#1
|
||||
|
||||
Obamacare
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Naw. It's all just designed to get it to the Supremes asap. The "constitutional" rulings still outnumber the "not", but it needs to go to the Supreme court.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Obamacare is supposed to save billions (medicare) yet costs billions up front?
D.O.A.! Give the seniors their money and get out of their wallets. They're owed before anyone to the tune of $3.6 TRILLION! Then we can talk of Obama/Hillary care. or maybe not! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't? it's the one thing i've always questioned. everyone who is covered knows that the price per person would be lowered if everyone buys, but how do you force it?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them. Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined. Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
lol just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage. at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right. commerce clause my tail, the constitution gives no right to force a purchase. it happens sometimes you know, that's why they have appeals, as many times lower courts get overridden. because they get it wrong. and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right. just a itty bitty tweak needed...if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak. of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road. then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln Last edited by Danzig : 08-13-2011 at 08:44 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
What is the cost of this 'healthcare' law in terms of legal fees, so far?
Once again the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill on both sides, but I suppose the cost of legally defeating this bill will be minor in the big scheme of things and the constitution will be preserved. |
#9
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Seriously? Just stop making any pretense that your opinion about the law is remotely based upon any fact or objective observation regarding it's content. Quote:
Quote:
Social Security has been a success because we've run up against financial shortfall projections many, many times before, and we do tweek and fix them. The proof is there. Our success is there. We have never missed a Social Security payment. It is one of the most successful social programs ever created. We know the population, the amount of taxes taken in, changes over time, that why it's looked at regularly. This is just another one of those times, but we're not even really there yet - we have years. Quote:
The facts remain, the "outgoing current" with zero tweeks is 100% okay until 1937, then will continue to deliver 78% of current benefits for decades after that at current projections. Quote:
This sentence makes it clear you haven't looked even superficially at the long-term Social Security financing projections, based upon adjustments now and planned adjustments in the future, because the problem is due primarily to the baby boomer bubble (and was accurately predicted about 20 years ago), and the increasing population smooths out after that. There is no "can kicked down the road". We have always made the best adjustments we have to the next 50 years or so, based upon projected populations. The fact that determining something now based upon future projections doesn't last for 100 years doesn't indicate any flaw in the system at all. It indicates responsibility and planning for the future, that we do these very projections! That's why we look at this repeatedly over the past, and have adjusted it repeatedly over the past! Quote:
And again, Social Security is strong, Medicare is not. Medicare is a problem (actually Medicaid more so), not Social Security. That's just the right's continuing battle cry to try and privatize it. Glad it wasn't privatized by Wall Street since 2008, or on Friday, where would have lost huge percentages of it's value like private 401K's and other retirement plans did. Instead, our Social Security funds have weathered that storm.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 08-13-2011 at 01:41 PM. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, they may remove that restriction in the future, if it is needed. They have to have the insurance exchanges up and running, first. Then they will revisit it if necessary. Quote:
Obama does deserve kudos because the adjustments to eliminating the duplicate waste made in Medicare ($500 billion over several years) in the Affordable Care Act does indeed stretch out Medicare solvency for another 10 years or so (it could be 7, could be 15, I admit I would have to look that up for absolute accuracy) The other good thing is that millions of older Americans have already benefited this year by noticeably decreased drug costs (thousands in a year) due to the donut hole elimination in the Affordable Care Act. It's hard to continue doing things at a "current level" (Medicare) when your income streams have dropped from the recession, but majorly dropped due to tax cuts over the past 10 years. Our income, as a country, is down by over 3 trillion in just 10 years just due to the Bush tax cuts (and yes, Obama was wrong to extend them) The government, if allowed to bargain for drug costs like the private section, could save literally billions a year for Medicare/Medicaid programs.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
