Well, many of the people who are surprised are poor so they will get free health insurance paid for out of the general fund. Which is a good thing because the Obamacare taxes wont cover the full cost of Obamacare. But that still doesn’t mean these people will be able to afford healthcare. Low end policies don’t cover much. This is inexcusable, healthcare is a right and poor people have just as much right to get the latest high quality care at no expense as anyone else has to purchase quality care. What’s that? You say poor people can have insurance but not knee replacement? That sounds suspiciously like the old system that we overthrew.
Speaking of low-information…
the Obamacare taxes wont cover the full cost of Obamacare.
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses, so on net Obamacare reduces the deficit.
You say poor people can have insurance but not knee replacement?
Who is saying that?
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses, so on net Obamacare reduces the deficit.
What a load of crap.
You can look it up — just Google “obamacare deficit”. You will find articles that say things like this:
Congressional budget analysts said Wednesday that repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit by scrapping the law’s taxes, fees and spending cuts.
The notice from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came ahead of Thursday’s House vote on full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
The CBO refused to provide a new cost estimate for repeal, saying there is too little time before the vote. But Director Doug Elmendorf pointed to an estimate from July 2012 that abolishing healthcare reform would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.
And please spare me the nonsense about the CBO only telling people what they want to hear. In this case they were asked by Republicans to score the budgetary effects of a Republican bill to repeal Obamacare.
Look at this, the CBO says the Senate Amendment to apply Obamacare on Congressional Staffers and Executive Branch will lower the deficit by over $100 million this year, and $1.9 billion over the next 10 years.
It doesn’t apply Obamacare, it eliminates employee health benefits. It’s no surprise that cutting employee compensation saves money. We could save even more money by cutting all their salaries in half.
It doesn’t apply Obamacare, it eliminates employee health benefits.
I realize Jim that you probably don’t like having your arguments debunked so easily, but resorting to obvious lies aren’t helping you.
To quote Lincoln:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Yes, the GOP describes this amendment as applying Obamacare to Congressional staff. That doesn’t make it so.
Nice try Jim, but this is how easily your stupid lie is countered: Jim describes this amendment as not applying Obamacare to Congressional staff. That doesn’t make it so.
It’s not the GOP making that description, but the same CBO that you earlier stated: “please spare me the nonsense about the CBO only telling people what they want to hear.” You have now discredit your previous argument by now arguing that the CBO is just a political mouthpiece. So Eric is right to consider your statements BS. They are.
It’s not the GOP making that description
Yes, it is — the CBO just uses the bill title given by the authors, in this case the GOP.
by now arguing that the CBO is just a political mouthpiece
Referring to a bill by the name it was given by its authors doesn’t make the CBO a political mouthpiece.
On the substance of the question: Nothing in the ACA says that citizens are barred from having employer-paid or subsidized health plans. In fact, that’s exactly how most people age 18-65 will get insurance under Obamacare, just as it’s the way that most get insurance today.
The Vitter Amendment doesn’t apply Obamacare to Congressional staffers, it singles them out for a new requirement. It forces them, and only them, to lose their employer-subsidized coverage.
It forces them, and only them, to lose their employer-subsidized coverage.
In states that adopted Obamacare subsidies, health insurance companies are vacating because they cannot compete with plans underwritten by the American taxpayer. When those companies leave, employees loose their employer-subsidized coverage. Jim, you think you are cute and winning some political point, but people in the real world see what you are writing and are pissed off.
Second, not all civil servants are getting the same protection to keep their subsidized employer coverage that Congressional Staffers are getting.
What a load of crap.
You are correct Eric. Rather than googling “articles”, here is the official document.
You can bore yourself with looking into how lost of $1.280 Trillion in taxes is greater than the government not spending $1.171 Trillion over the next ten years. Just know that according to that CBO report, $4 billion of the $109 billion in revenue loss over 10 years will be lost in 2014 by Obama’s executive waiver of the employer mandate. Also in the CBO report that Jim is trumpeting, pushing the individual mandate would have exactly zero impact on revenue generation.
