Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   A government report says ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to deficits. Here are five reasons it's sure to add much more than that   (news.investors.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, obamacare, federal deficits, insurance exchange, health spending, deficits  
•       •       •

1862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2013 at 12:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-27 05:23:46 PM  

RexTalionis: By the way, has anyone mentioned that the $6.2 trillion in deficits only are projected by the GAO if Congress decided to strip every budget-saving provision from the Healthcare Reform Law?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/26/conservative-media-echo-m i sleading-gop-claim-on/192809


Imagine how much worse the deficit would be if we repealed FICA but kept Social Security!
 
2013-02-27 05:56:04 PM  

jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]


There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.
 
2013-02-27 06:03:51 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: When you strip out these unrealistic cost control measures, ObamaCare ends up adding $6.2 trillion to federal deficits over the next 75 years, the GAO concludes, accelerating the nation's drive toward the real fiscal cliff.

So, $82.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, our annual defense budget is about 8 times as much.


Thanks to inflation, $82.6 billion in 75 years will be the equivalent of about $5 billion today. Macroeconomically speaking, that's chickenfeed--about the annual budget of a large American city.
 
2013-02-27 06:08:58 PM  
I just wish Obama would not have backed down from the fight for a public option.  It would have driven the insane over-the-top prices health insurance companies charge to not help you when you need it most.  With a low-cost public option, the shiathead insurance companies would have had to lower prices to compete, you know the way capitalism is supposed to work.  However, the billions put into buying off members of Congress and the bullshiat fear propaganda about socialism that the companies strategized worked.
 
2013-02-27 06:11:44 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]

There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.


If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013
 
2013-02-27 06:12:56 PM  

jigger: If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013


And you completely missed the point.
 
2013-02-27 06:16:01 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/306778350574260224
[i52.tinypic.com image 452x212]

There a date on that? That could have been anytime in the last 10 years.


Here. Satisfied?

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-27 06:16:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: If you had clicked the link:

6:50 AM - Feb 27, 2013

And you completely missed the point.


I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.
 
2013-02-27 06:34:35 PM  

jigger: I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.


It didn't do enough in preventing insurance companies from jacking up costs because "fark you."? Yeah, that could have been done better. Doesn't change the fact that the insurance companies have no clear or better reason now than they did at any point in the last decade.
 
2013-02-27 06:45:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: I guess you missed the point of the AFFORDABLE care act.

It didn't do enough in preventing insurance companies from jacking up costs because "fark you."? Yeah, that could have been done better. Doesn't change the fact that the insurance companies have no clear or better reason now than they did at any point in the last decade.


Actually:

Obamacare requires more generous insurance plans at a minimum
It requires coverage of people with pre-existing conditions
It requires that people with pre-existing conditions pay the same as everyone else
With the medical loss ratio set in stone at 80/20 the way to make more money is to jack up rates

These are just some of the reasons Obamacare is directly causing rates to jump double digits.

I'm not saying these requirements are necessarily bad things, but anyone could see in 2010 when the law came down that it would increase insurance premiums.
 
2013-02-27 06:56:36 PM  

jigger: It requires coverage of people with pre-existing conditions
It requires that people with pre-existing conditions pay the same as everyone else


It also gave the insurance company a larger pool of customers. That more than offsets the cost of the people with pre-existing conditions. This is not a case where the insurance company are raising rates out of absolute necessity.
 
2013-02-27 07:01:17 PM  

jigger: These are just some of the reasons Obamacare is directly causing rates to jump double digits.


Obamacare is an easy thing to point to, nothing more, for the exact same behavior the insurance industry has been doing for the past decade for no good reason at all.  Our bills would have gone up regardless. At least some of the provisions in the ACA mean that money will actually have to go to caring for people that need it, and get more people insured.

Getting more people insured. Forming a larger pool. That by itself should lower rates. Insurers are jacking up rates when they're going to get a goddamn subsidy, using the exact same reasoning they've used for the last 10 years: water is wet, the sky is blue, the CEO needs a new yacht, fark you.
 
2013-02-27 07:03:11 PM  

ansuz07: MaxxLarge: There sure always seems to be plenty of money for wars, though.

Its very far from being that simple.  Healthcare is a limited resource - the equipment takes time and skilled workers to construct and the practitioners required to deliver care take time to train.

Saying that "we have money for wars" assumes that the resources used to equip and execute warfare (soldiers, contractors, etc) can be reallocated to health care (doctors, techs, etc) at a one-to-one ratio and that simply isn't true.  It takes time to train and enable health care providers and the number of resources that are capable of providing these services doesn't increase just because we need more of them.

A butcher can't become a baker just because there is a bread shortage.


I used to be a house painter, now I'm a web developer. I must be unpossible.
 
2013-02-27 07:16:30 PM  

chiett: jst3p: chiett: chiett:
It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

Natgrey:
 "This is what Republicans actually believe! "


Actually it's what all the bleeding hearts I've met believe (usually Democrats)

It is what you pretend others believe because intellectually honest discourse is too difficult for you. Literally no one you've met believes this.

True, I have never actually met you. So here is what I DO believe:

I believe I have the responsibility to take care of me and mine as best as I can.
I believe I should give back to my country.
I believe I should pay my fair share of Taxes within the law.
I believe in helping the truly less fortunate.
After I have done these things then I owe NOTHING.
and I believe a large portion of my tax money is wasted.

