Originally Posted by Bucco

Sorry for the confusion which you may not even know about but got it now under control...

Very good...this will take awhile and I hope I can stay on course as I tend to get off on tangents...so going to try and stay organized,

First, I never saw nor had a desire to see or read the HOPE AND CHANGE thing so for sure that never influenced me and in fact if you check with VK and I only mention him because he has been on this forum as long as me and I cannot think of anyone else who has, BUT I have been opposed to Obama since BEFORE he was even the candidate so this is not a new twist from me or a change.

HEALTH CARE....You say he was very clear in promising a comprehensive health care plan. I direct you to my thread titled..."JUST SO WE KNOW WHO" and there are videos on there. He was not clear, and in fact was all over the place. If you check, his promises during the primary and campaign were all over the place. Instead of repeating what I posted there, I will assume that you will at least check it out, but rest assured that he was forced into things by Clinton and Edwards. Continuing on this subject...you say at the end of your post that I claim he lied.....He said right up to election day that if you voted for Hillary she will make you buy insurance and I will not..videos available...he said he was more interested in lowering costs and that is what he was addressing as top priority. Once elected, he completely not only forgot about allowing us to hear the debate on health costs, he took it behind closed doors and kept it basically secret. He forgot all about health costs and tort reform and was all of a sudden for the mandate, which he violently opposed and was really a help to getting the nod over Hillary if you check back. Now, it is hard for me to believe that he got educated in 6 short months to change his mind and all of a sudden be on board with the mandate.
Next he does not have the votes required under any circumstances and he went behind closed doors with states like LA an SC and all of sudden they got extra federal money and changed their vote. Even Democrats opposed this bill because he had TOTAL CONTROL over both houses and still had to do this. Once the bill is passed he says this is NOT a tax as was immediately called to his attention. YET, HE ARGUED BOTH at the SCOTUS..he argued originally it was a mandate and then argued it was a TAX...he actually argued both sides.
I will not mention the obvious that he claimed and I was impressed about how transparent he would be about it and there would be open and televised debates on this important issue. This is more than a campaign promise and not something he in any way could not do. CPAN says they were ready !
The paying of this is so questionable....CBO will tell you it "depends" on a bunch of "ifs ands and buts" which for the future is down right scary. We cannot pay our bills now.

I will stop now but if you think any of the lies and blackmail I have listed is wrong or not accurate, let me know I will send you as much validation as you need. There is much more but I am going on too long now.

A PS to this section just to allow you to know where my distrust comes from. When he was a candidate I read both of his autobiographies...read as much as I could from the Chicago newspapers about his background, etc,and posted on here that he was not to be trusted..this BEFORE he got the nomination. This is a man who has lied numerous times in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY for gosh sakes..his own biography. He had a reputation in Chicago as a guy who goes where the wind blows and as I recall a quote has no convictions to speak of. I could go on and on but will stop at that since you had specfics.

EQUALITY IN THE MILITARY... I assume you refer to dont ask dont tell. A law that was on its way out anyway, but he DID implement it. I am an older guy so my opinion is sort of skewed and I admit to that, so will leave this entire thing just go as something he did.

IRAQ...lets not rehash Iraq, but allow me to correct you on this. The agreement to leave Iraq was formulated and signed before Obama took office...actually in in October 2008. I realize that Obama never said that BUT that is a fact which you surely can verify. This, another reason for some of my statement concerning his problem with the truth.

DRAWING DOWN IN AFGHAN....Will allow him to take credit for that but note it was after building the troops up but that makes no difference. It does appear that we are getting out.

HELLBENT AFTER TERRORIST...yes he has and does. However you will allow me to say that during the campaign in 2008, he villified the previous administration for ALL OF WHAT HE HAS USED TO DO IT. He actually was ridiculing of how Bush was doing it and when elected he ENHANCED those techniques he had ridiculed. I say this because this is one of many listed as something he accomplished and yet they are actually things he criticized in 2008 and enhance and continued so if you want to give him the credit it is ok with me but the credit should be for CONTINUING what was in place.

IMMIGRATION.....this latest announcement was a little political trick. First there is no way to enforce what he said and he knows it. He has done nothing in immigration for all these years yet if you listen to his talk in 2008 he was going to do so much and do it right away. He has done nothing until this little trick which is NOTHING, and his senate leader will not even discuss bills that would prevent illegals from scamming the treasury. These are all factual and you can check them out or I will be glad to supply validation.

For space I need to cut this short but I did not know he ended the Bush tax cuts....can you show me that ??

