“Beatriz09 - I appreciate that you took the time to write a thoughtful post. And I agree with a lot of it, however it simply isn't true as you indicate in your first 'fact' that federal HC spending will be cut. There will be a lot more federal spending on health care post law than before. Much of that is as a result of more people being covered, which may be a really good thing. But let's not confuse this: to get that, it will certainly cost more.”
Hoangminh Thomas Nguyen on Nov 26, 2013 at 22:46:27
“There will be a lot more federal spending on health INSURANCE not health care COST. ACA provides subsidies for insurance premiums, not the medical procedure cost per se.”
Bataan on Nov 26, 2013 at 13:28:20
“Actually the costs will go down because the government will no longer give money to hospitals to cover the costs of "freeloaders" who don't have insurance but are treated anyway. This is why in the end, the Red States will adopt Obamacare or their hospitals will fold.”
“Sorry, RN, they are not earned benefits in the way you are purporting that they are. The average person pays into Medicare only 1/3rd of the benefits they will get, even factoring interest earned over time (future value of all contributions).
The programs are 'earned' in that in order to qualify, you must have earned an income for a certain period of time. But that has nothing to do with how much you contribute to the program or what you'll get.”
“Here is the thing, Josh: in the past few years, new revenue has been given up. Both the expiring tax cut deal that was reached and certainly the ACA put trillions of new dollars into the coffers.
It's always the same with tax and spenders, EVERY deal must include new dollars. We never get an actual cut in spending.”
Josh Crawford on Nov 26, 2013 at 13:35:51
“Stop being ignorant, PLEASE.
The ACA taxes pay for the ACA, they are NOT meant to reduce deficits and debt (beyond the $109 B that the ACA is projected to reduce deficits over the first ten years).
Second, the ONLY new revenue we've put in place for deficit reduction is the $600 B over ten years from the "fiscal cliff" deal of last Jan. And BEFORE that deal (which Republicans were forced to take), we had ALREADY put over $2.5 TRILLION in spendjng cuts/caps toward deficit reduction. So the President and Dems had ALREADY agreed to more than $2.5 T in cuts/caps with ZERO offsetting new revenues. That makes your claim that "EVERY deal must include new dollars" an absolute, bald faced lie. Please stop.
Bottom line: we have OVER $2.5 TRILLION in spending cuts/caps toward deficit reduction and just $600 B in new revenues toward that end. That's MORE than $4 in cuts/caps for every $1 in new revenue!!!!!
It's ALWAYS the same with you supply siders: NO NEW TAXES EVER. Under ANY circumstances. It's BEYOND ridiculous. It's flat out stupid. Your pledge to Grover is more important than doing what's right for America.”
“I agree that a pretty solid case can be made for a Medicare for All / National Single Payer plan. There would be drawbacks, too, of course, but the benefits would be substantial.
But let's stop saying that the ACA is going to stop "tens of thousands of Americans" from dying "for lack of health care". There is zero evidence of that being the case.
There are plenty of goof things to say about the ACA and plenty of drawbacks. One only needs to say that the pros outweigh the cons for them; that's enough. Let's stop with the tides rolling back and the air becoming clear nonsense, please.”
grandmablue on Sep 22, 2013 at 08:28:13
“There are 45,000 people who die in this country every year because they can't afford health care. When at least some of those people get insurance through the ACA or expanded Medicaid, then it's likely those people won't die unnecessary deaths from treatable or preventable conditions.”
“Have anything approaching a credible source for that?
Besides, the ACA doesn't provide health care. It provides access to health insurance. There is a significant difference.”
starchildjg24 on Sep 21, 2013 at 21:28:16
“Oh yes it does! It expands medicaid, which is free health care for millions of people below the poverty line, except in most red states of course. It also provides hefty subsidies for those making up to $50,000 a year (that figure may not be right, but it is close and I have a date)”
grandmablue on Sep 21, 2013 at 21:03:27
“So? Without health insurance in this country, you can't afford health care.
Medicare for All would have been better - it would have cut the useless insurance companies out of the mix. But the ACA is what we got, and it's far better than allowing tens of thousands of Americans to die for lack of health care. In addition to those who die, there are hundreds of thousands who see a chronic condition turn into a lifelong disability because they can't afford health care.”
“I never said there was going to be a government plan. Please don't put words in my mouth that I've never said or written. And it isn't preventative and early treatments that account for the difference in per capita health spending in the US compared with other nations. The largest component of the difference is that we don't negotiate (or price set, if you prefer) as aggressively as other nations for lower reimbursement rates.”
“I didn't say it aggregates all plans. There will still be an individual and small group market outside the exchanges for at least 2013. Beyond that the tax credits only apply for the plans in the exchanges, so those outside plans will largely disappear by design.