Feel free to call Jim’s support of Harry Reid an example of LIV.
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses
You are speaking of future events about which you really don’t have sufficient knowledge or understanding. And once again, CBO is not a reliable resource. I see you still stick by your claims despite being corrected many times on this.
You say poor people can have insurance but not knee replacement?
Who is saying that?
wodun just did. This time please note the problem. The subsidies buy you high deductible health insurance not health care.
CBO is not a reliable resource
Name a better one, and post a link to their analysis.
Name a better one, and post a link to their analysis.
The toilet paper you used today. The CBO just makes it look prettier. I can’t link to your toilet paper because it’s not on the internet, but you know where to find it.
It’s just not that hard to figure it out. The CBO can flush its analyses to the media in days or possibly weeks, if they’re busy on other projects. But real experts in the field, like for example, the Society of Actuaries need years to evaluate the impact of far reaching laws. It’s an easy propaganda win for Congress since bad law can be passed in days with a ready CBO analysis, but it takes years for the real experts to figure out what just happened. They’re well on to other games by then.
Further, the CBO has consistently exaggerated in favor of its masters. (Federal spending and deficits are a great example and these have always been consistently understated.) And there’s a trivially easy mechanism by which this happens, they are instructed on what assumptions to make.
I think it’s pretty dishonest, even by your practices here, to insist that we depend only on the hasty, poorly thought-out, highly biased analysis of the CBO rather than the people who actually understand the field.
Further, it’ll be a few years yet before we actually see the effects of Obamacare in full. By that time, the current deceptions of the CBO won’t matter anymore. The damage will be done and we’ll have to decide how to clean up the mess. But you can bet good money that the CBO will have new rosy projections to back whatever new schemes come of that.
the CBO has consistently exaggerated in favor of its masters
No, it hasn’t. It overestimated the cost of Medicare Part D, and the premiums in Obamacare exchanges. Its forecasts have erred in both directions, as you would expect non-partisan forecasts to do.
I think it’s pretty dishonest, even by your practices here, to insist that we depend only on the hasty, poorly thought-out, highly biased analysis of the CBO rather than the people who actually understand the field.
You haven’t cited any “people who actually understand the field” who have offered a superior alternative analysis.
it’ll be a few years yet before we actually see
Of course, but Congress needed to make decisions on whether to pass Obamacare back in 2010. We don’t have a time machine to zoom into the future, and come back with a report. We’re stuck in the present, and have to rely on forecasts. The CBO is the best source we have for forecasting future budgetary effects.
So you’re just going to ignore my better example?
Of course, but Congress needed to make decisions on whether to pass Obamacare back in 2010.
And this is why the CBO is such a bad idea. Obamacare passed due in large part to the flimsy pretexts provided by the CBO.
So you’re just going to ignore my better example?
Do you mean the Society of Actuaries report? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t appear to estimate the effect of the ACA on the federal budget deficit. It does estimate that “of the 52.4 million individuals who would have been expected to otherwise lack health insurance coverage in the absence of the ACA, 32.4 million will obtain coverage,” which I believe is even more than estimated by the CBO.
To reiterate: the best available forecast is that the ACA will slightly reduce the federal budget deficit.
And this is why the CBO is such a bad idea. Obamacare passed due in large part to the flimsy pretexts provided by the CBO.
You would prefer that Congress make decisions on legislation with no economic forecast of their effects whatsoever? The CBO forecasts, imperfect as they are, impose some discipline on lawmakers. I can promise you that without the CBO, the ACA would have more spending, fewer spending cuts, and lower taxes — all things that would make it more popular, and less fiscally responsible. The desire to get a good CBO score helps keep lawmakers honest about the tradeoffs their laws will require.