And as far as taxes, he appoints a blue ribbon group to study this and then throws them aside and give no consideration to any of their thoughts and this country has a great need for tax reform.

I did not know about the taxes on the rich...I do know that the health bill will surely do that PLUS add to the taxes of the poor and middle class.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these items instead of reading a bunch of little tweets.

I tried to, and this could have been much longer....I tried to let you know why I do not think much of this man....and I hope I made some points for you to at least consider. There are a ton more but again, thanks for being civil..

I find the forum stimulating an rather enjoy folks who may not agree with me..it sends me off to read.....

Look forward to your reply


PS...to save time in the future (I hope) please check on the REASON and METHODOLOGY for healthcare law in MASS used by Romney...it is not what the Democrats are saying and it is on a state level which makes sense on a lot of levels

Glad you enjoy opponents. Can I apply for Chief?

You say you didn't pay attention to Hope and Change, that you had already chose to dislike Obama for whatever reasons. I'm baffled then how you know what "promises" Obama made, what he "lied" about and what he "didn't even try" to accomplish.

Please step back from this "promises & lies" nonsense for a minute. You seem to see political campaigning so differently than I. You seem so passionate about every literal and miniscule interpretation of candidates comments. If two comments don't sound exactly the same six months apart, at least one of them is a "lie". You will not acknowledge that "promises" cannot even Constitutionally be made by Presidential candidates, that at most, a given topic is either a priority or not. Again you are seeing 'trees'; sound bites, partial contexts.

In Obama's case, your dislike and distrust for how you literally interpret his every word, obscures the 'forest'. Your immigration comments are a good example. You say Obama lied, apparently because he promised a new comprehensive immigration policy to resolve all related issues. You say he's done NOTHING. You completely dismiss that as chief executive he has pressed for the deportation of more illegal aliens than did any previous administration. His order to refrain from deporting the children brought here by parents, under tight conditions, is now THE operational practice of the INS. It solves a bunch of problems for the INS and how they focus their efforts. It takes the intense pressure off a million people caught in the middle. Have you not read the countless reports of how this was the sensible, right thing to do, something Congress could not accomplish? All of that is hardly NOTHING. It is a good foundation point for a new comprehensive policy. You can be as mean spirited as you want and say it was done for pure political advantage. Again, that is simple bias. What matters is that something useful HAS been done.

Try to understand how differently I view things. I care most about the big picture. I don't invest critical attention to what words the candidates use, and especially how the media and superpacs present them. I just want to hear what candidates care about and a sense of which things are more important than others. Example: I'm not bothered that Romney says he's going to try to repeal Obamacare. He is simply trying to draw from the excitement of this week's Court decision and pander to conservatives. He knows, you know and I know, if elected he won't be able to do it, and because of his moderate views, won't give it more than a passing glance. I'm not going to call him a "liar" or reject him for that stance. To me, when he talks about taxes, the economy and Iran, I want to see how he is going to generally approach each dilemma and how important each area is. Very simply, I'm still thinking about voting for Romney, but would have rejected him long ago if I counted the number of times his statements and sound bites have been contradictory.

Now, back to health care. It is silly to think that a President should be condemned for making changes in his position. This 'horror' you're dealing with about Obama's health care stance being different from Hillary's and including tort reform is completely trivial. In fighting for a health care plan as good or better than Hillary's, Obama was smart enough to realize the mandate was essential in the best model for paying for the plan, and smart enough to drop the tort reform before the whole effort failed again. OK. the ACA was not perfectly complete or exactly as he talked about it a year or two previously. SO WHAT! He got it DONE.

I'm glad you agree with me that there is some meaning to other accomplishments of the Obama administration. You didn't mention some I listed, and I hope you have a bit different outlook on what has been and is still being done, as formally as possible, with immigration.

And, or course, I am looking for any specific negative you can show evidence for in the ACA.

Originally Posted by Bucco

TO ijusluvit


May I just add this on our immigration discussion....this was BEFORE Obama;s announcement...

"To many supporters of immigration reform, Obama has been a major disappointment. As a presidential candidate for his first term, Obama said he would enact immigration reform his first year in office and prevent parents from being separated from their children by deportation. Immigration reform hasn't happened. And deportation hasn't stopped. Obama is set to deport more people in one term than Republican predecessor George W. Bush did in two."

Obama's Broken 2008 Immigration Promises Create Dilemma For Democrats


This is why he made that announcement and all of a sudden he becomes a leader in immigration reform.....he has no way to even fulfill what he said recently.....and we now have a state (AZ) that basically has open borders AND a US Senate where Reid will not even entertain discussion on a bill to prevent the IRS scams that are taking our money.

