ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Juan_Bottom]

Oddly if you look at the color of that graph, the red bars also coincide with which party announced "newly discovered true costs of healthcare bill."

I posted about this back the day after the bill passed. I found it hilarious how suddenly that Repub from Alabama had discovered that it would cost $1.7 trillion dollars.

[Symmetry]

NS, out of interest, what would be the projected increase in cost to the US gov't on healthcare if:

a) the law were repealed, or
b) the law had never happened

Just for the sake of comparison, and assuming the same ten year period.

[Phatscotty]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???) We all have known from the start that the costs were WAY understated, and that Obama's constant promises that Obamacare would actually reduce the deficit were a huge giant elephant dunged lie.

There is a long and predictable history of government programs gone wild. Unfortunately, those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it, and here we are.

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress. Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... uns/print/

[Symmetry]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

Compared to what though? That something costs money is a puerile point if you don't balance it against the alternatives. What would be the cost of repealing the plan? What would have been the cost if nothing had been done? And what would be the cost of a Romney plan for reforming healthcare?

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides the probable $2.6 trillion over 10 years for Obamacare, was there any mention of costs decreasing for health insurance in the private sector?

[Symmetry]

Besides the probable $2.6 trillion over 10 years for Obamacare, was there any mention of costs decreasing for health insurance in the private sector?

Aye, another valid question.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama's estimate was too low. The Republicans estimates were way too high.

SOURCE: FACTCHECK.COM

Adds Trillions to Deficits and Debt?

Romney: And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

The costs of the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law include federal subsidies for lower-income individuals to help them purchase insurance, expansion of Medicaid eligibility and tax credits for small businesses that provide coverage. In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimate on the gross cost of those provisions of the law over the next 10 years. The updated estimate — $50 billion higher than the year before — came to nearly $1.5 trillion.

But that’s only looking at one side of the budgetary ledger — cost. Even though Romney claims he factored those in, his figure ignores major cost-cutting provisions including cuts in the future growth of Medicare and increased payroll taxes and investment-income taxes on higher-income earners (the same ones Romney had just mentioned).

Once all those revenue streams are factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would actually reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1, page 2). CBO did not update that overall figure in its latest report.

from CBO report:

Table 1.
Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Enactment of PPACA and
the Health Care Provisions of the Reconciliation Act
(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year)
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Notes: The March 2010 estimates come from CBO’s cost estimates for PPACA and the Reconciliation
Act released in March 2010. The February 2011 estimates were produced using the CBO
baseline projections of revenues and outlays available in early 2011, and the March 2011
estimates were taken from CBO’s March 2011 baseline projections.
PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; n.a. = not available.
a. The gross cost of insurance coverage provisions reflects additional spending for Medicaid and
the Children’s Health Insurance Program, exchange subsidies and related spending, and tax
credits for small employers. The net cost of insurance coverage provisions reflects that spending
partly offset by penalties paid by uninsured individuals and employers, excise taxes on highpremium
insurance plans, and other effects of the provisions on tax revenues and outlays.
and the remaining fraction will include individuals who are ineligible for subsidies,
are exempt from the individual mandate, choose not to comply with the mandate, or
have some combination of those characteristics.
Estimated Budgetary Effects from 2012 to 2021: Direct Spending and
Revenues
The legislation will have a number of effects on the federal budget—including added
spending to subsidize the purchase of health insurance and increased outlays for Medicaid,
as well as reductions in outlays for Medicare and added revenues from taxes,
fees, and penalties. On net, CBO and JCT’s latest comprehensive estimate is that the
effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will
reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period (see Table 1).
938 931 934 1,390 971 1,445
788 778 733 1,042 794 1,131
-492 -498 -477 -732 n.a. n.a.
-420 -412 -376 -520 n.a. n.a.
Net Increase or
Decrease (-) in the Deficit -124 -132 -119 -210 n.a. n.a.
401 393 417 604 n.a. n.a.
525 524 536 813 n.a. n.a.
2012-
Estimates
Effects on the Federal Budget Deficit
Gross cost
Net cost
Memorandum:
Effects on Outlays
Effects on Revenues
Insurance coverage provisionsa
Other provisions affecting direct spending
Other provisions affecting revenues
March 2010 February 2011 March 2011
2019
2010-
2019
2012-
2021
2012- 2012-
2019
2012-
2021
Estimates Estimates
2019

Kills Jobs?