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses
You are speaking of future events about which you really don’t have sufficient knowledge or understanding. And once again, CBO is not a reliable resource. I see you still stick by your claims despite being corrected many times on this.
Baghdad Jim’s the kind of LIV who probably believed that the yacht luxury tax wouldn’t destroy the entire industry, or the Maryland millionaire’s tax wouldn’t make fully 1/3 of the millionaires reduce their incomes or leave the state the very next year to avoid paying the higher tax rates.
At a certain point, you have to give up the idea that it’s ignorance that keeps saying such things and assume it’s actual malice, and I think Baghdad Jim’s earned that assessment.
Healthcare is a right? On which planet?
Or did i just miss the sarcasm?
These lefty fools are incapable of comprehending that if it requires someone else to pay for it its not a right.
These low-information scum are getting deservedly punished.
These dopes are only now complaining about the $95 fine? Hey chumps, that’s just the entrance fee. Just wait a few years. I hope you brought your lube because you’re going to need it. And plenty of it too.
This is what annoys me the most about the whole thing. 99% of the defenders of Obama care have no clue what it is. All they know is that Obama and the Democrats pushed for it and they think it’s some sort of fast route to “socialized medicine” or what-have-you. The affordable care act is much like the department of homeland security. It doesn’t actually improve anything, it just adds a new layer of bureaucracy plus a whole new set of restrictions and rules on top of everything else and calls it a day. Because that has always worked so well in the past.
The biggest problem is that people will latch on to some tiny part of the act which they like (such as the provisions with respect to birth control) and they’ll use that as justification for keeping the whole thing.
I have no doubt that if they voted at all, they voted for the President.
If they think the fine is cool, what this they get to the subject of deductibles.
opps, this = till
I’m very happy that the low information scum is getting ass raped by their own stupid voting.
It’s as much poor math skills as low information. There is not now nor has there ever been a free lunch. In order to cover the unemployed and those with preexisting conditions someone who won’t be contributing to the problem needs to pay for those that are. It’s simple socialism. Now get with the program. All of you line up in front of the cart and put on your yoke. There is a lot of pulling to do and it will just be harder for you to get started if you wait until we have filled the cart with your new burden. Chop Chop!!!
Well, many of the people who are surprised are poor so they will get free health insurance paid for out of the general fund. Which is a good thing because the Obamacare taxes wont cover the full cost of Obamacare. But that still doesn’t mean these people will be able to afford healthcare. Low end policies don’t cover much. This is inexcusable, healthcare is a right and poor people have just as much right to get the latest high quality care at no expense as anyone else has to purchase quality care. What’s that? You say poor people can have insurance but not knee replacement? That sounds suspiciously like the old system that we overthrew.
Speaking of low-information…
the Obamacare taxes wont cover the full cost of Obamacare.
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses, so on net Obamacare reduces the deficit.
You say poor people can have insurance but not knee replacement?
Who is saying that?
What a load of crap.
You can look it up — just Google “obamacare deficit”. You will find articles that say things like this:
And please spare me the nonsense about the CBO only telling people what they want to hear. In this case they were asked by Republicans to score the budgetary effects of a Republican bill to repeal Obamacare.
Look at this, the CBO says the Senate Amendment to apply Obamacare on Congressional Staffers and Executive Branch will lower the deficit by over $100 million this year, and $1.9 billion over the next 10 years.
It doesn’t apply Obamacare, it eliminates employee health benefits. It’s no surprise that cutting employee compensation saves money. We could save even more money by cutting all their salaries in half.
It doesn’t apply Obamacare, it eliminates employee health benefits.
That’s a flat out lie.
Here’s the title of the report: “Senate Amendment 1866, To Amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ,to Apply the Provisions of the Act to Certain Congressional Staff and Members of the Executive Branch”
I realize Jim that you probably don’t like having your arguments debunked so easily, but resorting to obvious lies aren’t helping you.
To quote Lincoln:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Yes, the GOP describes this amendment as applying Obamacare to Congressional staff. That doesn’t make it so.
