Thread: Obamacare

Originally Posted by gugi

There is a straightforward mechanism - increase taxes/cut spending.
If you like to think of US as a business the debt is not a problem at all because you have somebody else's money that you are successfully operating with. Plenty of businesses do that, remember how in 2008 the Fed had to intervene because commercial paper is that important.

Not to mention that running a business with one's own capital only is generally not done unless you're very small or very big. Easy access to capital is one of the major advantages of US as a place for running business.

Here's the public debt/GDP ratio from Wikipedia - it is nothing like what you're saying.
Attachment 199206

There is a dotted line at 2012 after which it's projected, because the data is not completely analyzed but the current figure is 74% (GDP calculated from Q4 2014 and debt figure from, March 6 2015)

Please take an economics class. Your idea of how the economy works is both backwards and upside down...

Originally Posted by prodigy

China's economy passed ours years ago, it's only a matter of time before they become the superpower the US once was.

This will probably be short lived, relatively speaking. Due to the one child per family forced directive that has been in place for quite a few years now, my understanding is that in the not too distant future, each Chinese person will be responsible for six people. Their population, if it has not peaked already, will sharply decline after it does.

ChrisL

Originally Posted by DaveW

Your picture is exactly like what I said, except it somehow assumes that the debt is <40% <80% slightly for the endpoints (2012 and 2014). For some reason, the denominator in your chart is different than the data I saw, I have no idea. It scales the chart, but doesn't change the relative differences.

As I said I got it from Wikipedia and it's pretty easy to find it there, but just added a link. You can round a bit that's not a problem, but your narrative is a bit off as you are describing a sharp and ongoing increase since the last 12 years, but that's not what I see.

I see a jump over 3-4 year period and then a plateau. That sharp increase corresponds with the recovery from the recession from the burst of the mortgage bubble, so it seems to me that it's a sudden manifestation of an artificially hidden effect accumulated over a decade or two.
Of course, theoretically, the government didn't have to take on all that debt and bail out the failed businesses and individuals, bit it did. There is no similar bubble on the horizon, so the projected plateau seems pretty reasonable to me. Certainly far more plausible than the alarmist doomsday rhetoric that we have to do something immediately.

I am not saying that there isn't a low-grade sustained problem to address, but that's precisely why it isn't being addressed. And given the level of political discourse I don't see it happen anytime soon either.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I have no clue why they think that 2015 won't add anything, because the projected deficit provided by the CBO this year (without any major wars, etc) is $500 billion. Your chart shows it flat in 2015, which would only be the case if 500 billion is less than the increase in GDP (it is not).

This is debt to GDP, if the GDP grows faster than the debt the ratio decreases.

Originally Posted by DaveW

Your assessment about running a business on debt is not accurate, because the government doesn't produce anything

It wasn't my analogy, it was yours. It's poor analogy but if you want to use a poor analogy to support your argument you don't get to cry foul at the moment when it doesn't fit it anymore. Not that it matters much.

Originally Posted by prodigy

I'm just a realist, and I see what's coming. The two sides are so different we will never agree on anything. The left can have half the country, impose their will on the people, take away all guns, rights, liberties, and freedom. They can let everyone have everything they want without working. Then the right can have their half, promoting freedom, limited government, those who work hard succeed. No one gets handouts and they aren't forced to live their lives based on how the government sees fit. We'll see which one collapses first..

If you cut the country in two based on red and blue states the red part will be bankrupt. I would also suggest that the 'two sides are so different' because people like you chose to have such divisive outlook.

I have a divisive outlook because I use logic, reasoning, science, and facts to live my life. Liberals choose to ignore all of those things...

Originally Posted by prodigy

I have a divisive outlook because I use logic, reasoning, science, and facts to live my life. Liberals choose to ignore all of those things...

Generalizations/stereotypes like this are neither logical, nor reasoned, nor scientific.

Real numbers for real people

Couple A

Wife has a great job and what many call a Cadillac plan free from her work,,

In 2010 this couple checked on adding the husband to the policy since it was so good, the cost would have been $73 per month

In 2012 the husband left his job and became "Semi Retired" for the second time at 52 , the cost to add him to the insurance was $120
Since 2012 the exact same coverage has risen to $330 per month..

Tax wise this money CANNOT be deducted because it is through the wife's employer, if it was through an exchange and much less coverage it would be deductible..

Couple B

Self employed basically the same ages as Couple A they are the only people I know of that have actually received better coverage at slightly less cost through the ACA without being subsidized.. Trust me here it is very little difference but there are extended overages and the premium is slightly VERY slightly lower..
The deductible is either the same or very close..



My understanding is that 84% - 86% of the people that have signed up for the ACA are receiving subsidies through the Fed, you really have to chew on that a bit..

There are many back and forth arguments of why this might be a good thing and just as many as to why it is not sustainable chose what facts you want to believe..

Originally Posted by gugi

Generalizations/stereotypes like this are neither logical, nor reasoned, nor scientific.

Logic and reasoning both were the foundation of my statement. In my short life on this planet, I have yet to meet a logical thinking liberal. Is there one out there? I don't think so, they probably would have had some grand idea by now. It's always the same, every single time, and unfortunately you are no exception. I mean I'm sure you are a great guy, but your logic just doesn't add up. There's nothing anyone can do or say to make a liberal see the light. They have to transition on their own, once they realize they've been living in a cloudy haze of misinformation and denial. I really enjoy these politically "hot" topics because I thoroughly enjoy all the information liberals try to present. It really cracks me up, on some level, to read about how great Obamacare is, how if the constitution just wasn't in the way so much good would be accomplished, how it's still Bush's fault for everything, how those darned republicans won't meet us halfway. Meanwhile our footing in the world is about to slip away for good because we, we the great citizens of america, have been too lazy to care enough about what our politicians have been sneakily getting away with for decades. When I say a civil war is coming, I don't mean the right and left, I mean the free people of America that are being more and more oppressed each and every day will take back our government. We will kick every last one out, and start over. It's going to suck, it's going to be miserable, but if it doesn't happen soon it won't even matter because there won't be anything left...

**** Drops the mic *****

I'm out its been real. Only time will tell

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Real numbers for real people
....

It would be good to know all relevant the numbers i.e.:
Cost of wife A's plan (paid by her company), in 2010, 2012 and 2014, we already know the cost of adding husband B to it is $73, $120 and $330 per month.

Size of wife A's company - large companies are able to negotiate lower cost of policies with the insurance companies.

Cost of couple B's plan (which is comparable to couple A's) for 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Originally Posted by prodigy

Logic and reasoning both were the foundation of my statement. In my short life on this planet, I have yet to meet a logical thinking liberal. Is there one out there? I don't think so, they probably would have had some grand idea by now.

I'm not particularly impressed by theatrics, so I'll simply address the flawed logic.
It is very possible that you simply haven't met any logical thinking liberal not because they do not exist but because you have met extremely small number of people in your short life on this planet.
I can even go one step further and prove you wrong. As far as I can tell from your posts you would consider people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin etc. liberals, yet they all have been quite successful don't seem short on great ideas.

One real life example.

I'm retired from a large city utility in 2009. No company paid insurance for last 15 years. I paid for Cadillac/Gold at $1450 a month for Wife & I in 2010 and $1675 in 2012. In 2012 Wife & I was dropped as I had to move to Medicare.