Romney: Obamacare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people.

As we have written before, claims about the health care law killing jobs are overblown.

This has been a standard line of attack for Republicans — one that was formalized in a January 2011 House bill titled “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.”

It’s true that the amount of labor in the economy would be reduced by “a small amount,” about half a percent, according to the CBO. That currently equals about 675,000 jobs. But the jobs would not be lost or killed. Most of those workers would have the “financial resources” — because of the subsidies provided by the law — to retire or reduce their hours, the CBO says.

Now, CBO also said that some businesses seeking to avoid paying for insurance could hire more part-time workers, rather than full-time employees. And John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, has estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 low-wage jobs could be lost. But that estimate does not include the potential for job increases in the health and insurance industries. Overall, Sheils told us there would be a “small net job loss.”

Romney cites a recent online survey to support his claim that the law is a “job-killer.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce conducted an online survey in late March and early April, and 1,339 executives at companies with fewer than 500 employees and revenues of less than $25 million participated. The chamber, which opposes the health care law and has run numerous TV ads attacking it, reported that 73 percent said the health care law is “an obstacle to growing their business and hiring more employees.”

That statistic was based on an online, opt-in survey of small-business executives. A press release from the Chamber of Commerce about the survey carries a large caveat: “This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.” In other words, the chamber can’t be sure it’s a representative sample of small-business executives.

Those kinds of surveys can be useful for marketing research purposes, said Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center and the most recent past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. “But from the point of view of public policy decisions, they tend not to be given much credence.”

“The bottom line is that surveys that have self-selected samples don’t have any known relation to the target group [in this case small-business owners],” Keeter said. “As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know what kind of weight to give this.”

That is why, Keeter noted, that major news organizations like the Washington Post, New York Times and ABC News have strict policies prohibiting the reporting of such surveys.

[Phatscotty]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

[PLAYER57832]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

Compared to what though? That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it would supposed to be.

No, the point is that this accusation is often thrown out because government services either specifically deal with something not actually identical to the private sector, often jobs that don't even exist in the private sector.

In fact, most things government does have no true private sector equivalent and therefore claiming it is "10 times more" is just a flat lie.

[Phatscotty]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

Compared to what though? That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it would supposed to be.

No, the point is that this accusation is often thrown out because government services either specifically deal with something not actually identical to the private sector, often jobs that don't even exist in the private sector.

you telling me what my point was? Or are you just adding an excuse (which does nothing to change the reality of the statement)

[Symmetry]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

So what? If you're not willing to even respond to the idea that there might be comparisons, and you're just going to edit your way to a justifiable argument, what can I do?

[Phatscotty]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

So what? If you're not willing to even respond to the idea that there might be comparisons, and you're just going to edit your way to a justifiable argument, what can I do?

I'm sure there are comparisons. Go ahead and make them!

[PLAYER57832]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

Compared to what though? That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it would supposed to be.

No, the point is that this accusation is often thrown out because government services either specifically deal with something not actually identical to the private sector, often jobs that don't even exist in the private sector.

you telling me what my point was? Or are you just adding an excuse (which does nothing to change the reality of the statement)

See, most of learned that you cannot compare cookies and oranges and say much about either. Comparing profit sector jobs that have market potential to government sector jobs that have no real profit unless artifically constructed is bogus.

So yes, it does very much "change the reality of the statement". Your statement is just not true.

[Symmetry]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

So what? If you're not willing to even respond to the idea that there might be comparisons, and you're just going to edit your way to a justifiable argument, what can I do?

I'm sure there are comparisons. Go ahead and make them!

