Congressional report says that repealing Obamacare would cost $100 billion over the next decade. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=J!NX;48006737]tbh the Republican party SHOULD die and so should the democratic party our government shouldn't even have a party system any more, that's simply a waste. We need more options than "The two least awful people, and then the least awful of the two"[/QUOTE] I agree with you: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BuPgrBwHU[/url] Relevant

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;48010171]I have another question. What are these costs that the government will supposedly have to pay? Obamacare is largely private insurance- which costs them nothing. It also expanded Medicare and set up subsidies for illegal immigrants. How does not expanding Medicare and not paying for illegal immigrants insurance cost money?[/QUOTE] You don't have to PAY to be losing money. If some change would happen and you'd start earning 100$ less than you are now, then that change would cost you 100$/month. My question wasn't "how much will the government have to pay for obamacare" I asked "how much it's going to cost". That includes how much profit it lost because of obamacare.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;48010171]I have another question. What are these costs that the government will supposedly have to pay? Obamacare is largely private insurance- which costs them nothing. It also expanded Medicare and set up subsidies for illegal immigrants. How does not expanding Medicare and not paying for illegal immigrants insurance cost money?[/QUOTE] It's mostly just taxes in obamacare that the government won't be collecting anymore, which to me is a good thing. The taxes in obamacare fucked me over big time.

[QUOTE=Rocket;48005727]You really have to understand what people mean when they say things. [B][I] When someone says "X is wrong," what they mean is that "this goes against what I consider moral." Republicans hate gay people. I think that's very wrong. It goes against what I believe is moral.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] Facepunch in a nutshell

I agree, kill GOP [editline]20th June 2015[/editline] their members too fuck it

[QUOTE=Megadave;48010580]Facepunch in a nutshell[/QUOTE] Facepunch is WAY more hypocritical than that. It's more like "You are wrong. Not all "x" believes "y"." "Omg, every republican hates gay people." [QUOTE=Buck.;48010620]I agree, kill GOP [editline]20th June 2015[/editline] their members too fuck it[/QUOTE] Same goes for the democrat party boo.....

[QUOTE=Buck.;48010620]I agree, kill GOP [editline]20th June 2015[/editline] their members too fuck it[/QUOTE] You know what, fuck it. Everybody dies, You die, You die, hey you, are you a voter for your government? Alright your gonna die too.

[QUOTE=DJrorok;48012747]You know what, fuck it. Everybody dies, You die, You die, hey you, are you a voter for your government? Alright your gonna die too.[/QUOTE] It's what happens when Oprah watches too much game of thrones.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;48010171]I have another question. What are these costs that the government will supposedly have to pay? Obamacare is largely private insurance- which costs them nothing. It also expanded Medicare and set up subsidies for illegal immigrants. How does not expanding Medicare and not paying for illegal immigrants insurance cost money?[/QUOTE] the architects of the ACA were well aware of the fact that medicare expansions, new subsidies, exchanges, and the implementation and enforcement of new regulations and standards would require money hence, the ACA also comes bundled with budget restructuring, involving revisions in medicare spending, as well as spending cuts and tax increases. the result is that the ACA is actually budget-positive or at the very least budget neutral. [video=youtube;CdcNLBfeTis]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcNLBfeTis[/video] the video's numbers match up with those provided more recently by the CBO. the video said that we'd be gaining about $100 billion from the law in total, which means that if we repealed the ACA, then we'd be losing those $100 billion. this makes sense, because the video actually looked at previous CBO data to make the breakdown.

