"No Cost Obamacare"

N

nji098

New member
Anybody remember Obamas repeated vows that the ACA "won't cost taxpayers a dime" ? Just imagine our "unbiased" Medias sledge-hammering of Bush if he made the same soothing assurances about Bushcare...

Obamacare subsidies to jump $10 billion in 2017

WASHINGTON - Taxpayers will fork over nearly $10 billion more next year to cover double-digit premium hikes for subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a study being released Thursday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-subsidies-to-jump-10-billion-in-2017/
 
Let's start out with a few facts:

a) Republicans cling tenaciously to an obsolete conservatism. They once may have been. No longer. Barry Goldwater is dead, long gone. This is how conservative syndicated columnist George Will expressed it during the Bush (younger) administration:
Republican Presidential candidate former TX Governor George Bush "ran in 2000 promising to strengthen Social Security, the emblematic achievement of the New Deal, promising to enrich the entitlement menu of Medicare, the emblematic achievement of the Great Society. He has increased education spending and the federal involvement in education. He is the President who has increased the welfare state more than any President since 1965. Bill Clinton is the only modern President to repeal an entitlement program with the signing of welfare reform act. I do think the labels are considerably blurred." George Will / ABC-TV This Week
Click to expand...
b) Citizens without healthcare programs get their healthcare at hospital emergency rooms. By law they cannot be turned away without receiving medical care.
its' some of the most expensive medical care our nation provides.

It's simple pragmatic, obvious economics. Replace the most expensive form of healthcare with a more economical form of health care, and total healthcare costs are reduced.

I challenge ANYONE here to successfully refute that fundamental reality.

Whether the legislative abortion named ACA or "Obamacare" was the optimal way to meet those objectives can be debated.

But the underlying logic, the underlying economics would appear to be beyond dispute.

And it's not a hypothetical. In Denmark for example, the nation with the reported highest "happiness quotient*" on Earth, there is healthcare for all.
Single payer is quite popular in some nations where it's implemented efficiently.
There are differences.
Make a change, and there will be winners and losers.
But system-wide, the U.S. healthcare system as constituted before ACA was not optimal, by standard either of per capita cost, or by patient outcome.

* Not the highest per capita $wealth. Greater $wealth does not NECESSARILY translate into greater happiness.
 
finally we get some data......
$32b taxpayer dollars to subsidize 20M people......$1,600 per person....and going up another $500 next year......for premiums......now, how much did taxpayers have to give the insurance companies to cover shortfalls in benefits paid......
 
sear said:
Let's start out with a few facts:

a) Republicans cling tenaciously to an obsolete conservatism. They once may have been. No longer. Barry Goldwater is dead, long gone. This is how conservative syndicated columnist George Will expressed it during the Bush (younger) administration:

b) Citizens without healthcare programs get their healthcare at hospital emergency rooms. By law they cannot be turned away without receiving medical care.
its' some of the most expensive medical care our nation provides.

It's simple pragmatic, obvious economics. Replace the most expensive form of healthcare with a more economical form of health care, and total healthcare costs are reduced.

I challenge ANYONE here to successfully refute that fundamental reality.

Whether the legislative abortion named ACA or "Obamacare" was the optimal way to meet those objectives can be debated.

But the underlying logic, the underlying economics would appear to be beyond dispute.

And it's not a hypothetical. In Denmark for example, the nation with the reported highest "happiness quotient*" on Earth, there is healthcare for all.
Single payer is quite popular in some nations where it's implemented efficiently.
There are differences.
Make a change, and there will be winners and losers.
But system-wide, the U.S. healthcare system as constituted before ACA was not optimal, by standard either of per capita cost, or by patient outcome.

* Not the highest per capita $wealth. Greater $wealth does not NECESSARILY translate into greater happiness.
Click to expand...

denmark and other countries like that arent relied upon by the entire world for medical research.

Enact nationalistic policies so we can put price controls on drugs so other nations share in the research cost.
 
sear said:
Let's start out with a few facts:

a) Republicans cling tenaciously to an obsolete conservatism. They once may have been. No longer. Barry Goldwater is dead, long gone. This is how conservative syndicated columnist George Will expressed it during the Bush (younger) administration:

b) Citizens without healthcare programs get their healthcare at hospital emergency rooms. By law they cannot be turned away without receiving medical care.
its' some of the most expensive medical care our nation provides.

It's simple pragmatic, obvious economics. Replace the most expensive form of healthcare with a more economical form of health care, and total healthcare costs are reduced.

I challenge ANYONE here to successfully refute that fundamental reality.

