The Current State Of ObamaCare - ACA

I'm starting a petition that all libs are required to take math and economics by the time they quit school in the 10th grade.

I don't know if you are directing this to me or not but if you are I will be happy to post a picture of my University Diploma if you post yours. As for the "lib" comment nope not a lib. By your tone I can tell you would have been in the "NO" column on the following vote.

"It turns out that a significant number of Republicans did vote in favor of the Medicare bill when Congress took it up in 1965.

The House adopted a conference report -- a unified House-Senate version of the bill -- on July 27, 1965, and passed it by a 307-116 margin. That included 70 Republican "yes" votes, against 68 "no" votes.

Then, on July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor and 17 against. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it two days later.

So in the House, a slight majority of the Republican caucus voted for Medicare, and in the Senate, a significant minority voted in favor. Both of these strike us as more than "virtually no Republican support."

It’s true that the Medicare bill was unpopular in certain segments of the Republican Party. In 1961, Ronald Reagan, the future president, famously released an LP with a speech in which he demonized "socialized medicine," citing proposals that sound a lot like the one passed four years later.

"Write those letters now; call your friends and then tell them to write them," Reagan said. "If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. ... And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Other high-profile Republicans who opposed Medicare included Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater -- the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in 1964 -- and future president George H.W. Bush.

And as the Medicare bill progressed through the House, Republican support was scant. No Republicans voted for the bill until it reached the floor. It passed the Ways and Means Committee by a party-line vote of 17-8. And all four Republicans on the House Rules Committee — the panel that sets the boundaries of debate on all bills that come to the House floor — voted against the bill.

As the bill worked its way through the Senate, Republican support was somewhat stronger. In the final Finance Committee vote, the measure passed 12-5, with four of the committee's eight Republicans supporting it."
 
The government involvement into the American Healthcare system back in 1965 has created part of the problem we now face with cost/access issues.ie: cost shifting from the public sector to the private, etc..

There are many problems with Obamacare as we all know, but one of the biggest is that the way in which this bill was passed did not garner one single opposition party vote, period. If the bill had been properly debated, thought through and read it would not have passed, despite the Democrat majority. It only passed by three votes with a democratic majority.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Just wow. Did you read any of what you posted? All of it...every single bit is unsubstantiated projections. None of it can be substantiated...you know why? IT'S ONLY APRIL!!! The real effects will not be seen for at least a year. There is nothing indicating any commitments from insurers for 2015. You know why? IT'S ONLY APRIL!! Do you honestly think insurers are going to make any decisions this early? There is no data to go on. It's riskier now than it was in September last year to make a decision.

Then, regarding your claim that the ACA reduces the deficit by $268BB...you don't even have to read the crap article...just look at the graph. The lines are still going up (meaning the ACA is still increasing the deficit), just slower than orignially projected...maybe because the less than liberal states chose not to expand Medicaid? Ironic that something you are celebrating is caused not by the ACA, but because of the conservative states that aren't participating in one of the ACA's provisions. :twitchy:

----------

Attention Forum Macro-Economists,

Here is some good news.

Tax Revenues Hit Record for First Half of FY 2014 | CNS News
Really? This is good news? Did you read the first sentence?

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,320,793,000,000 in the first half of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $413,264,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for March.
And some more good news..

CYMI: CBO PROJECTS LOWER-THAN-EXPECTED PREMIUMS — While there have been some predictions of double-digit premium increases next year under Obamacare, the CBO said yesterday they’re expected to rise less than 3 percent. The agency also lowered its estimate of the law’s overall 10-year cost by $104 billion and said coverage through the law will cost the federal government about $5 billion less than expected this year. ICYMI, the Pro story: http://politico.pro/1er1A8y
Care to provide a link that doesn't require a membership? You know, like the actual report instead of an article?
 
Here is snippit from another discussion from someone in favor of the ACA,

You seem to be forgetting that employment health plans have been subsidized by taxpayers for decades. The ACA is only a partial attempt to even the score for individual insurance. The employment health deduction is the largest government subsidy of all, even bigger than the mortgage deduction, and amounts to about $250 billion per year out of taxpayer pockets. The typical tax subsidy for an employment family plan is about $4000 per year. Compare that $250 billion subsidy to the $40 billion cost of the ACA this year.

You mention the income qualifier for ACA plans, but at least it is progressively means tested. On the other hand, the employment health care subsidy is actually reverse means tested. The higher an individual's income and marginal tax rate, the higher the subsidy. That is quite perverse compared to ACA means testing.
 
The United States Government does not give us anything. The USA government is entitled to as little amount of taxes as possible. To give employers and employees a break on taxes proportionate to the cost of health insurance is hardly the same as the government taking money from one group and giving it to another in the form of a subsidy to pay for expensive health insurance.

Why not just let everyone buy health insurance with after tax money ?? I guess one can call the tax incentive to have employer sponsored health insurance an inequity in the same way as the rich need to pay their fare share despite the fact that the top 30% of wage earners in this country pays 90% of the federal income taxes.

Once this whole thing blows up you guys will blame the republicans and George Bush.

The liberal mind can not be reasoned with...:no:
 
The United States Government does not give us anything. The USA government is entitled to as little amount of taxes as possible. To give employers and employees a break on taxes proportionate to the cost of health insurance is hardly the same as the government taking money from one group and giving it to another in the form of a subsidy to pay for expensive health insurance.

Why not just let everyone buy health insurance with after tax money ?? I guess one can call the tax incentive to have employer sponsored health insurance an inequity in the same way as the rich need to pay their fare share despite the fact that the top 30% of wage earners in this country pays 90% of the federal income taxes.

Once this whole thing blows up you guys will blame the republicans and George Bush.

The liberal mind can not be reasoned with...:no:

Ok Todd, Lets dance!

Lets go full scale Libertarian. No more Medicare or Medicaid no more tax breaks for anyone no more farm subsidies no more oil subsidies. Lets go bare bones federal spending to just military and minimal at that. I'm game, make it happen. Until then stfu about the Denny's waitress and her subsidy.
 
I am all for helping someone that actually needs the help, but 45,960 for an individual and 94,200 for a family of four ... These people do not need our help unless the government screws up the private health insurance system to the point that rates increase around 100%, and that is exactly what Obamacare has done.

If you like this Obamacare cause you are a lefty, private enterprise hater than fine, none of us will be able to change your mind.

Make no mistake " houcoogster " the exchanges were set up with the vision that you and I would not be needed at all. Now they need us cause the government is unable to do what is best done by private enterprise.

Our form of government has it role in our society, the problem with our government is that it makes to many promises ( the Santa clause effect) to everyone in an effort to get votes.

You libs love to keep the masses down and mad at someone else for there lot in life. Why do you not encourage people to do better ? Is it because you will then have nothing to offer them if they are self sufficient ?

The government should incentivize the free enterprise system not make people jealous of the free enterprise system.

Health insurance in a free market should be cost effective to the point that the majority can afford a policy that is appropriate and suitable for there needs, all others can get medicaid.
 
Ok Todd, Lets dance!

Lets go full scale Libertarian. No more Medicare or Medicaid no more tax breaks for anyone no more farm subsidies no more oil subsidies. Lets go bare bones federal spending to just military and minimal at that. I'm game, make it happen. Until then stfu about the Denny's waitress and her subsidy.

I agree with the libertarian. Great idea.

But typical liberal statement about freedom of speech and the right to one's own beliefs.

Rick
 
Back
Top