I'm kind of fascinated where republicans will go next. The politics they espouse are completely bonkers but appeal to their constituents on a local level. The nation at large can't seem to stomach these sort of politics, which is why they've failed to put up a decent presidential candidate since maybe McCain. They can't move forward because they're caught in between the hyperfringe and everyone else and they can't possible please both.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/gGmuJsP.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;48015760]I'm kind of fascinated where republicans will go next. The politics they espouse are completely bonkers but appeal to their constituents on a local level. The nation at large can't seem to stomach these sort of politics, which is why they've failed to put up a decent presidential candidate since maybe McCain. They can't move forward because they're caught in between the hyperfringe and everyone else and they can't possible please both.[/QUOTE] the republican party is essentially a coalition of libertarians, social conservatives, and laissez-faire capitalists. this sets up a fundamental problem for them: any republican candidate has to be a schizophrenic lunatic that covers all the bases to win the primary, but then after the primary they're faced with a choice: stick to their campaign convictions and appear insane, thus losing the national; or moderate their positions and appear two-faced, and thus lose the national. however, none of this would be a problem if they could just muster up a candidate with some charisma. it doesn't matter what your actual policy platform is, as long as you have a ronald reagan or a 2008 barack obama running for office.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48015714]Helpful answer about obamacare and money[/QUOTE] Forgive me if I'm understanding this wrong or oversimplifying it, but pretty much everything I've heard previously about the bill is bad things. Is this basically saying that the ACA expands health coverage for more people in the country and adds some benefits, but the tradeoff is that everyone is mandated to get some form of insurance and people must pay higher taxes to keep the program up and running?

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;48016459]Forgive me if I'm understanding this wrong or oversimplifying it, but pretty much everything I've heard previously about the bill is bad things. Is this basically saying that the ACA expands health coverage for more people in the country and adds some benefits, but the tradeoff is that everyone is mandated to get some form of insurance and people must pay higher taxes to keep the program up and running?[/QUOTE] The ACA doesn't expand insurance coverage per se- it mandates you to buy private insurance if the cost of the cheapest "minimum coverage" is 8% of your income. There are a few odd exemptions to this but in general, if the cost of the worst policy is 8% or less of your (pretax) income you will face a tax penalty for not having insurance. This sounds worse then it is because there is no mechanism yet to assess or collect this tax... And ACA has a few good points as well. You stay on your parents policy till you're 26. In theory you can't be turned down for preexisting conditions (I say in theory because though there is language preventing extremely high rates (to set the price so high the insurance isn't an option) there is no mechanism in place to regulate this. Expanded Medicare (in the states that allowed it) so the destitute can be covered. Set subsidies up if you are above the Medicare threashold but the premiums would exceed 8% of your income (though if your job offers insurance you do not qualify for subsidies). The bad is obvious- they took a private system of health insurance, let them keep their monopoly status, and then mandated everyone purchase a policy. Rates, of course, went up. But no one can definitely say if they went up more then they would have w/o the law.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005661]But that's not [I]WRONG FACTUALLY[/I] that is [I]an ideal that most people today disagree[/I] with. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I'm not saying they're wrong, he's being a bit rude. I don't think we have to result to bad language or poor manners.[/QUOTE] What's the point of going around saying, "WELL THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION, MAAAN"? There are such things as wrong opinions. Defend yourself, or don't share your opinion.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;48016459]Forgive me if I'm understanding this wrong or oversimplifying it, but pretty much everything I've heard previously about the bill is bad things. Is this basically saying that the ACA expands health coverage for more people in the country and adds some benefits, but the tradeoff is that everyone is mandated to get some form of insurance and people must pay higher taxes to keep the program up and running?[/QUOTE] the main focus of the ACA was instituting new regulations that would make the health insurance industry more consumer friendly. those regulations included lots of different new restrictions on what insurance companies could and couldn't do. a key regulation, however, is guaranteed issue, which basically meant that a company couldn't deny you insurance for a pre-existing condition. however, guaranteed issue presented a quagmire for the insurance industry. if companies can't deny people for pre-existing conditions, then there's the danger that people will simply wait until they get sick to buy insurance. this isn't how the system works, though; for insurance to function, you need a large pool of healthy people paying into the system so that those who are sick can pull from that pool when necessary. the result was the individual mandate, which mandated that everyone get insurance. but the ACA's architects recognized that the individual mandate would be a burden on individual citizens, so they did a few things. first, they instituted expansions for medicare and medicaid to cover more of the poor and elderly. second, they instituted an employer mandate, saying that a company with so many full-time employees would be required to provide health insurance to those workers. third, they worked in subsidies, essentially a way for the government to provide people with money to purchase insurance and meet the mandate if they couldn't afford coverage but didn't fall under the expansions. fourth, they set up the website and allowed states to set up exchanges to make compliance with the new law easier for both consumers and insurance companies. the original legislation also contained a public option, which would have basically been a cheap form of government-run health insurance that would compete with private insurance companies. this was removed from the legislation later in order to get votes from moderate democrats in the senate. there are lots of little things worked into the law, and it's really complicated. that's not to say that the legislation is without its blemishes, though. i would have greatly preferred that the public option stayed in the legislation as a route towards single-payer health insurance. still, change occurs in increments, and the ACA is the first of what i hope to be multiple steps toward universal healthcare.

