Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
Ah, more critical info! I knew the CBO projections did not include the entire balance sheet of costs and revenues, but not that the CBO was actually limited to such a partisan view of real final costs. This takes even more wind out of the ACA critics' sails.
Again, Bucco et al. Kindly and respectfully, we have heard you continually restating your wholesale conclusion that ACA should be repealed. We've also heard enough about the Obama-led cabal which is to blame in myriad ways for this travesty.
Please, please, let's move on. Let's concentrate on any specific provisions, find any evidence that they are net negatives, and why they need to be seriously revised or dropped from the plan.
|
BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM would be my start.
This bill has got to be HEAVILY reworked for how we pay for it. This country is in trouble financially and this may be the thing to push us over the edge.
1. …..They are telling us that this bill will reduce the deficit; one of the ways that the Dems put this together was
that cost justification includes….FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES PAID TO THE USA BY THOSE FOLKS WHO WILL GET PAY RAISES
PEOPLE WILL GET IN LIEU OF INSURANCE BENEFITS. This, if you do the math is just not going to work.
2….IN 2018 insurance companies will pay a 40% excise tax on so called high end insurance policies. Do you think
the insurance industry had a hand in making it 2018 and do you think it will ever happen ?
3….Next year the Medicaire payroll tax will include unearned income, a 3.8 tax on investment income for individuals
over $200.000 and families over 250,000 on investment income. This is going to affect our economy and jobs in a very negative way
These are the main driving ways to pay for this bill.
Do any of them sound anywhere near a sure thing…this is what I have been
referring to for a year as a lot of "maybes"
This, to me, makes this bill shaky at best relative to being paid for. There is nothing in this
payment plan that comes close to being real….a lot of maybes. This has been my concern from the very beginnings. Frankly I thought the SCOTUS would send it back and it would need reworking but as the court said, they do not rule on bad law.
The governors told Obama that the cost to many states on the Medicaid issue would be just too much for states to handle.
They still put it in and the SCOTUS ruled that they could opt out because they recognize this. Right now, it is a political
thing where Republicans governors will try to opt out and Dem, of course will want it. There is a real and genuine cost
to each state to even just set this program up and since it is an election year it will stay on the political side as far as
"SAYING" they will opt in or out. TRUST ME, they have three years, I think to get this together and there will be a
lot of states who just cannot afford it, Dem and Rep. This will raise the cost to the federal govt
and they did not plan for this because they did not expect the SCOTUS ruling. They had already told the states
it was mandatory and they could not opt out.
THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF WISCONSINS IN THE YEARS TO COME.
I desparetly think the cost MUST COME DOWN.
I have no idea nor have I seen a "menu" of items in the bill
and the associated costs thus I cannot come up with a "plan" that would encompass cost and benefits. But the bill does not even address COSTS of health care nor does it entertain any TORT REFORM.
VK came up with some ideas for paying, and maybe a new congress can address the issues. I like much of what is in the bill, but we keep being warned about the upcoming financial crap (Bush tax cuts, etc) and then we pile this on. I think everyone likes what they read they will get but WOW...I would love a Cadillac but just cannot afford it.
I hope you dont consider this too negative but I cannot get the costs, not only to the country, but to the states out of mind. We do not have a bottomless pit of money !