the cbo report i referenced extensively was done in 09, with two separate sets of figures made, two different sets of assumptions. one problem is that they did their figuring with the tax cut expiring in '10, which of course didn't happen. so now their figures would be that much worse. and we still are currently paying less into our ss than we're supposed to-one of the supposed economic fixes they passed. problem is, the few dollars in our pockets doesn't do much, but the widening gap between income and outlays regarding the federal govt is hampering our economy far more than any temporary increases in our take home pay can fix. both parties must be willing to give a little on their favorite part of their party. there must be changes to the poorly named entitlements, and there must be tax reform, and an expiration of the bush/obama tax cuts.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, long-term vs short-term debt in a recession. The stimulus was, in retrospect, only about half of what was needed. We need to get our spending down, but our income has to go back up, too. I was massively disappointed to see every GOP presidential candidate would refuse even a 10-1 spending cuts vs tax increase offer. That's economic suicide for this country (as Standard and Poor's clearly said in their downgrade). I cannot vote for any one of them, including Perry, due to that. Quote:
Obama will give back some defense money in the "Cat Food Commission Two" for exchange of expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy (leaving tax cuts in place for what used to be the middle class and the poverty classes) Which is really no "exhange" at all, in my book, as the tax cuts will expire in entirety on their own if we just ignore them. Do you support the idea of the infrastructure bank? It think that's great idea (google it)
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Should this really be a concern? How many actual 'families' are still in existence? We can still save ourselves from the catastrophe that is Obamacare and as a by-product produce jobs! Another no brainer! http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...-cost-estimate |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
that's a start. cbo says that while medicare does decrease, medicaid increases by 127 billion more than medicare decreases. 500 billion vs 627 billion. the fed is trying to trumpet medicare savings, while hoping no one notices the increases the states would face in return.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
If the tax rate was 100% across the board OBAMACARE would still bankrupt the Nation.
__________________
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."...William S. Burroughs |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Obamacare is pretty much a straight up Heritage Foundation plan word for word back from the 90s. It's a straight conservative health care plan as health insurance "mandates" was a straight up republican idea. It's brutal because it is a conservative plan and a straight out giveaway to insurance companies. Every single first world nation has some form of "socialized" or non-profit insurance plan or some type of combo. Obamacare ain't that. It ain't even remotely close to that and it never will be. It has a few nice points to it, but it economically is horrendous as any plan that doesn't vaporize healt insurance companies will be. We're a great country, but some countries actually do stuff better than us...especially much cheaper health care. It doesn't mean we're not a great country if we try to model something another country actually does better. We can get into all the talking points by political groups about the evils of minor socialization of stuff.
In the end my only points on this politcally side is Obama is so far and away the most conservative president in this country we have every had it's not even funny or debatable. He's the brutal continuation of the Goldwater/Reagan neo-liberal Chicago school economics which will never end. We're bought people. Nothing can change anything at this point.
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In essence everything done is backwards and common knowledge on any specific topic is 100 percent wrong. The deficit fetish is so outlandish it's insane. Every single person in America knows the worst thing to do right now is slash government spending. People aren't spending, business' aren't spending, the very last thing you need right now is drastic spending cuts by the government, yet that's what we do. At some point you address the deficit...mainly when the economy is good, (like in the aughts!!), but I believe dick cheney's direct quote was "deficitis don't matter". Somehow in 2009 deficits suddenly became the only game in town at exactly the opposite time it should be. The stimulus by Obama and company was so inadequate and meager it did nothing especially when 33 percent plus was just tax cuts...more of them. History has told us time and time again that tax cuts do not create jobs, have never created jobs and will not in the future creat jobs, and 100 eprcent of Americans know this, yet we do the exact opposite. Massive tax cuts coinciding with empire building did not create many jobs, yet that is what we do. And our bought masters will continue with this myth for infinity. Trickle down is a disaster and everyone knows it. The original author David Stockman has stated it as 100 percent fact, yet we continue it. His initial attempt with Reagan was a joke and he stated it as fact as having zero percent basis in reality.
We have one political party in this country. We're dead and we can't fix it. The class warfare is over and has been already been won hands down by the rich. We are completely owned. Obama, Bachman, Perry, Bush. If anyone thinks there is one iota difference between any of them you are crazy. They're completely owned. Inverted totalitarinaism is here completely.
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?! |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Yet whenever that's been mentioned in the past, the current right screams out, "socialism, socialism!" as they've been taught to think. Clueless.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|