I find amazing to see US citizens saying their political system is pure shit. While it's understandable that superficially, the two party system, can appear to only give out 2 ideological stances, the truth is that they are both just the political spectrum split in 2, with a "middle point" somewhere from which where we can decide if this or that belongs to the democrats or republicans. There's a reason why they are called "Catch-all parties" or "Big tent parties". Some democrats have more in common with some republicans, than with some other democrats. Clinton and Sanders belong to the same party, alrighty? Yet, they are totally different in many proposals and stances. Having a multiple party system won't help either. Believe me. I live in Argentina. I know what I'm talking about. The "multiple choices" happens inside each party and then the most voted candidates duke it out with sticks and...get voted in national elections. The republican party will never "die" as a matter of fact. They are just the representation of that American population that is socially, politically and economically retarded. If the two party system is dismantled, another party will show up catering to their demands and will be in the same position with the same power. Yes, I just called most of the republican party retards. "Most of" because as that black scientist guy has said, they funded scientific research more than democrats have done (If I'm not mistaken. The guy from the new Cosmos series.) So some republicans can retain a degree of common sense and decency -as in: They think with their head, not with their wallets-

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48005293]And the Republicans would gladly spend every penny of that.[/QUOTE] Oh course they need brains.

I see all this hate on republicans for bashing this bill, but shouldn't democrats and the like be looking for an ACTUAL universal healthcare system? Not just forced insurance? If I was to want a universal healthcare system, I'd see Obamacare as an absolute cop out. They're basically saying "We want you to feel good knowing you're covered, so we're going to force you to pay for insurance while we sit here and pretend we're doing something for you." Bolstering the power of medical insurance companies does nothing but make it harder to get decent healthcare and also significantly more expensive (due to hospitals being required to charge insurance premiums in order to get customers, as certain insurance will choose to only cover those hospitals which will charge their premium). Wouldn't you guys rather see a system where the government WAS your insurance company, rather than just empowering insurance companies and letting the government sit on their asses, shouldn't you guys be pushing for a system where the government is responsible for your healthcare? Isn't that what universal healthcare is?

I know I'll get blasted for this anyway, but isn't this price cheaper than keeping it? [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-s-10-year-costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html[/url] (Says Obamacare/ ACA costs over 10 years will exceed 2 Trillion) Looks like even the price media Maters is citing ($571 billion) is still more than the cost to repeal this thing [url]http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/27/right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-that-the-cbos-ne/202280[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;48020333]I know I'll get blasted for this anyway, but isn't this price cheaper than keeping it? [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-s-10-year-costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html[/url] (Says Obamacare/ ACA costs over 10 years will exceed 2 Trillion) Looks like even the price media Maters is citing ($571 billion) is still more than the cost to repeal this thing [url]http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/27/right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-that-the-cbos-ne/202280[/url][/QUOTE] i mean if you read the OP and you read the post i'd made then they'd show that while the legislation technically [I]costs[/I] that amount of money, it isn't running a deficit with those costs, because they're offset by medicare spending reconfigurations along with new spending cuts and tax increases. repealing the law means repealing those reconfigurations, spending cuts, and tax increases.