Whether the legislative abortion named ACA or "Obamacare" was the optimal way to meet those objectives can be debated.

But the underlying logic, the underlying economics would appear to be beyond dispute.

And it's not a hypothetical. In Denmark for example, the nation with the reported highest "happiness quotient*" on Earth, there is healthcare for all.
Single payer is quite popular in some nations where it's implemented efficiently.
There are differences.
Make a change, and there will be winners and losers.
But system-wide, the U.S. healthcare system as constituted before ACA was not optimal, by standard either of per capita cost, or by patient outcome.

* Not the highest per capita $wealth. Greater $wealth does not NECESSARILY translate into greater happiness.
Click to expand...

So uh... what does all this have to do with Obamas claim (that our "unbiased Media" would be hammering Bush over if HE had promised) "...that the ACA "won't cost taxpayers a dime" ?
 
"denmark and other countries like that arent relied upon by the entire world for medical research."
Click to expand...
Splendid.
If healthcare premiums pay into U.S. medical research, that's a problem that should be fixed. I'm not aware of any direct connection.
I've seen itemized medical bills. I've never seen "medical research" as a billed item.

#5
I don't have the quotation w/ link you mention.
& I'm deliberate about not making excuses for Obama.

But I am willing to explain the difference between executive, and legislative functions within United States federal government.
If Obama said what you claim, one of two things is true:

- Either he was sincere about making it happen, OR

- he just said it to trick people into ACA.

If it was the former, and if it didn't work out that way, there's a divergence from the plan Obama intended, and the final product that Pelosi was able to produce in Congress.

Again, not an excuse, but an explanation.
Though Obama may never have tried for it; I suspect if he thought he could have succeeded, he might have tried for Single Payer, which many that live under such system seem to like.

888888888888888888888888888888888888

Trump's been waffling.
But it'll be interesting to see what if anything the Republicans replace ACA with. I believe Trump's boast was that it would be better and cheaper.

Don't hold your breath.
 
sear said:
Splendid.
If healthcare premiums pay into U.S. medical research, that's a problem that should be fixed. I'm not aware of any direct connection.
I've seen itemized medical bills. I've never seen "medical research" as a billed item.

#5
I don't have the quotation w/ link you mention.
& I'm deliberate about not making excuses for Obama.

But I am willing to explain the difference between executive, and legislative functions within United States federal government.
If Obama said what you claim, one of two things is true:

- Either he was sincere about making it happen, OR

- he just said it to trick people into ACA.

If it was the former, and if it didn't work out that way, there's a divergence from the plan Obama intended, and the final product that Pelosi was able to produce in Congress.

Again, not an excuse, but an explanation.
Though Obama may never have tried for it; I suspect if he thought he could have succeeded, he might have tried for Single Payer, which many that live under such system seem to like.

888888888888888888888888888888888888

Trump's been waffling.
But it'll be interesting to see what if anything the Republicans replace ACA with. I believe Trump's boast was that it would be better and cheaper.

Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Can they find a way to fix your inability to properly utilize the quote feature?? :dunno:
 
sear said:
Splendid.
If healthcare premiums pay into U.S. medical research, that's a problem that should be fixed. I'm not aware of any direct connection.
I've seen itemized medical bills. I've never seen "medical research" as a billed item.

#5
I don't have the quotation w/ link you mention.
& I'm deliberate about not making excuses for Obama.

But I am willing to explain the difference between executive, and legislative functions within United States federal government.
If Obama said what you claim, one of two things is true:

- Either he was sincere about making it happen, OR

- he just said it to trick people into ACA.

If it was the former, and if it didn't work out that way, there's a divergence from the plan Obama intended, and the final product that Pelosi was able to produce in Congress.

Again, not an excuse, but an explanation.
Though Obama may never have tried for it; I suspect if he thought he could have succeeded, he might have tried for Single Payer, which many that live under such system seem to like.

888888888888888888888888888888888888

Trump's been waffling.
But it'll be interesting to see what if anything the Republicans replace ACA with. I believe Trump's boast was that it would be better and cheaper.

Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

pharmacutical companies are on the record saying that they can only afford to do new research because there is no price control on US drugs. If we had price controls similar to Britain they would not be able to afford it.
 
tsuke said:
pharmacutical companies are on the record saying that they can only afford to do new research because there is no price control on US drugs. If we had price controls similar to Britain they would not be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

Cite please.
 
ACA has cost us (my wife and I) $30k so far and expect that to be $50k by the end of the first quarter next year. If all government employees were on it, they would eliminate it quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top