cost. Once people get to liking it, then there'll be less objection to paying for it through various means, including some government regulation of the healthcare industry.

It sounds to me like you're saying that you know it is going to cost a lot, but that you're hoping that the high cost will induce voters to agree to more aggressive cost controls.  I don't think that's good policy, but it at least doesn't pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

Quote

But for me, it really doesn't matter. I still support government trying to deliver some basic forms of health care to the uninsured even if it costs more, and even if it raises my taxes. It's an entitlement? Fine with me. You can make it not an entitlement, and I will still support it, as long as the end-game is single-payer. You can call it Rush Limbaugh's wilted cock, and I will still support it, if that's what it does.

Well, I get that too.  Once you get down to the purely moral question of government providing health care, there's not much more to discuss.  But it is for that exact same reason that I think meaningful control of entitlement spending is impossible.  You have a moral imperative of providing that service, which means that those of us who want to cut/limit it are on the other side of the fence.   I'm not as much arguing what is better policy as much as simply acknowledging the depths of the disagreement.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Jon Sprunk, on 05 March 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

FLoW, you're main problem is that the republican position on the ACA (it's hurting business, it costs too much) are abstract claims compared to the tangible positive changes that it has done in people's lives.

The cold political reality is that the vast majority of the ACA's cost is in government subsidies to people who don't have insurance.  For the vast majority of Ameircans who do, that's not a tangible positive change in their lives.  For the majority of Americans who won't be receiving subsidies, the net effect is going to be higher premiums, or for many, seeing their employer cancel their plan.

Think of the political impact if the ACA is upheld, and you start seeing companies announce that they will be cancelling their insurance in 2013 because of it.

[Jon Sprunk]

But there are things in the law that do apply to people who already had insurance, such as fixing the medicare donut and allowing kids to remain of their parents' policies longer.

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Think of the political impact if the ACA is upheld, and you start seeing companies announce that they will be cancelling their insurance in 2013 because of it.

Now that could change the conversation, but it hasn't happened yet. Also, even if it did, that might start the ball rolling for a single-payer plan which is where healthcare might be heading anyway. Requiring employers to shoulder the burden is such a crappy system. Health care isn't like vacation days or a holiday bonus -- it shouldn't be considered a fringe benefit.

[lockesnow]

It would be so wonderful if employers stopped offering insurance en masse. That's a truly magical and wonderful outcome!

Raidne, with a Republican president, we'd undoubtedly be seeing 2-4 trillion in deficit per annum.  They won't cut spending, but they will viciously slash revenue.  A republican president could get us to a 30 trillion national debt by 2020, no problem.

[IheartTesla]

According to GOP fuzzy math, lowering taxes leads to increased growth which leads to more prosperity which leads to increased revenue. I fail to see how these optimistic estimates are any better than ACA projections.

Anyway, if deficits are your single biggest issue then the choice is between Ron Paul and Obama because everyone else does worse. And Ron Paul will probably gut the government by removing any department you can think of. I'd still go for Obama, but hey, that's just me.

Anyway, I believe Obama's template is spend now and worry about deficits later with a mix of tax increases and some entitlement reform (that would be negotiated). The latter has low probability of happening I personally think.

[Lightning Lord]

I know the killing of US citizens is old news, but no one has commented on Holder's speech in Chicago.  Some of the more chilling things I've seen while reading stories about it: (forgive me, I'm using mobile theme, not sure how to do things yet)

"The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen"
"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security"
"Holder said the administration abides by "robust oversight" when targeting Americans abroad, informing senior lawmakers about its counterterrorism operations"

It's disgusting that this is what US "justice" has come to.  At least before there was the pretense of justice, the pretense of following our own laws.  American citizens are losing their right to life, along with the Patriot Act nonsense invasions.

[SkynJay]

Typical Woman, on 05 March 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

But for me, it really doesn't matter. I still support government trying to deliver some basic forms of health care to the uninsured even if it costs more, and even if it raises my taxes. It's an entitlement? Fine with me. You can make it not an entitlement, and I will still support it, as long as the end-game is single-payer. You can call it Rush Limbaugh's wilted cock, and I will still support it, if that's what it does.

I get about 300 taken out of my checks each month for health insurance.  So if it is goes single payer, I guess I am ok with about a 300 dollar a month tax increase.

[TrackerNeil]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Think of the political impact if the ACA is upheld, and you start seeing companies announce that they will be cancelling their insurance in 2013 because of it.

As a corollary to what Jon Sprunk said, this would move more people to the exchanges, which would create a stronger constituency for those exchanges, which would create a political incentive to make the exchanges better, yadda yadda. So if employers want to drop out of the health insurance business, I say faster pussycat. Kill! Kill!

[SkynJay]

Rush once again gives an apology that is not an apology.

Yes friends, he descended to the "lefts" level by using two words.  No doubt the liberal media tricked him into using them.

[Shryke]

lockesnow, on 05 March 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Raidne, with a Republican president, we'd undoubtedly be seeing 2-4 trillion in deficit per annum.  They won't cut spending, but they will viciously slash revenue.  A republican president could get us to a 30 trillion national debt by 2020, no problem.

Let's look at actual numbers. This is the results of all the candidates budget plans:
http://graphics8.nyt...an1-blog480.jpg

Obama IS the fiscal conservative.

[Seli]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

The cold political reality is that the vast majority of the ACA's cost is in government subsidies to people who don't have insurance.  For the vast majority of Ameircans who do, that's not a tangible positive change in their lives.  For the majority of Americans who won't be receiving subsidies, the net effect is going to be higher premiums, or for many, seeing their employer cancel their plan.
...

Is it a subsidy for the individuals not being able to pay for insurance at the moment, or is it a subsidy for the companies that right now end up paying for the consequences of the uninsured still needing care?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

TrackerNeil, on 05 March 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

As a corollary to what Jon Sprunk said, this would move more people to the exchanges, which would create a stronger constituency for those exchanges, which would create a political incentive to make the exchanges better, yadda yadda. So if employers want to drop out of the health insurance business, I say faster pussycat. Kill! Kill!

Except there are no exchanges yet. The public does not what they will look like yet, or the exact plans that will be offered, whether their current providers will be included, the cost, etc. For people who currently have coverage that they like (and that's a majority of voters), that is exchanging health care coverage they currently like for a complete unknown.

So if employers leak that intention ahead of the election, people scared of losing their current employer-provided coverage may well react by casting votes they believe will prevent their current coverage from being placed at risk.  That's a (legitimate) fear that Republican will play up heavily running up to the November election.  A vote for Democrats will place you current health care coverage in serious jeopardy.  And Obama can't assuage that concern by promising people that their employers won't drop coverage because of the ACA.