[QUOTE=tidus1112;48019711]I see all this hate on republicans for bashing this bill, but shouldn't democrats and the like be looking for an ACTUAL universal healthcare system? Not just forced insurance? If I was to want a universal healthcare system, I'd see Obamacare as an absolute cop out. They're basically saying "We want you to feel good knowing you're covered, so we're going to force you to pay for insurance while we sit here and pretend we're doing something for you." Bolstering the power of medical insurance companies does nothing but make it harder to get decent healthcare and also significantly more expensive (due to hospitals being required to charge insurance premiums in order to get customers, as certain insurance will choose to only cover those hospitals which will charge their premium). Wouldn't you guys rather see a system where the government WAS your insurance company, rather than just empowering insurance companies and letting the government sit on their asses, shouldn't you guys be pushing for a system where the government is responsible for your healthcare? Isn't that what universal healthcare is?[/QUOTE] They won't because Americans cry about anything socialist.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48020610]i mean if you read the OP and you read the post i'd made then they'd show that while the legislation technically [I]costs[/I] that amount of money, it isn't running a deficit with those costs, because they're offset by medicare spending reconfigurations along with new spending cuts and tax increases. repealing the law means repealing those reconfigurations, spending cuts, and tax increases.[/QUOTE] Which is why this is misleading. Repealing this bill doesn't mean we will be spending more money, it means we won't be getting as much tax money in as we are now. Spending more =/= receiving less tax money.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48020754]Which is why this is misleading. Repealing this bill doesn't mean we will be spending more money, it means we won't be getting as much tax money in as we are now. Spending more =/= receiving less tax money.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=the article]It estimates that the cost of repealing the taxes levied by Obamacare, and the cost controls imposed by the law would by themselves increase the deficit by $353 billion between 2016 to 2025.[/QUOTE] it's only misleading if you don't read the article

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;48016927]The ACA doesn't expand insurance coverage per se- it mandates you to buy private insurance if the cost of the cheapest "minimum coverage" is 8% of your income. There are a few odd exemptions to this but in general, if the cost of the worst policy is 8% or less of your (pretax) income you will face a tax penalty for not having insurance. This sounds worse then it is because there is no mechanism yet to assess or collect this tax... And ACA has a few good points as well. You stay on your parents policy till you're 26. In theory you can't be turned down for preexisting conditions (I say in theory because though there is language preventing extremely high rates (to set the price so high the insurance isn't an option) there is no mechanism in place to regulate this. Expanded Medicare (in the states that allowed it) so the destitute can be covered. Set subsidies up if you are above the Medicare threashold but the premiums would exceed 8% of your income (though if your job offers insurance you do not qualify for subsidies). The bad is obvious- they took a private system of health insurance, let them keep their monopoly status, and then mandated everyone purchase a policy. Rates, of course, went up. But no one can definitely say if they went up more then they would have w/o the law.[/QUOTE] Holy fuck that is awful, not only is the government mandating that people get insurance, but they didn't do shit about companies jacking up the prices so some people may essentially be forced to buy into something overtly expensive depending upon their amount of income. No wonder so many people hate this legislation. Or at least my understanding of this is that you're basically fucked in the ass if you make enough income to be considered on the lower end of the middle class.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48020988]it's only misleading if you don't read the article[/QUOTE] No, the article says exactly what I'm saying: [QUOTE][B]It estimates that the cost of repealing the taxes levied by Obamacare, and the cost controls imposed by the law[/B][/QUOTE] Repealing taxes levied are not the same as spending more money. The cost controls are on the consumer side, so not necessarily a problem for government.