|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 24 2012 06:01 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:55 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The national debt is around $15 trillion. I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Unfunded liabilities are defined as "transfer payments" and so aren't counted in the national debt figures. Current unfunded liabilities exceeds $100 trillion. Which is why Americans are making a big deal about trying to cut entitlement spending, it will be necessary eventually.
If I had to guess I would say unfunded liabilities aren't counted as national debt because there is a potential they won't be funded. I know for a fact that by the time I retire (28 currently) there will be no social security. Back at the start of 2011 my coworkers and I all laughed when we got a letter from the government about the social security tax break not effecting our future benefits, we all know there are no future benefits to social security.
|
Considering how broadly the Elastic Clause, General Welfare Clause, and Commerce Clause have been construed, I can see a clear justification for the mandate. Americans have few responsibilities to the government: pay taxes, serve as a juror. You can justify the mandate under the former, though it is admittedly rather selective. Still passes rational basis review though so...
If it does get struck down, I foresee something akin to the drunk driving law- USG telling the states to mandate health insurance or to lose funding- passing in the next Democratic-controlled Congress.
|
On March 24 2012 09:18 ozzy1346 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:34 meatbox wrote:America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed. Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy.  wow, please never share this ridiculously retarded opinion again. i think i just had a brain aneurysm knowing people are this fucking stupid.
If only I were a mod, surely language like this should not be tolerated on TL..
Also, the point he makes is not unreasonable. Obviously the funding for the army cannot be cut that much, but withdrawing and cutting in army costs appears not all that crazy.
The taxes are perhaps not what you are used to in the US, but here in the Netherlands the rates actually are almost like meatbox smartly suggests. Seems to work quite fine here 
|
|
|
On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion.
Obamacare estimate off by 8%
Wow, that didn't take long to call bullshit on.
|
On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion.
O wow, we can already stop one assertion in to your list. The cost went up because they analyzed 2012-2022, which includes more years with the law being in place, not 2010-2020 (2019? that would make it a 10 vs 11 year comparison) like they did before. 2010-2020\19 included more years of major parts of the bill unimplemented.
This talking point also completely ignores the revenue side; Obamacare doesn't cost anything over the 2012-2022 period because it has spending cuts and tax increases that the CBO found to offset the $1.76 trillion in outlays. Nothing has changed about that.
"Hey look, if I compare two different ten year periods and ignore the revenue and only include the spending, I can declare Obamacare costs a lot more than before!"
|
On March 24 2012 09:34 revy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:01 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 05:55 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The national debt is around $15 trillion. I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Unfunded liabilities are defined as "transfer payments" and so aren't counted in the national debt figures. Current unfunded liabilities exceeds $100 trillion. Which is why Americans are making a big deal about trying to cut entitlement spending, it will be necessary eventually. If I had to guess I would say unfunded liabilities aren't counted as national debt because there is a potential they won't be funded. I know for a fact that by the time I retire (28 currently) there will be no social security. Back at the start of 2011 my coworkers and I all laughed when we got a letter from the government about the social security tax break not effecting our future benefits, we all know there are no future benefits to social security.
Well, I doubt they will eliminate ALL benefits, but by the time you retire you are right that the benefits will be significantly cut, and you will have paid far more into the program than you can hope to receive.
It's good that you recognize this fact, because many people begin to expect the government to provide certain benefits, they begin to rely on them. Just take a look at Greece, the people are furious because they were promised something their whole lives, they PLANNED on it, and then it was taken away. There's real wisdom in the phrase "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst."
|
On March 23 2012 23:54 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 23:48 PassiveAce wrote:
"Obamacare" is a mediocre compromise imo. I dont like the idea of the government forcing us to buy health insurance from a private company, if we all have to buy it then shouldn't the government run it so we have control over it instead of a private company?
Universal healthcare is the way to go. No, everything the government does is terrible when compared (and even by itself) to anything a private company can do.