You mentioned you were critical of me for no detail so I am trying to give you as much as I can without any of the idealogical stuff...simple and pure facts.

Again, some talking head threw out that dumb "promises" line and you took it, with the hook & sinker.

You said he did NOTHING. I specified two important step taken by the administration to deal with immigration problems.

Originally Posted by Bucco

TO ijusluvit


A little bit more on healthcare if you will.

This was in your note on healthc care...

"We both know this and that there will have to be changes to make things work better in the future. The big difference between us is that you don't trust Obama. Therefore you reject ACA. I don't feel that distrust, so I don't have to immediately dislike the idea and basics of ACA. After looking hard at it, I am willing to support it as a desperately needed foundation. "

I will accept that statement as your true feelings, but would like to add....I have been reading and trying to understand if Romney Care is just like Obama care and it is not.....in my little "library" of saved items there was an article in the American Spectator on the subject during the campaign. I went a bit further after reading it because American Spectator is a conservative item, and read a bit in the Boston Herald archives, as far back as possible to insure the heart of the article was valid.....

In any case...this ruling is JUST A FOUNDATION for the future..this is what Obama said in 2003,,,,, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." That is what he said...now I know that I posted videos where he said other things about it, but that is Obama.
He is also quoted "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive." Hard to keep up I know.

In any case, THAT was his motivation.

Romney had an entirely different motivation.....His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts' healthcare pie.

"Romney took on the uninsured in Massachusetts, working with both parties in Boston, he did so with the blessing of the Heritage Foundation. The idea was, essentially, people who were getting a free ride with respect to their healthcare would now have to pay. No more getting healthcare for free. This time you had to pony up some cash or buy insurance from a private carrier. The Heritage Foundation, a longstanding bastion of Conservatism, thought it bold, conservative thinking as they helped to craft its design.

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference

Romney never had the intention of this President. I think it could have been done a bit better personally, but they are different.

I really hope they keep railing on this and Romney "clears the air" in the debates so everyone can see it.

Just wanting to add some more for your consideration and look forward to your replies. I have all the details to back up what I have been saying and what I say now, but nobody who supports Obama wants to hear anything but praise for him so I keep it short believe it or not.

Those who make those little tweet type remarks on here will never read this because they do not care...to them, this is all a game instead of our and our childrens future !

This is good background information, but I've never gone very far to compare Massachusetts with the ACA. Romneycare is only interesting to me because it demonstrates his position as a moderate. Some conservative posters here would have to classify it as part of the socialist or communist scourge of our nation, but they have to bite their tongue because they hate Obama more than anything else in the world and can therefore only have Romney left.

Again, I'd like to read about an evidence-supported, clearly negative provision of ACA.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Glad you enjoy opponents. Can I apply for Chief?

You say you didn't pay attention to Hope and Change, that you had already chose to dislike Obama for whatever reasons. I'm baffled then how you know what "promises" Obama made, what he "lied" about and what he "didn't even try" to accomplish.

Please step back from this "promises & lies" nonsense for a minute. You seem to see political campaigning so differently than I. You seem so passionate about every literal and miniscule interpretation of candidates comments. If two comments don't sound exactly the same six months apart, at least one of them is a "lie". You will not acknowledge that "promises" cannot even Constitutionally be made by Presidential candidates, that at most, a given topic is either a priority or not. Again you are seeing 'trees'; sound bites, partial contexts.

In Obama's case, your dislike and distrust for how you literally interpret his every word, obscures the 'forest'. Your immigration comments are a good example. You say Obama lied, apparently because he promised a new comprehensive immigration policy to resolve all related issues. You say he's done NOTHING. You completely dismiss that as chief executive he has pressed for the deportation of more illegal aliens than did any previous administration. His order to refrain from deporting the children brought here by parents, under tight conditions, is now THE operational practice of the INS. It solves a bunch of problems for the INS and how they focus their efforts. It takes the intense pressure off a million people caught in the middle. Have you not read the countless reports of how this was the sensible, right thing to do, something Congress could not accomplish? All of that is hardly NOTHING. It is a good foundation point for a new comprehensive policy. You can be as mean spirited as you want and say it was done for pure political advantage. Again, that is simple bias. What matters is that something useful HAS been done.

