Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 06-18-2011, 01:59 AM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
No argument here! When I have to cut spending I consider it the next time I reach into my pocket even for change. If I were maxed out on credit cards and spending 1.667 times my income two things would have to happen.
1. The 0.667 would have to go.
2. Out of the 1.0 left I would have to make card payments.

Obamacare costs will increase the debt crisis according to the CBO.
So does the military, but we continue that!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 04:17 AM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
I love hearing people talk about the military spending too much. Let's just eliminate the military, and then I bet all those same people will be crawling back real quick!
__________________

__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 07:19 AM  
Moved NY => Abq 3/9/11
 
JeeperDon's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 50 | Kudos: +15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
I love hearing people talk about the military spending too much. Let's just eliminate the military, and then I bet all those same people will be crawling back real quick!
Thats a pretty lame argument, all or nothing. MilJocks always push fear as a money tactic. One less fighter jet can fund quite a bit of non-military budget items.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 08:29 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
Don, I see by your avatar that you are also drinking the kool aid. Without the strength of our military, we have nothing. And no, I'm not a "Miljock!"
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2011, 08:57 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
To get back on topic, with the the government spending 1.667 times its revenue at present and Obamacare adding to this spending considerably over the next decade is rationing of healthcare not inevitable? Will the panels, committees and even the secretary HHS in seeking economies and efficiency not be forced into rationing? The IPAB is going to penalize doctors it deems to be prescribing too many high cost procedures thus enters QALY (already funded by the stimulus).
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2011, 08:43 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
Don, I see by your avatar that you are also drinking the kool aid. Without the strength of our military, we have nothing. And no, I'm not a "Miljock!"
why do you say that? do you really think america is an economy that can only be supported by our military? That we will never attain peace or at least be able to just focus on "defense" what other super power are we facing? why do we need so much equipment/gear and bases all over the world? how long are we gonna be world police? and who should pay for it?

it's a military industrial complex, war does not serve to build up society, only take it down. I'm not saying we should become defenseless but at a point we become well armed enough that we can back off the spending spree a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
To get back on topic, with the the government spending 1.667 times its revenue at present and Obamacare adding to this spending considerably over the next decade is rationing of healthcare not inevitable? Will the panels, committees and even the secretary HHS in seeking economies and efficiency not be forced into rationing? The IPAB is going to penalize doctors it deems to be prescribing too many high cost procedures thus enters QALY (already funded by the stimulus).
except there are taxes so that at lest as projected "ObamaCare" should not add to the deficit, now the ryan/republican medicare plan which requires about 3% unemployment to work however is a bit out there
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2011, 09:59 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
From a local paper, BTW Peterson's Field Guide to Edible Plants is normally sold out in a local bookstore.
Quote:
We certainly live in unique times. Though Democrats eerily clamor for more entitlements, we've already exceeded our ability to fund what's currently been promised. Our future federal debt obligations exceed 70 trillion dollars. If you add state, local, manufacturing, and private debt, America easily owes more money than exists in the world today. Debt makes slaves of us and empowers the guy with the IOU. Imagine the irony of a communist dictatorship like China having the gall to challenge our pending discussions on raising the fed's debt limit. They can because we owe the world's fastest growing political, military, and economic power a ton of money. There's another price to baby boomer addiction to living beyond our means - frugal living or retiring a decade later than planned. Most of us haven't saved for retirement and Uncle Sam has robbed the S.S. trust fund. The silver lining to this cloud is that being productive and useful is great medicine. Even when it's forced by bad choices...