Like getting the first man on the moon?
|
On March 24 2012 10:05 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 23:54 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 23:48 PassiveAce wrote:
"Obamacare" is a mediocre compromise imo. I dont like the idea of the government forcing us to buy health insurance from a private company, if we all have to buy it then shouldn't the government run it so we have control over it instead of a private company?
Universal healthcare is the way to go. No, everything the government does is terrible when compared (and even by itself) to anything a private company can do. Like getting the first man on the moon?
Even Republicans have to admit that was pretty baller.
|
On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US
The CBO estimated that one million workers would no longer get insurance coverage from their employers when the healthcare law was fully implemented. That estimate has now been revised as well. By 2016, the CBO now projects that 4 million fewer people will be getting their healthcare covered by their employer.
Furthermore, the overall number of currently uninsured people who would be covered by the new law has been reduced from 32 million to 30 million.
And, in an ironic twist, because the law provides many people with partial, rather than comprehensive coverage, the number of non-elderly legal residents forced to obtain supplemental insurance policies will rise from 82 percent in 2012, to 93 percent in 2022.
The CBO also projected an increase of $168 billion in Medicaid compared to its projection a year ago, coupled with $97 billion less spent on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges, and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. This represents an overall increase of $51 billion over last year’s CBO estimates.
A survey taken last year by Towers Watson revealed that nearly ten percent of mid-sized or large employers expect to drop employee health coverage when the ACA is fully operational in 2014. And that was the optimistic survey. One taken by McKinsey & Company estimates that “[O]verall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014″ and that among employers far more familiar with the ACA, “this proportion increases to more than 50 percent.”
The ACA perversely exploits such incentive by making it cheaper for employers to pay fines than keep their workers on company healthcare plans. It also forces insurance companies to accept high-risk patients even as it forbids them to charge higher rates to those people for assuming that greater risk.
I could go on all day with these facts and statistics. Now please, tell me, how "the benefit to Americans is immense."
|
On March 24 2012 10:08 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:00 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion. Obamacare estimate off by 8%Wow, that didn't take long to call bullshit on. lol did you even read this link?
lol I did.
You're citing two different figures from covering two different time spans.
The article compares the actual gross cost across the 9 years included in both reports.
So, when we compare the years encompassed in both reports (2012 through 2019), here’s how that apples-to-apples comparison shakes out.
In the CBO’s first estimate, the gross figure is $931 billion.
In the new estimate, the figure is $1.01 trillion.
herp derp a derp? or do you need it in braille and sign language?
User was warned for this post
User was warned for this post
|
On March 24 2012 10:06 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:05 Voltaire wrote:On March 23 2012 23:54 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 23:48 PassiveAce wrote:
"Obamacare" is a mediocre compromise imo. I dont like the idea of the government forcing us to buy health insurance from a private company, if we all have to buy it then shouldn't the government run it so we have control over it instead of a private company?
Universal healthcare is the way to go. No, everything the government does is terrible when compared (and even by itself) to anything a private company can do. Like getting the first man on the moon? Even Republicans have to admit that was pretty baller.
+ Show Spoiler +He didnt get there in a government made ship.
|
On March 24 2012 10:18 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:08 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 10:00 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion. Obamacare estimate off by 8%Wow, that didn't take long to call bullshit on. lol did you even read this link? lol I did. You're citing two different figures from covering two different time spans. The article compares the actual gross cost across the 9 years included in both reports. Show nested quote +So, when we compare the years encompassed in both reports (2012 through 2019), here’s how that apples-to-apples comparison shakes out.
In the CBO’s first estimate, the gross figure is $931 billion.
In the new estimate, the figure is $1.01 trillion.
herp derp a derp? or should do you need it in braille and sign language?
The post you linked was arguing against someone claiming the cost doubled. Which means it was a straw man. If you are arguing that the cost increased by a different amount, whatever, so long as we agree that the cost increased.
By the way, I reported you for the "herp a derp" stupidity.
|
By the way, I reported you for the "herp a derp" stupidity.