The premium support (the subsidy) is a key piece of the law. I suggest you look again if you don't know about it.
And the employer mandate limit is 50 full time equivalent employees (so 100 part time people may still not trigger the mandate).
What do I oppose? That the bill was sold to us as 'bending the curve'. It does no such thing. ”
“By that logic, the bill should not have required any new taxes. If we are going to be saving so much, why is there new revenue needed? Why does the most recent CBO report project that the actual cost (in new dollars) had flipped to be deficit negative by $1.3 trillion? See http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176 for the info.”
“Hi there momoftwogos - I'm a real person. Not paid to be here. How about you? And while I understand the internet makes it easy to toss around insults, how about we treat each other with some respect?”
“In short, the law creates exchanges which will aggregate individual and small business insurance plans. Consumers will be provided an income dependent subsidy to buy a plan, which they must do or face a penalty. Employers will also face a penalty unless they are small enough if they don't offer a plan. There are also several conditions put on the design of the plans (being able to stay on your parents till 26, a limit to the age risk premium, disallowing not writing a policy for a prior condition, disallowing cancelling a policy for an unrelated application error, etc).
There are also some experiments looking for ways to reduce costs. And of course there are a number of related and unrelated tax increases in the law. There is of course much more to it, but this is the basic framework.”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 14:37:56
“Again, you are misinformed. There will always be "Cadillac Plans" and concierge medicine. There is NO insurance plan by the government. Providing preventative and early treatment most definitely will "bend the curve" of medical costs - it has been proven in every other industrialized nation in the world that has better and cheaper healthcare than we do.”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 14:14:54
“It will not aggregate all individual and small business plans and no consumer will be provided a subsidy to buy a plan by the government! That is absurd! Yes, employers must provide healthcare insurance to their employees is they employ more than a certain number of people (15, I think, but I could be wrong on that). And yes, there is absolute regulation of the insurance industry - as there should have been years ago.
In short, from 2014-2023 the deficit will not increase by 1.3 Trillion as a result of the ACA.
Again, that may be a price worth paying for the benefits of the law, but let's not pretend we are going to save money by spending trillions.”
Wong23 on Sep 21, 2013 at 15:02:18
“Congressional budget analysts said Wednesday that repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit by scrapping the law's taxes, fees and spending cuts.
The notice from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came ahead of Thursday's House vote on full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
The CBO refused to provide a new cost estimate for repeal, saying there is too little time before the vote. But Director Doug Elmendorf pointed to an estimate from July 2012 that abolishing healthcare reform would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 year
“mmsuki - it does increase health spending. If it didn't, there wouldn't have been any need for new taxes in the bill. You really shouldn't be throwing around phrases like "The CBO has shown this" in such a patently absurd manner.
Be advised that costing more does not mean it does not have value. But let's not pretend that it isn't going to increase health care spending.”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 14:20:46
“Of course the bill required income to implement it - the expansion of Medicaid needs "start up" money. There is no other way. Again, there is no way that preventative care and early treatment will not decrease healthcare cost. It simply is not possible.”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:59:33
“Again, you are wrong. The increased spending is for the expansion of Medicaid - which will give more people access to preventative and early treatment and keep them out of Emergency Rooms when their condition has worsened (and become more expensive). The more people who have access to healthcare, the less we will need to spend.”
“I'd be pleased to put my understanding of the issue and law against yours, Patrick.”
momoftwodogs on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:53:31
“Then teabag, instead of wasting words, go ahead and answer the question, but we all know that your ONLY knowledge of it, is what Fox tells you it is. Ih look another new paid bagger poster. There seems to be a lot of you the last two days. Now why might that be,hmmm???”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:49:35
“Go ahead - please - tell me what is in the ACA and why you are against it. I'll wait...”
“Sure - it increases health care spending when we ought to be looking to decrease spending. We pay per capita and in total more than any other nation. This bill increases total spending so it is going in the wrong direction. Your turn.”
momoftwodogs on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:58:20
“As I suspected and as the poster said, YOU have NO idea, and are just spouting Fox BS. Do YOU have any clue how our old system was bankrupting this country, with terrible returns in quality of health care? Do YOU realize that in the old system we were paying TEN TIMES more per capita, than any other country? Do YOU realize that our infant mortality rates are atrocious, and our life expectancy is far below countries with universal health care? YOU KNOW NOTHING BUT THE SAME OLD FOX BS THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD OBAMACARE!”
prudencehall on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:56:46
“The ACA does NOT increase healthcare spending - it decreases it. This has been proven by the CBO. We pay more per capita because we are adding in the cost of medical care for the uninsured. Hospitals, mostly nonprofit, have to change you more because they have to treat uninsured people who cannot pay - hence the four dollar aspirin, the eleven hundred dollar MRI. Further, preventative medicine and early treatment saves money - a handful of antibiotics in the doctors office is far, far cheaper than a hospital sat and possibly surgery when they show up in the ER.
