US Politics: Thread #hbar

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Or perhaps, Obama will simply have a tremendous headache, and when Michelle cracks open his skull with a machete to relieve it, a host of Harvard Med Grads will spring forth, armed with stethescopes, tongue depressors, and presciptions.

[The Dude]

Many of the conservative Dems that lost were the ones that had been swept in during the 2006 and 2008 election waves for Democrats. So basically the American electorate has been really volatile over the last six years (not totally surprising since things keep getting worse and worse) and the most up-for-grabs seats keep switching hands.

I think that's the easiest and most obvious explanation - but that doesn't lend much room for all of the interesting opinions and debates ;)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Dude,

Why is a volatile electorate "obnoxious"? The House of Representatives is designed to allow for quick turn over. That's why every Representative is up for election every two years. I, for one, am not fond of life time politicians. Remember, I'm from the State that elected Strom Thurmond to the Senate for 40 years.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm still having a difficult time understanding how a program with a one trillion dollar pricetag is really a cost savings. Cripe, why can't suppoters of the ACA just admit it's going to cost us a lot of money, but covering the uninsured is worth it?

Well, I have to admit, I kind of just assumed that is what we're doing, but if you read over the provisions of the bill itself, it is quite clearly a Medicare reform bill. And I can't find any reputable source that estimates the cost of it at what you've laid out here, which makes sense, given that it's a reform bill.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Supremes declined Cert to the first challenge to the ACA to reach their desks:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/08/scotus.health.care.reform/index.html

[C S]

Thinker X, the money for the reform won't come from anywhere because according to its supporters, the "reform" doesn't cost anything at all. It's free! Like Jesus handing out the loaves and fish, the additional medical personnel needed to treat the tens of millions who previously were dying in the streets will simply spring from thin air. Or perhaps less dramatically, simply offer to work for free.

Of course, that doesn't quite explain why a bill that costs nothing had a price tag associated with it, or why tax increases were needed....

Quit attacking strawmen. Nobody said it was free. You can do better than that FLOW.

If I spend $10,000 dollars installing new windows, they are not free. Now, if this happens to save me $1000 dollars a year in energy bills, then the windows might as well have been free after 11 years.

I'm not saying that the reform bill is as clear cut as installing new windows. There are certainly problems to be addressed. You did a good job of pointing out some of them. But you seem to be arguing that it is impossible to spend money to save or make money. This, I believe, is proven wrong by the existence of the capitalist system that you (and I) are so fond of.

[Guest Raidne]

Perfect example.

[Chris G]

Thinker X, the money for the reform won't come from anywhere because according to its supporters, the "reform" doesn't cost anything at all. It's free! Like Jesus handing out the loaves and fish, the additional medical personnel needed to treat the tens of millions who previously were dying in the streets will simply spring from thin air. Or perhaps less dramatically, simply offer to work for free.

Of course, that doesn't quite explain why a bill that costs nothing had a price tag associated with it, or why tax increases were needed....

Tax increases are needed to pay for the stuff Americans want, but don't want to pay for. If we were really honest about it no one in this country pays enough taxes to cover what they use. Of course simple math tells us that if you have more money you pay more in taxes, flat tax or progressive tax. I guess we should teach kids that if they want to pay less taxes don't make a lot of money.

If you can't possibly see that working to control health care costs in this country will benefit in the long run, than you are blind. If it because it was a Democratic plan and you cannot get behind that, than perhaps you should ask your guys to come up with something besides tax cuts for rich people. Of course, now all we are going to get is pointless investigations and useless rhetoric, pretty standard for a Republican Congress.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, I have to admit, I kind of just assumed that is what we're doing, but if you read over the provisions of the bill itself, it is quite clearly a Medicare reform bill. And I can't find any reputable source that estimates the cost of it at what you've laid out here, which makes sense, given that it's a reform bill.

So...you're saying that the ACA doesn't contain any additional/higher taxes? Well, shit, I guess the whole "defunding" thing can't happen on any level then.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Quit attacking strawmen. Nobody said it was free. You can do better than that FLOW.

If I spend $10,000 dollars installing new windows, they are not free. Now, if this happens to save me $1000 dollars a year in energy bills, then the windows might as well have been free after 11 years.

I'm not saying that the reform bill is as clear cut as installing new windows. There are certainly problems to be addressed. You did a good job of pointing out some of them. But you seem to be arguing that it is impossible to spend money to save or make money. This, I believe, is proven wrong by the existence of the capitalist system that you (and I) are so fond of.

Terrible example because the ACA isn't a capital expenditure, where there is a one-time cost that then produces savings. It's an entitlement program with continuing spending obligations. If this really was a program that would pay for itself via savings, then you wouldn't need continuing additional taxes to finance it each year. You'd increase taxes for a few years, but then they'd phase out those new taxes because they'd no longer be necessary. But that's not the case, and it's not the way the bill is written. The new taxes are permanent.

I agree that it is sometimes possible for certain expenditures to save some money, but the idea that we're going to improve care for everyone, insure tens of millions who have less coverage, and spend less money is simply laughable. I don't believe that, and a great many American voters don't believe it either. I've pointed out previously how RomneyCare in Mass didn't create the savings anticipated in terms of reducing emergency room visits, etc. And almost from the moment it was passed, there have been stories coming out revising the savings estimate downward for the ACA, and that's before any part of the bill was even implemented.

As I understand it there are two different numbers. There's the "price tag" which is the amount of money that comes from direct federal spending such as spending on subsidies. Then there's the impact on the deficit. So hidden Medicare taxes in the real estate realm (and there are some of these) get applied to the deficit number, but not to the "price tag." That's how you can say "the price of the bill is 1 trillion" and also say "it saves the government money in the long term."