But let me put it in a way you will understand. I believe Mom is calling and lunch is ready. I have to go upstairs to eat.


Truly less fortunate - you mean anyone that has the poor judgement to develop a long term illness and has to deal with the American medical system right? Because they're less fortunate that pretty much anyone else in western society.
 
2013-02-27 07:21:31 PM  
hobberwickey:

I used to be a house painter, now I'm a web developer. I must be unpossible.

Of course its possible.  Janitors can become astronauts.  Fry cooks can become doctors.  Its possible, just uncommon.

Any individual can change professions.  All I am saying is that it isn't one to one.  Continuing your example, if I ran a web programming frim I couldn't just wake up and say, "Lets divert all the building maintenance funding to programmers.  Find every painter, give them a laptop and get them programming!"

Would some make the transition?  Yes, some would.  However, I would bet that the vast majority would be unable to change jobs; the skill-sets are not analogous and many would be unable to make the transition.

Now, the "cut war funding" camp would say, "But you moved the money.  That should fix the problem!"  However, the issue was never the money; it was the availability of resources capable of doing the different task.  Some can change; most can't.
 
2013-02-27 07:24:47 PM  

SlothB77: rufus-t-firefly: So, $82.6 billion a year.

I love how democrats tell us cutting $82.6 billion a year for sequester is cataclysmic, but adding $82.6 billion a year to deficits for Obamacare wouldn't even be counted as a rounding error.


ansuz07: machodonkeywrestler:

Not as different as you might think. Life Sciences is full of retired Army engineers fixing instruments.

The bottom line is it is a Will problem and not a Supply problem. The changeover isn't 1:1, but it is a lot closer than most fields.

I have no reason to doubt you that this does happen for some.  Still, what percentage of the total armed forces is capable of making that change?  Being a medical practitioner is far different from being an engineer - very different skill-sets and knowledge requirements.  Per the WSJ, we will face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230450690457518033152842 4 238.html).  Given that we have about 400,000 active military (http://us-military-branches.findthedata.org), do we really believe that 37.5% of the active military can become doctors or nurses?

It really is a supply problem.  One can't simply will oneself into being a doctor.  You need the aptitude and the training.  There is only so much of that to go around.


So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?
 
2013-02-27 07:28:42 PM  
hobberwickey:

So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?

Again, I'm not advocating that.  I think that we SHOULD divert money from the military to other social programs - our military is a relic of an older age when major countries could actually go to war with each other.  That age is over.

All I am saying is that its isn't one to one.  You can't slash the military and expect that to solve the entire problem - the solution is far more nuanced.
 
2013-02-27 07:40:06 PM  

ansuz07: hobberwickey:

So let's keep pumping money into the military and convert none of those people into doctors?

Again, I'm not advocating that.  I think that we SHOULD divert money from the military to other social programs - our military is a relic of an older age when major countries could actually go to war with each other.  That age is over.

All I am saying is that its isn't one to one.  You can't slash the military and expect that to solve the entire problem - the solution is far more nuanced.


I know what you're saying, but I think what you're missing is no one is advocating retraining military personnel as doctors, or even nurses. You take money out of one thing and put it into other things (including healthcare) and some people migrate from the military to healthcare, some to other sectors, some people from other sectors migrate to healthcare, some people from the military migrate to those jobs other people left, and so on. That's the benefit of a large diverse economy like ours.

Maybe if we took some of the money out of the military and put it towards subsidizing medical school so people didn't come out with $250,000 in debt more people might do it, and doctors maybe wouldn't need to get paid so much, and smart soldiers could become doctors and dumb soldiers could become janitors at medical schools. Hell, smart soldiers could become janitors - who knows.
 
2013-02-27 07:47:19 PM  
jst3p:
Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.

Far from it. I would first have to care what you think.

So, Put up. What do you believe in? Or do you only try and judge?
 
2013-02-27 09:53:08 PM  

chiett: jst3p:
Awww, looks like I hurt someone's feelings. If you don't want anyone to bust your chops don't make obviously dishonest statements in your posts, it isn't difficult.

Far from it. I would first have to care what you think.

So, Put up. What do you believe in? Or do you only try and judge?


I believe in a great many things. What I don't believe is that you know anyone who holds the point of view that you claimed every "bleeding heart (mostly Democrats) hold. I believe you are a liar.
 
2013-02-27 10:24:02 PM  
jst3p

Aw, now you have hit on the one thing that I'm not and am instantly offended by.
So here is my moment of "internet Tuff guy".
Pray we never meet.
 
2013-02-28 12:54:49 AM  

Isitoveryet: chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

this is what Republicans are actually programmed to believe


And Democrats programmed to deny. And obfuscate. And ignore. And denounce as "racist".
 
2013-02-28 08:37:30 AM  

jjorsett: Isitoveryet: chiett: It's all free anyway. No need to work or serve. All we have to do is sit back
call our friends on our free phone and chill.
Cause YOU owe ME.

this is what Republicans are actually programmed to believe

And Democrats programmed to deny. And obfuscate. And ignore. And denounce as "racist".


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Subby's article is funny.  "The Right Wing; Suddenly Giving a Damn About Deficits Since January 20, 2009!"
 
2013-02-28 06:48:57 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 24 of 124 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report