Is there an eye-rolling smiley somewhere ... ?
|
On March 24 2012 10:02 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 09:34 revy wrote:On March 24 2012 06:01 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 05:55 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The national debt is around $15 trillion. I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Unfunded liabilities are defined as "transfer payments" and so aren't counted in the national debt figures. Current unfunded liabilities exceeds $100 trillion. Which is why Americans are making a big deal about trying to cut entitlement spending, it will be necessary eventually. If I had to guess I would say unfunded liabilities aren't counted as national debt because there is a potential they won't be funded. I know for a fact that by the time I retire (28 currently) there will be no social security. Back at the start of 2011 my coworkers and I all laughed when we got a letter from the government about the social security tax break not effecting our future benefits, we all know there are no future benefits to social security. Well, I doubt they will eliminate ALL benefits, but by the time you retire you are right that the benefits will be significantly cut, and you will have paid far more into the program than you can hope to receive. It's good that you recognize this fact, because many people begin to expect the government to provide certain benefits, they begin to rely on them. Just take a look at Greece, the people are furious because they were promised something their whole lives, they PLANNED on it, and then it was taken away. There's real wisdom in the phrase "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst."
Actually, SS is something we probably shouldn't worry about too much. There are still a LOT of options we have to close the gap, like increasing the minimum age to collect, increasing the wages which can be taxed, and increasing the amount taxed. As long as it is dealt with before the "final hour," retirees will be able to plan for such events and SS will be saved.
As for the cost of "Obamacare," much of that is being offset by increased revenue also included in the law. Not all of it, iirc, but simply stating the costs does nothing to bring in the whole picture.
|
On March 24 2012 10:20 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:18 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 10:08 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 10:00 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion. Obamacare estimate off by 8%Wow, that didn't take long to call bullshit on. lol did you even read this link? lol I did. You're citing two different figures from covering two different time spans. The article compares the actual gross cost across the 9 years included in both reports. So, when we compare the years encompassed in both reports (2012 through 2019), here’s how that apples-to-apples comparison shakes out.
In the CBO’s first estimate, the gross figure is $931 billion.
In the new estimate, the figure is $1.01 trillion.
herp derp a derp? or should do you need it in braille and sign language? The post you linked was arguing against someone claiming the cost doubled. Which means it was a straw man. If you are arguing that the cost increased by a different amount, whatever, so long as we agree that the cost increased. By the way, I reported you for the "herp a derp" stupidity.
His citation refutes the the previous disingenuous figures given in this string of quotes of:
"When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion."
He did not propose a straw man, that's what he was refuting.
|
On March 24 2012 10:42 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:20 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 10:18 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 10:08 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 10:00 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 09:45 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else. The high cost of medical procedures in the US When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion. Obamacare estimate off by 8%Wow, that didn't take long to call bullshit on. lol did you even read this link? lol I did. You're citing two different figures from covering two different time spans. The article compares the actual gross cost across the 9 years included in both reports. So, when we compare the years encompassed in both reports (2012 through 2019), here’s how that apples-to-apples comparison shakes out.
In the CBO’s first estimate, the gross figure is $931 billion.
In the new estimate, the figure is $1.01 trillion.
herp derp a derp? or should do you need it in braille and sign language? The post you linked was arguing against someone claiming the cost doubled. Which means it was a straw man. If you are arguing that the cost increased by a different amount, whatever, so long as we agree that the cost increased. By the way, I reported you for the "herp a derp" stupidity. His citation refutes the the previous disingenuous figures given in this string of quotes of: "When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion." He did not propose a straw man, that's what he was refuting.
Ok, so a source I was quoting got that number incorrect. I deleted it from my original post. I guess if there were refutations to all the other stats I posted they wouldn't have been ignored, since I received 4 posts regarding that one line and none regarding the rest.
|
I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
|
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote:
I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
|
On March 24 2012 11:42 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote:
I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read. I think you are confused about what socialism actually means... Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy. Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism?
I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!"
Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
