US Politics: 1950's edition

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[lokisnow]

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]

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]

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]

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.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/29/opinion/022912krugman1/022912krugman1-blog480.jpg

Obama IS the fiscal conservative.

[Seli]

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]

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.

[TrackerNeil]

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.

So let me see if I have this right. If employers, en masse, decide to drop their group plans and if they make the majority of the American people believe it, voters will decide that the only recourse is to elect a president and a Congress that pledge to repeal the law, whether or not they could actually do it.

First of all, Americans are pretty divided on the ACA, although a majority do not want to see it repealed entirely. It's also interesting to note that in many polls, even those who report opposition to the law change their minds when they understand what repealing it would mean. So it's not clear to me that Americans are going to flock to the polls to vote Republican on that basis.

Second, that reasoning is a long way to walk, and I'm not sure most voters are that analytical in terms of policy. I don't think the ACA is going to drive turnout this year amongst any but the most partisan who, to be honest, would have voted anyway.

Third, I have not seen any sign of a groundswell movement amongst employers to end their group coverage. That's not something that has happened much in Massachusetts, BTW, so I don't see why it would happen nationwide. Even if that should come to pass, I wouldn't count on it happening soon enough to affect the 2012 elections.

So I am not convinced that the scenario you outline is likely.

[Jon Sprunk]

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.

Whoa, you really took that hypothetical for a long walk, eh? Oh well. It's the internet and what do we have better to do than argue about theories that have no basis in reality?

I'd postulate that more voters are frightened of returning to a "conservative" economic policy that threatens to trigger another Great Recession; or a "conservative" president that threatens war with Iran, Syria, and any other (usually Muslim-populated) country they can think of; or of a "conservative" president that publicly muses about banning contraceptives; or a "conservative" strain that insults and belittles women.... But that's just my outlandish theory of the day.

[Kouran]

Don't worry, we don't think that. We just think Romney has been forced to say things during the primaries that will kill him with moderates in the election.

Otherwise, I have no idea how we'd manage to re-elect a guy who is selling a $900 billion deficit (which would have been a record before 2008) as if it's a good deal. This situation does not look as though it will be resolving itself anytime soon either - the President's projected deficit for 2018 is still $575 billion, which I guess is at least back to Bush era spending.

Of course, the Administration's argument that their budget will lead to reduced deficit spending is true - Bush-era tax receipts are unsustainable. They are astonishingly low. That is, in many ways, the source of our long-term problems. But I am really disappointed to not see more of an effort to bring down spending. How can we possibly add $500-$700 billion a year in deficits to the debt through 2022 and still pay the interest on the debt without killing our economy?

Currently, total debt is $15.5 trillion. $5.9 trillion of that was racked up in 2008-12 (2012 is still estimated at a $1.33 trillion deficit). Using the White House's figures, which involve capturing a historically nearly unheard of 20% of GDP in tax receipts, we will be adding another 6.7 trillion to that figure before 2022.

This is, to put it mildly, not what I expected.

OTOH, there is a projected GDP for 2022 of $25.76 trillion. This budget leaves us with a total debt of $21.6 trillion. Overall, that's a better debt to GDP ratio than we have now. So hopefully those projected GDP numbers are credible and I think they probably are.

Anyway, I find this all to be very, very disturbing, and I would like some explanations from the Administration. OTOH, I'm not even a little bit unsure that total Republican control would leave us in even worse debt by 2022. And, while the debt is my #1 issue as a voter, there's also the fact that the Republicans support a bunch of ethically repugnant positions that often resemble nothing so much as institutionalized hate.

Looks like that's finally starting to be a problem for the party. Why don't you jettison those nutbags already and we can actually have a real conversation about governance going forward? Right now, you can't win with them and you can't win without them. Time to try out another strategy.

One shouldnt forget the 5.5 TRILLION dollars in interest payments on the debit over the next decade as seen here: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/05/news/economy/national-debt-interest/index.htm

Anyone who thinks the debit isnt a major issue needs to pull their head out of the sand, the country is racing toward a cliff, and only god knows if we have any brakes on this car or not.

[Sci-2]

Looks like that's finally starting to be a problem for the party. Why don't you jettison those nutbags already and we can actually have a real conversation about governance going forward? Right now, you can't win with them and you can't win without them. Time to try out another strategy.

This * 10^27. I also worry about Dems spending like crazy, and their amnesty for illegals leaves a funny taste in my mouth, but so far I can't bring myself to vote for a party whose platform is filled with such rife prejudice.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Whoa, you really took that hypothetical for a long walk, eh? Oh well. It's the internet and what do we have better to do than argue about theories that have no basis in reality?

There was a poll last year showing that 30% of employers were likely to drop coverage when the ACA kicked in. Among employers most familiar with the provisions of the law, that percentage rose to 50%. The only thing that might make my hypothetical not come true is the timing -- the election is in November 2012, and most of the decisions to drop coverage likely will come at the end of 2013 or in 2014.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So let me see if I have this right. If employers, en masse, decide to drop their group plans

No. They don't actually have to drop the plans. But if voters believe there is a substantial risk that their employer will (and that would be the money bet), then that might impact the election to the benefit of republicans.

Third, I have not seen any sign of a groundswell movement amongst employers to end their group coverage. That's not something that has happened much in Massachusetts, BTW, so I don't see why it would happen nationwide. Even if that should come to pass, I wouldn't count on it happening soon enough to affect the 2012 elections.

That latter part is the rub. But as to the first part, what is going to happen is when the Feds set the criteria for which plans qualify, and the premiums they will change, employers are going to be faced with a decision to either suck up a lot more cost themselves, or just punt the issue. For a lot of employers employing lower-wage people, I'm guessing you'll end up with an actual drop coverage rate of over 50%

It simply makes economic sense. If the cost to the employer of actually paying for the plan is somewhere around $8000 or so/year, and employees can get a subsidy from the feds of $7500, it would be giving away free money to maintain coverage. They'll drop it, pay the $2000 fine, and their employees will get a fed subsidy instead of the employer paying for it. They might increase wages a bit to even it all out, but the bottom line is going to be a lot more employers dropping folks into the subsidy program than the feds ever thought. And that will blow the budget of the ACA wide open.

Now, the question is how much that scenario gets discussed between the June SCOTUS decision and the election. But if I'm a Republican candidate, I absolutely hammer that. It could be the Harry and Louise commercials that killed HillaryCare and gave the GOP the 1994 majority all over gain.