Nice try Jim, but this is how easily your stupid lie is countered: Jim describes this amendment as not applying Obamacare to Congressional staff. That doesn’t make it so.
It’s not the GOP making that description, but the same CBO that you earlier stated: “please spare me the nonsense about the CBO only telling people what they want to hear.” You have now discredit your previous argument by now arguing that the CBO is just a political mouthpiece. So Eric is right to consider your statements BS. They are.
It’s not the GOP making that description
Yes, it is — the CBO just uses the bill title given by the authors, in this case the GOP.
by now arguing that the CBO is just a political mouthpiece
Referring to a bill by the name it was given by its authors doesn’t make the CBO a political mouthpiece.
On the substance of the question: Nothing in the ACA says that citizens are barred from having employer-paid or subsidized health plans. In fact, that’s exactly how most people age 18-65 will get insurance under Obamacare, just as it’s the way that most get insurance today.
The Vitter Amendment doesn’t apply Obamacare to Congressional staffers, it singles them out for a new requirement. It forces them, and only them, to lose their employer-subsidized coverage.
It forces them, and only them, to lose their employer-subsidized coverage.
In states that adopted Obamacare subsidies, health insurance companies are vacating because they cannot compete with plans underwritten by the American taxpayer. When those companies leave, employees loose their employer-subsidized coverage. Jim, you think you are cute and winning some political point, but people in the real world see what you are writing and are pissed off.
Second, not all civil servants are getting the same protection to keep their subsidized employer coverage that Congressional Staffers are getting.
What a load of crap.
You are correct Eric. Rather than googling “articles”, here is the official document.
You can bore yourself with looking into how lost of $1.280 Trillion in taxes is greater than the government not spending $1.171 Trillion over the next ten years. Just know that according to that CBO report, $4 billion of the $109 billion in revenue loss over 10 years will be lost in 2014 by Obama’s executive waiver of the employer mandate. Also in the CBO report that Jim is trumpeting, pushing the individual mandate would have exactly zero impact on revenue generation.
Feel free to call Jim’s support of Harry Reid an example of LIV.
The taxes plus spending cuts more than cover the expenses
You are speaking of future events about which you really don’t have sufficient knowledge or understanding. And once again, CBO is not a reliable resource. I see you still stick by your claims despite being corrected many times on this.
Who is saying that?
wodun just did. This time please note the problem. The subsidies buy you high deductible health insurance not health care.
CBO is not a reliable resource
Name a better one, and post a link to their analysis.
Name a better one, and post a link to their analysis.
The toilet paper you used today. The CBO just makes it look prettier. I can’t link to your toilet paper because it’s not on the internet, but you know where to find it.
It’s just not that hard to figure it out. The CBO can flush its analyses to the media in days or possibly weeks, if they’re busy on other projects. But real experts in the field, like for example, the Society of Actuaries need years to evaluate the impact of far reaching laws. It’s an easy propaganda win for Congress since bad law can be passed in days with a ready CBO analysis, but it takes years for the real experts to figure out what just happened. They’re well on to other games by then.
Further, the CBO has consistently exaggerated in favor of its masters. (Federal spending and deficits are a great example and these have always been consistently understated.) And there’s a trivially easy mechanism by which this happens, they are instructed on what assumptions to make.
I think it’s pretty dishonest, even by your practices here, to insist that we depend only on the hasty, poorly thought-out, highly biased analysis of the CBO rather than the people who actually understand the field.
Further, it’ll be a few years yet before we actually see the effects of Obamacare in full. By that time, the current deceptions of the CBO won’t matter anymore. The damage will be done and we’ll have to decide how to clean up the mess. But you can bet good money that the CBO will have new rosy projections to back whatever new schemes come of that.
the CBO has consistently exaggerated in favor of its masters
No, it hasn’t. It overestimated the cost of Medicare Part D, and the premiums in Obamacare exchanges. Its forecasts have erred in both directions, as you would expect non-partisan forecasts to do.