I'm Dr. Carl Mumpower and you just spent a minute with a candid conservative...
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2011, 10:02 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
. . . except there are taxes so that at lest as projected "ObamaCare" should not add to the deficit, . . .
Wonder why the CBO missed that, or did it take a more realistic look? The CBO all but says the dreaded rationing word.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2011, 11:22 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Wonder why the CBO missed that, or did it take a more realistic look? The CBO all but says the dreaded rationing word.
I think you misunderstood what you heard about it, or took the fox value at face value, yes the bill does cost a lot of money *BUT* it has funding sources for the cost, therefore it DOES NOT increase the deficit spending, in fact it slightly reduces it.

and if you wanna go on the rationing route, yes every system around the world does some form of rationing, especially the american system as it exists over the last few decades, and to top that off our system is really ****ed up, we give the best care as far as coverage goes to our elderly population but leave the younger ones to fend for themselves, if we were to hand out medical procedures to everyone that wanted a full body scan because they had a headache it would be disastrous, nothing prevents those people from choosing to have it done on their own, so yes care will be rationed just as insurance companies do now except it will be straightforward and not some executive getting his bonus if he can just keep throwing paperwork and challenges for paying for someone's cancer treatment

you know how we use the scare tactic of britain's healthcare? In Britain they use the scare words of "american healthcare", in other words for what problems do exist they see going to our heartless system as being far worse (And I say that as a a matter of fact, it's VERY hard to argue that the american system has more heart then the british system.

Quote:
A proposed independent board charged with finding savings in the health-care system now will probably save $13 billion instead of the $28 billion originally anticipated, the CBO said.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2011, 11:39 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
The following from New CBO Report Proves We Cannot Afford Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation :

New CBO Report Proves We Cannot Afford Obamacare

Kathryn Nix

February 23, 2011

Comments (0)

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its report on H.R. 2, the House-passed legislation that would fully repeal Obamacare. The takeaway message was that American taxpayers simply cannot afford Obamacare.

CBO?s initial scoring of Obamacare analyzed its effects from 2010 to 2019, including only six years of full implementation, since main spending provisions do not go into effect until 2014. The new document reports on 2012 to 2021, including an additional two years of full implementation. This still fails to show the true 10-year cost of the law, but gets a little closer. Over eight years, the gross cost of Obamacare?s coverage provisions jumps from $938 billion to $1.39 trillion, which includes $677 billion to create a new health entitlement offering generous subsidies to the middle class to purchase health insurance.

It also includes an expansion of Medicaid, which will cost $674 billion. Initially, the federal government will almost entirely fund the expansion, but will pass costs on to the states starting in 2020. This will have serious consequences, as states already face tough choices to tackle mounting deficits. The combined increase in states? Medicaid costs will be $60 billion. CBO?s initial score showed the Medicaid expansion costing states just $20 billion. The addition of just two extra years increased this number threefold, revealing the crippling effect the expansion will have on state budgets.

Obamacare proponents say the new law cuts the deficit. But the CBO report pulls the mask off the bill and reveals what it really is: a massive tax increase that, on paper at least, is slightly greater than the massive spending hike it also contains. Obamacare thus indisputably represents a massive new burden on current taxpayers and future generations.

Finally, several of Obamacare?s ?pay-fors? are unlikely to ever become reality. One example is the excise tax on ?Cadillac? health plans, an unpopular change that isn?t supposed to occur until 2018?after President Obama is safely out of office. If the Congress and White House responsible for creating this tax weren?t willing to put it into effect, it is unlikely that future lawmakers will do so. Without the Cadillac tax, Obamacare loses $111 billion of offsets for new spending.

Unsustainable cuts to the Medicare program are also expected to pay for new spending. Both the CBO director and Medicare?s Chief Actuary have warned that these cuts to Medicare provider payments could reduce access to care for seniors and reduce quality of care. Congress?s past behavior proves its hesitance to allow similar changes to the program, so savings within Medicare will likely not materialize.

The reality is that the offsets for Obamacare spending cannot occur without serious negative consequences, and without them, it adds significantly to deficit spending. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf?s letter to Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan last week stated that repeal would reduce the deficit if these provisions don?t occur.

So the facts are in. Obamacare includes tremendous new levels of federal spending at a time when lawmakers are seeking ways to reduce the unaffordable size of government. It pays for new spending by increasing taxes on the American people, burdening individuals and businesses and putting further strain on the economy. And, as we explain further in recent research, a realistic scoring of Obamacare shows that it is certain to increase deficits.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.