This encapsulates exactly what the problem is when people discuss this bill, and more broadly, the problem in discussing spending and the budget in general. There is a fundamental difference between talking about spending and talking about the effect on the deficit. If a bill costs $950B (which is the one of the floating numbers for the actual cost of the benefits provided by this bill), and it is financed by, say, $800B in additional taxes and $200B in cuts to Medicare programs for a total of $1T, then (if all the estimates prove correct), it will help reduce the deficit. But that doesn't mean you're not spending the $950B.

[Guest Raidne]

So...you're saying that the ACA doesn't contain any additional/higher taxes?

Nope.

[awesome possum]

I particularly enjoy FLoW's use of the tried and true Republican method of talking about taxes: simply ignore the reality of the taxes. Rather than attempting to explain what the new taxes are, try to make it seem like everyone must get a higher tax rate.

Instead of saying there will be a new 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services, or a 0.9% Medicare surtax for those making more than $200,000 a year (oh noes, $1800 extra a year?!?!?!?! STOP SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND OBAMA!!!). Or any of the few other tax hikes that will account for a tiny percentage of Americans. But let's ignore those pesky facts and stick with the rhetoric.

[Commodore]

This should be good:

Ron Paul Is About to Totally Revolutionize the House Monetary Policy Panel

| 04 Nov 2010 | 04:35 PM ET

Odds are you haven’t heard of the monetary policy subcommittee. Officially known as the House Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, it’s a subdivision of the House Financial Services Committee that has mostly occupied itself with pressing questions of issuing commemorative coins and whether or not to eliminate the penny.

That’s about to change. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas, is the ranking member of the monetary policy subcommittee, and when the next Congress takes over he’ll likely be the chairman of the subcommittee.

And Congressman Paul has some big plans.

“I will approach that committee like no one has ever approached it because we’re living in times like no one has ever seen,” Paul said in an interview with NetNet Thursday.

Paul said his first priority will be to open up the books of the Federal Reserve to the American people.

“We need to create transparency there. To see what it is they are buying and lending, and who it is they are dealing with,” Paul said.

Paul mentioned that he hoped to use subcommittee hearings to educate the public about the causes of business cycles—which he believes are mainly attributable to monetary manipulation by central bankers.

Monetary reform is also on the agenda. Paul is a noted advocate of the gold standard.

“We will have to have monetary reform,” Paul said. “I think those on the other side of this issue are already planning. They are going to try to replace a bad system with an equally bad system.”

[MinDonner]

I'm actually kind of wondering what a guy who hates government regulation will say to a guy who got (everyone in the world) into trouble by, um, relaxing government regulation. "Well done in principle, but you should have removed ALL banking restrictions instead of just most of them"?

[danro]

Thinker X, the money for the reform won't come from anywhere because according to its supporters, the "reform" doesn't cost anything at all.

It sounds counterintuitive. But a well implemented single-payer system could deliver more for less than the old US system.

Several countries does it already, some has done so for half a century or more.

Of course the US could still fail, but the task itself is demonstrably not impossible.

So I don't think your TANSTAAFL-argument really works by itself.

[Swordfish]

It sounds counterintuitive. But a well implemented single-payer system could deliver more for less than the old US system.

Several countries does it already, some has done so for half a century or more.

Of course the US could still fail, but the task itself is demonstrably not impossible.

So I don't think your TANSTAAFL-argument really works by itself.

Uh.... We didn't pass a single payer system, so YOUR argument doesn't work in any context.

[danro]

Uh.... We didn't pass a single payer system, so YOUR argument doesn't work in any context.

No. But the point is that a better system is possible.

And the claim of potential savings is not obviously false.

[Swordfish]

No. But the point is that a better system is possible.

And the claim of potential savings is not obviously false.

No. it isn't. Unless you can prove somehow that other countries are saving money under single payer. Which I have never seen anyone do. i don't even know if it's possible to prove something like that.

Either way, we were specifically talking about THIS bill, so....

[The Iceman of the North]

No. it isn't. Unless you can prove somehow that other countries are saving money under single payer. Which I have never seen anyone do. i don't even know if it's possible to prove something like that.

Why is that so hard? Just compare drug prices in the US with drug prices in countries with single payer systems.

[C S]

Terrible example because the ACA isn't a capital expenditure, where there is a one-time cost that then produces savings. It's an entitlement program with continuing spending obligations. If this really was a program that would pay for itself via savings, then you wouldn't need continuing additional taxes to finance it each year. You'd increase taxes for a few years, but then they'd phase out those new taxes because they'd no longer be necessary. But that's not the case, and it's not the way the bill is written. The new taxes are permanent.

As a whole, ACA isn't a capital expenditure, but portions of it are. Some of the cost savings are based around improving efficiency of the system. Most of this will occur in the first few years, so such expenditures will go down after the initial costs. My example (new windows) also has continuing costs. I still have to pay energy bills, I'm just spending less to maintain the same temperature I was before. Now, I guess I could make my example better by saying that I'm adding a room in addition to getting new windows, so it might take me a little longer to break even.

To realistically address your concerns, I also have some doubts about whether this legislation will actually decrease the deficit. However, the best question to ask is whether the government will be spending more money on healthcare than it would have if nothing were changed. Also, how will our insurance rates change in comparison to what they would have been without reform. I admit we will never know with complete certainty, but I know how I would wager.

edeted fur speling