I think it’s pretty dishonest, even by your practices here, to insist that we depend only on the hasty, poorly thought-out, highly biased analysis of the CBO rather than the people who actually understand the field.
You haven’t cited any “people who actually understand the field” who have offered a superior alternative analysis.
it’ll be a few years yet before we actually see
Of course, but Congress needed to make decisions on whether to pass Obamacare back in 2010. We don’t have a time machine to zoom into the future, and come back with a report. We’re stuck in the present, and have to rely on forecasts. The CBO is the best source we have for forecasting future budgetary effects.
So you’re just going to ignore my better example?
Of course, but Congress needed to make decisions on whether to pass Obamacare back in 2010.
And this is why the CBO is such a bad idea. Obamacare passed due in large part to the flimsy pretexts provided by the CBO.
So you’re just going to ignore my better example?
Do you mean the Society of Actuaries report? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t appear to estimate the effect of the ACA on the federal budget deficit. It does estimate that “of the 52.4 million individuals who would have been expected to otherwise lack health insurance coverage in the absence of the ACA, 32.4 million will obtain coverage,” which I believe is even more than estimated by the CBO.
To reiterate: the best available forecast is that the ACA will slightly reduce the federal budget deficit.
And this is why the CBO is such a bad idea. Obamacare passed due in large part to the flimsy pretexts provided by the CBO.
You would prefer that Congress make decisions on legislation with no economic forecast of their effects whatsoever? The CBO forecasts, imperfect as they are, impose some discipline on lawmakers. I can promise you that without the CBO, the ACA would have more spending, fewer spending cuts, and lower taxes — all things that would make it more popular, and less fiscally responsible. The desire to get a good CBO score helps keep lawmakers honest about the tradeoffs their laws will require.
Baghdad Jim’s the kind of LIV who probably believed that the yacht luxury tax wouldn’t destroy the entire industry, or the Maryland millionaire’s tax wouldn’t make fully 1/3 of the millionaires reduce their incomes or leave the state the very next year to avoid paying the higher tax rates.
At a certain point, you have to give up the idea that it’s ignorance that keeps saying such things and assume it’s actual malice, and I think Baghdad Jim’s earned that assessment.
Healthcare is a right? On which planet?
Or did i just miss the sarcasm?
These lefty fools are incapable of comprehending that if it requires someone else to pay for it its not a right.
These low-information scum are getting deservedly punished.
These dopes are only now complaining about the $95 fine? Hey chumps, that’s just the entrance fee. Just wait a few years. I hope you brought your lube because you’re going to need it. And plenty of it too.
This is what annoys me the most about the whole thing. 99% of the defenders of Obama care have no clue what it is. All they know is that Obama and the Democrats pushed for it and they think it’s some sort of fast route to “socialized medicine” or what-have-you. The affordable care act is much like the department of homeland security. It doesn’t actually improve anything, it just adds a new layer of bureaucracy plus a whole new set of restrictions and rules on top of everything else and calls it a day. Because that has always worked so well in the past.
The biggest problem is that people will latch on to some tiny part of the act which they like (such as the provisions with respect to birth control) and they’ll use that as justification for keeping the whole thing.
I have no doubt that if they voted at all, they voted for the President.
If they think the fine is cool, what this they get to the subject of deductibles.
opps, this = till
I’m very happy that the low information scum is getting ass raped by their own stupid voting.
It’s as much poor math skills as low information. There is not now nor has there ever been a free lunch. In order to cover the unemployed and those with preexisting conditions someone who won’t be contributing to the problem needs to pay for those that are. It’s simple socialism. Now get with the program. All of you line up in front of the cart and put on your yoke. There is a lot of pulling to do and it will just be harder for you to get started if you wait until we have filled the cart with your new burden. Chop Chop!!!
The schadenfreude, it tickles.
I’m not laughing with them; I’m laughing at them.