The ONLY way to decrease cost is to have fewer "freeloaders" on the system.
You have proved my point - you do not know the facts about either or healthcare system in the USA nor what is in Obamacare and the benefit to our per capita cost. But you are against it.”
Irantergosum on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:55:11
“Nice try but we all know Republican-Teapartheid policy isn't dictated by facts. Your spokesman even said that during the 2012 presidential campaign.
Your Speaker John Boehner is the one who specifically requested from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) what the financial impact would be if the ACA was repealed. The answer he got was not what he expected. The CBO pointed out that repeal would cost the taxpayers $109 billion more at the end of 10 years than if it remained the current law.
But, I understand your plan and the George W. Bush health plan when he said Americans have health care because people can go to the emergency room where the cost for care and treatment is three times higher than if they had insurance coverage.
And you wonder why our per capita spending is so high?”
Wong23 on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:46:40
“BS. The CBO estimates that O'care will cut health care costs AND decrease the national debt”
mmsuki on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:45:23
“It does NOT increase health care spending.
The CBO has shown this.
People will be able to choose their health plans on the open market.”
PatrickOregon on Sep 21, 2013 at 13:44:04
“Right...except for the fact that this actually seems to be decreasing costs. By all means, if you're in favor of spending more for healthcare than any other nation while ranking somewhere in the 30s for overall quality, support these idiot baggers and try to defund this (which you can't, since it's not discretionary spending...).”
“Nothing is denied to anyone. It may not be given away, but it is not denied.
Members of Congress can choose between several insurance policy option offered by the FEHBP (federal health plan). It's the same thing offered to every federal employee across the USA.
Sen. Reid pays a portion of the premium, and the federal government pays the rest, as his employer.
You could call up any one of the companies offering plans in the FEHBP and buy the same thing. NO ONE is denied anything.”
Vetinari on Mar 11, 2010 at 22:38:51
“the congress health coverage is denied to ordinary Americans”
Aaror on Mar 11, 2010 at 22:35:12
“can you get it for the same price?”
mainemomma on Mar 11, 2010 at 22:20:44
“But you don't get the federal pool rate. What the heck are you talking about?”
Sis3563 on Mar 11, 2010 at 22:12:04
“Um, actually, let me correct you, Odatruf. My family coverage was denied, due to a minor imperfection during the creation of my daughter. Seems the Almighty forgot to give her a left hip socket and BC/BS didn't seem to want to correct his error and they dropped us like a hot potato.
Other companies have agreed to provide us with coverage, though we must exclude this pre-existing condition. We might have to kiss our southern roots goodbye and head to Massachusetts. I'm scared. I hear there's lots of liberals up there!”
CapVert05 on Mar 11, 2010 at 21:50:54
“Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. An individua, not affiliated with a group or the federal government,l with a pre-existing condition, or with a family member with a pre-existing condition, would not be accepted by any one of the plans offered under the FEHBP. And even if they were to be accepted, and I submit that pigs will likely fly first, the cost would be astronomical - - - out-of-reach to the vast majority of non-insured. Please check your facts. You are horribly misinformed.”
“For all the hand wringing and venom over the supposed GOP misdirection and dishonestly, the level of misinformation, advocacy parading as informed opinion and wishing that saying something made it true on this site ought to give everyone pause. It is at least equal to the level from the other side.
It certainly raises considerable doubt as to whether anyone understands what is really being proposed, what the current bill's effect would be and the legitimate pros and cons of each side.”
Calypso 8 on Mar 11, 2010 at 21:33:36
“The bills are a mess and everybody knows it. They were supposed to be reconciled but Scott Brown's election derailed that process. So now we have these slop bills that they are trying to smooth out and make into law.”
kasinca on Mar 11, 2010 at 21:33:13
“One thing is certain. Bushcare and the status quo is not sustainable. Change is necessary.”
“MuchMadness, you may not accept that the Senate has the authority, but that doesn't make you correct. The Constitution is clear that each body can set their own rules of operation. And the years and years of precedent create the inertia of the practice that is simply not open for debate.
You may think it is a bad idea and wish the next Senate would adopt different rules, which they could do, but that is not the same thing as saying the rules in place today are invalid.”
MuchMadness on Mar 11, 2010 at 21:37:06
“So the senate could set a rule that says that female senators' votes count twice as much as male senators' votes on procedural matters? Perhaps as a way of using procedural rules to protect the right to abortion? And the senate could declare that a future senate could change the rule only if it had 67 votes to do so? Do you really believe that a senate has unlimited authority to set any kind of procedural rule, no matter how contrary to good sense, as long as the rule deals only with so-called procedural matters?
What about fairness? Justice? Are there no limits?”