Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and that the original Obama lie on cost was $900 billion net over ten years. And let's assume the CBO's recent report was a net cost from the federal treasury of $1.5 +/- over ten years. If this assumption is correct then does it not follow that there is an unsustainable drain from the federal treasury of $600 billion over ten years? How will that ongoing deficit be paid for? It will be borrowed won't it?
How do you have so little shame about completely making up numbers? How many times now have I pointed out that your numbers are fabricated, and you just trudge on.
If all of the facts you are basing your opinions on continue to be shown to be wrong, maybe you need to reevaluate.
What is the difference between the 600 billion and the 900 billion? Why is only one of them considered unsustainable to you? What exactly is your criteria for unsustainable?
You seem pretty fixated on the fact that healthcare costs money. That is not something that is ever going to change. In order to provide healthcare to those who can't afford it, it is going to have to take money out of government revenues, which ultimately has to be funded by taxes.
If you can think of a free way to provide healthcare for people who can't afford it, please let us know.
Almost all things in life are determined by a cost/benefit analysis. Obamacare has altered the reduced the benefit of becoming a Medical Doctor. Obamacare will squeeze the medical profession by decreasing the incentives to go through the laborious, rigorous and protracted process of acquiring the credentials and developing the skills necessary to be an MD capable of providing a high quality of health care. Obamacare only adds health care workers at the low end of the skill spectrum. Additionally, insurance companies are going to try to make the ACA requirements pencil out by limiting doctors and medical facilities available to its ACA insureds. That means a reduction in the quality of health care to the extent the best doctors and hospitals aren't available for the insureds.
What on earth makes you think that Obamacare reduces the benefit of becoming a doctor?
Why would insurance companies limit doctors and medical facilities available to people insured by ACA policies? What policies are you actually talking about? Private, medicaid, medicare? They are all affected by the ACA.
In other words Obamacare will increase the annual budget deficit, and accumulated national debt at the same time that Medicare and Social Security go into the red due to the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. That retirement will last for the next quarter of a century at least. No polity in all of recorded history has been able to survive an extended period of financial instability. America's ability to borrow from the rest of the world will come to an effective end when the dollar is abandoned as the world's reserve currency.
If you look at the books, the real issue you are talking about here is Medicare, not the ACA. When people retire, they are going on medicare, and it is a very expensive program. You seem to think that attempts to reduce costs in medicare are evil though, so your alternative is to prevent younger poorer people from getting health care?
Actually that's not true. Obamacare doesn't allow competition between health insurance companies on an interstate basis.
That is not something that Obama imposed, it is something that he simply didn't change.
It is a puzzling argument coming from you, since you repeatedly talk about allowing states to figure out healthcare for themselves, yet this proposal from you dramatically reduces a state's ability to control healthcare in their state.
I don't want pre=natal care, or contraceptives. I'm being forced by the federal govt. to subsidize other people.
The nature of insurance is risk pooling. You use things that some other people don't, and visa versa.
The IPAB was created by the ACA. Why was it created now? It's new isn't it?
Why was the IPAB created by Obama?
Because, as you have pointed out, Medicare is extremely expensive, and enrollment is only going to go up. They need to be doing everything they can to fight waste in this massive bureaucracy.
The previous system of oversight was inefficient, so this allows Medicare to hopefully act more efficiently.
I am still waiting for your reasoning on how this proves that Obama Care is imposing "government panels" on people. Medicare has always been government run and the government has always made attempts to keep costs down. Any rational insurance plan, public or private, has to do that.
America will be a less productive country if people don't work on a full time basis. Reduced productivity means America will be a poorer country. The CBO report said that Obamacare will cause a loss of work equal to 2 million full time jobs by 2017 and 2.5 million full time jobs by 2024. Consequently, America will be a less productive and poorer country.
As I said before most intentional actions in life are determined by a cost/benefit analysis. By keeping the number of covered workers below fifty it is possible for an employer to escape the employer mandate of the ACA. Another approach is to use a part time work force so that workers aren't covered employees.
You are going to have to start posting direct links to your posts about what you claim the CBO says, because you have so far been dramatically off the mark every time you have "cited" their numbers in the past.
What will the IPABs impact be on "end of life" medical care designed to extend life as much as possible?
Nothing. Please show me any evidence to the contrary.
There is no crisis in health care. The majority of Americans were satisfied with their health care and health insurance.
What does that even mean? Lets see what report you are getting those numbers from?
That's the wrong question. The right question is how can health care be provided without empowering the federal bureaucracy and politicians.
Why is that the right question?
Why did so many Canadians come to the United States for medical care even though they had coverage under Canada's single payer system?
People like me will never accept Govt. control and empowerment. Thus, the ACA will always be the cause of dissension and strife in the US.
I favor letting each state adopt its own approach because one size doesn't fit all. I support cost cutting measures like tort reform, and permitting insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines. I don't support cutting the quality of health care.
I would prefer no USA if there is an ACA. Seriously. I'm not good with Big Govt. and tens of millions like me will never accept it. The ACA will continue to be a source of estrangement, hatred, and alienation.
The number of people who come to the US for healthcare is a very very small portion of the population in Canada. Far smaller than the number of US citizens who travel outside of the US to get affordable healthcare in other countries.
You being a **** about it isn't really a reason not to reform healthcare.
How does one fund the ACA's annual deficit? Borrowing? But Social Security and Medicare are already going broke as the Baby Boom generation moves into retirement and lives for a very long time. The debt service on the national debt is going to skyrocket...especially when America's ability to borrow is constrained due to the loss of low interest rates derived from the role of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Again, the fact that it costs money isn't a reason not to implement it. Any plan is going to be expensive.
My aunt Kay from Edmonton died from cancer while waiting for her turn for surgery and treatment. That is an instance of reduced health care quality.
That is obviously sad, but there are countless stories of the exact same thing happening in the US because people didn't have enough money or the right insurance. Anecdotes are not good evidence of anything.