Lazy stuff, Scotty, if you're just gonna say that it costs something, I think it's fair for me to ask what you're comparing it against. I have no idea what you're comparing the costs against- you and NS seem kind of averse to employing any kind of comparison.

[Lootifer]

How does our freedom lead to poorer healthcare, especially those who are poor?

Laissez-faire is user pays; i was simply extrapolating the point to where the poor cant pay, therefore they arent users.

[Lootifer]

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

Just a cheeky aside snipe:

Pretty sure everyone from the most successful private firms to the most corrupt and dishonest dictatorships have had budget blowouts in that order of magnitude.

[Phatscotty]

It's not like Strike's graph is news. Government programs always cost more than they say it will (which is a great reason to stop trusting their estimates and promises???)

That something costs money is a puerile point if....

The point is not that something costs money.

The point is the cost in money is often 10 times what it was supposed to be.....exactly like the post you responded to says

So what? If you're not willing to even respond to the idea that there might be comparisons, and you're just going to edit your way to a justifiable argument, what can I do?

I'm sure there are comparisons. Go ahead and make them!

Lazy stuff, Scotty, if you're just gonna say that it costs something, I think it's fair for me to ask what you're comparing it against. I have no idea what you're comparing the costs against- you and NS seem kind of averse to employing any kind of comparison.

I'm not comparing anything. I made a statement about how much something cost. If you want to compare something, nobody is stopping ya pal. Whatever costs you want to talk about, go ahead and talk about them! But just for shitz n giggz, let try this argument out in a social setting.

Phatty n Symm go the bar and split a pitcher of beer:

Symm: "We are splitting the beer right Phatty?"
Phatty: "Of course! It costs 8 dollar so....."
Symm: "Compared to what?"
Phatty: Compared to nothing....the beer costs 8$, so that's 4 from me and 4 from you, plus tip!"
Symm: "Yeah, but what is the 8$ compared to?"
Phatty: "Um......a BJ from a slag???"

[john9blue]

you didn't make a "point", you merely stated your opinion, which i disproved with a counterexample. you then proceeded to tell me that i was illiterate.

I did, in fact, make exactly the point I stated I made. That you're not seeing it isn't a sign of your tremendous reading comprehension skills, certainly. That probably happened because you weren't answering that question.

ok woody, i'll play

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

there is no difference. however, my point is that if someone violates one of your rights (for example, they violate your right to own property by stealing from you) then they have NOT taken that right away from you. if they had taken that right away from you, then you would no longer have the right to own property, and everyone else could start stealing from you without penalty.

you understand? read it closely so you understand what i was trying to say. don't force me to make another Valid Comparison.

[Woodruff]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

there is no difference. however, my point is that if someone violates one of your rights (for example, they violate your right to own property by stealing from you) then they have NOT taken that right away from you. if they had taken that right away from you, then you would no longer have the right to own property, and everyone else could start stealing from you without penalty.
you understand? read it closely so you understand what i was trying to say. don't force me to make another Valid Comparison.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but I maintain that there is no relevant, real difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you. I'm quite certain that the persecuted Jews under Hitler did not feel particularly great that they had the right to "basic human rights" when they didn't have access to exercising those rights.

[john9blue]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

there is no difference. however, my point is that if someone violates one of your rights (for example, they violate your right to own property by stealing from you) then they have NOT taken that right away from you. if they had taken that right away from you, then you would no longer have the right to own property, and everyone else could start stealing from you without penalty.
you understand? read it closely so you understand what i was trying to say. don't force me to make another Valid Comparison.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but I maintain that there is no relevant, real difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you. I'm quite certain that the persecuted Jews under Hitler did not feel particularly great that they had the right to "basic human rights" when they didn't have access to exercising those rights.

rights are an idealistic concept. just because reality decides that everyone can't always have all their rights all the time doesn't mean that the people who trample on them (such as the government) are now the arbiters of what is a "right".

[Woodruff]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

there is no difference. however, my point is that if someone violates one of your rights (for example, they violate your right to own property by stealing from you) then they have NOT taken that right away from you. if they had taken that right away from you, then you would no longer have the right to own property, and everyone else could start stealing from you without penalty.
you understand? read it closely so you understand what i was trying to say. don't force me to make another Valid Comparison.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but I maintain that there is no relevant, real difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you. I'm quite certain that the persecuted Jews under Hitler did not feel particularly great that they had the right to "basic human rights" when they didn't have access to exercising those rights.

rights are an idealistic concept. just because reality decides that everyone can't always have all their rights all the time doesn't mean that the people who trample on them (such as the government) are now the arbiters of what is a "right".

I am an extremely idealistic individual. But the fact of the matter is that those who trample on rights ARE the arbiter of what is a "right", if they have the power to keep the hold on it. A right that you cannot exercise is not a right that you have.

Anyway, as Night Strike said, back on topic...

[BigBallinStalin]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

there is no difference. however, my point is that if someone violates one of your rights (for example, they violate your right to own property by stealing from you) then they have NOT taken that right away from you. if they had taken that right away from you, then you would no longer have the right to own property, and everyone else could start stealing from you without penalty.
you understand? read it closely so you understand what i was trying to say. don't force me to make another Valid Comparison.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but I maintain that there is no relevant, real difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you. I'm quite certain that the persecuted Jews under Hitler did not feel particularly great that they had the right to "basic human rights" when they didn't have access to exercising those rights.

rights are an idealistic concept. just because reality decides that everyone can't always have all their rights all the time doesn't mean that the people who trample on them (such as the government) are now the arbiters of what is a "right".

Uh, guys, rights can either be infringed upon or protected/upheld. That's pretty much it. They can't be "removed."

Just sayin'.

[PLAYER57832]

Uh, guys, rights can either be infringed upon or protected/upheld. That's pretty much it. They can't be "removed."

Just sayin'.

Its a moot point, particularly in the context of Nightstrike's argument that rights are things we get without depending on other people. If we don't have a system to uphold our rights, they plain just don't exist for us, whether an esoteric ideal says they do or not.

To claim that rights exist apart from the government's willingness and ability to uphold them is most particularly disengenuous. In a country, such as ours, where the government is literally formed by and of the people not some God-designated monarchy, this is particularly true.

America will never be attacked or conquered without its permission, but apathy will conquer the most powerful nation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Uh, guys, rights can either be infringed upon or protected/upheld. That's pretty much it. They can't be "removed."

Just sayin'.

Its a moot point, particularly in the context of Nightstrike's argument that rights are things we get without depending on other people. If we don't have a system to uphold our rights, they plain just don't exist for us, whether an esoteric ideal says they do or not.

My position isn't relevant to NS's. Rights aren't something that one can grab or take away. They can be either upheld or infringed upon; therefore, the infringement and enforcement of one's rights depends on other people, so in that since NS is wrong.

However, "if we don't have a system to uphold our rights, they plain just don't exist for us" is incorrect because rights are an idea, and ideas exist independently of the infringement or enforcement of rights. I would agree if you had said, "if we don't have a system to uphold our rights, then we would fail to enjoy the benefits granted to us by such rights." That doesn't mean that the rights somehow don't exist because a government, or system, fails to uphold them.

To claim that rights exist apart from the government's willingness and ability to uphold them is most particularly disengenuous. In a country, such as ours, where the government is literally formed by and of the people not some God-designated monarchy, this is particularly true.

Rights are an idea, which can be codified in a contract (e.g. a constitution). Even if they aren't codified, we can still talk about rights because they do exist apart from the government's willingness to uphold them. That's the nature of an idea. That's not disingenuous; that's just a fact.

America will never be attacked or conquered without its permission, but apathy will conquer the most powerful nation.

I agree on the underlined--especially if people think that rights exist due to the arbitrary decrees of government because they're bound to be apathetic toward the actions of the government (and its biased SC judges).

[PLAYER57832]

double post.. deleted one