Try to understand how differently I view things. I care most about the big picture. I don't invest critical attention to what words the candidates use, and especially how the media and superpacs present them. I just want to hear what candidates care about and a sense of which things are more important than others. Example: I'm not bothered that Romney says he's going to try to repeal Obamacare. He is simply trying to draw from the excitement of this week's Court decision and pander to conservatives. He knows, you know and I know, if elected he won't be able to do it, and because of his moderate views, won't give it more than a passing glance. I'm not going to call him a "liar" or reject him for that stance. To me, when he talks about taxes, the economy and Iran, I want to see how he is going to generally approach each dilemma and how important each area is. Very simply, I'm still thinking about voting for Romney, but would have rejected him long ago if I counted the number of times his statements and sound bites have been contradictory.

Now, back to health care. It is silly to think that a President should be condemned for making changes in his position. This 'horror' you're dealing with about Obama's health care stance being different from Hillary's and including tort reform is completely trivial. In fighting for a health care plan as good or better than Hillary's, Obama was smart enough to realize the mandate was essential in the best model for paying for the plan, and smart enough to drop the tort reform before the whole effort failed again. OK. the ACA was not perfectly complete or exactly as he talked about it a year or two previously. SO WHAT! He got it DONE.

I'm glad you agree with me that there is some meaning to other accomplishments of the Obama administration. You didn't mention some I listed, and I hope you have a bit different outlook on what has been and is still being done, as formally as possible, with immigration.

And, or course, I am looking for any specific negative you can show evidence for in the ACA.

Thanks for your reply...I will make this short as you ignored most of what I said.

1. As I explained to you, my distrust of Obama goes back to my reading on him in 2008....BEFORE HE WAS EVEN A CANDIDATE and I stated it very clearly on here BEFORE HE WAS A CANDIDATE. This is not new

2. I also have said on here that my one thing that I really liked about his words during the campaign was addressing health care costs and tort reform. HE DID NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS...NOT JUST TORT REFORM...THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS BILL TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL COSTS ! That is a MAJOR AND TOTAL lie of great substance. COST AND TORT REFORM was the basis for his plan HE SAID.

3. On immigration I posted another note to you but explain to me how based on his little announcement he is going to do what he says. Go up to an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and ask them how long they have been here so we can decide on your future ? They are illegal....there are no records of them. IT IS uninforcebable an he knows it.

4. You failed to mention the Iraq pull out that you had made an accomplishment of his and your terrorist remarks all I agreed on but you want to make them the creation of Obama and they absolutely were not in any way.

I noticed in a subsequent post you said something to me about listening to talking heads. You sure dont know me at all. I did not want to read Obamas autobiography....I did not want to read the archives in Chicago on him...but I do not trust anyone in this arena to now twist the truth.

I read the SCOTUS ruling and noticed the remark and I am paraphrasing about the court cannot be responsible for bad policy....hint hint !!

Listen, you, as many many others are caught up in this frenzy which is tailing down but still alive of Obama. The fact that you give him credit for things he did not do and are willing to allow the President to...lets say...stray from facts, NOT on campaign promises but on basic issues..

As much as I enjoy debate I suppose we will just agree to disagree because you see things I do not and even add to those things from other people.

At least we were civil and I want to make a few things clear...as in 2008 I am not a SUPPORTER of the Republican candidate but rather an opposer of Obama. He has done pretty much everything I said he would do in 2008 and if not for the mid term election in 2010 who knows what he would have done. Which reminds me you also never commented on the Senate actions and I assume you feel he has control over that body.

Thanks for your replies...at least gave me some mental excercize and things to think about !

You are smarter and more organized mentally than most that come on here with nothing but slams at whoever opposes him !!

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

This is good background information, but I've never gone very far to compare Massachusetts with the ACA. Romneycare is only interesting to me because it demonstrates his position as a moderate. Some conservative posters here would have to classify it as part of the socialist or communist scourge of our nation, but they have to bite their tongue because they hate Obama more than anything else in the world and can therefore only have Romney left.

Again, I'd like to read about an evidence-supported, clearly negative provision of ACA.

How about explain how we pay for it ????

This is what this forum should be--and too often isn't. Two people who are willing to spend the time and do a little research for the purpose of an impassioned but polite debate.

I'm not going to vote on who I think the debate winner is so far. That's not my place. But I sure hope that other regulars here have taken the time to read all that you both have written. It's instructional for all of us.

Funny thing is, if I'm remembering other threads accurately while we cast different votes in 2008, all three of us may actually be casting a vote for the same candidate in the upcoming election. So your debate here on this thread was more for the benefit of everyone understanding the interpretation of events and thought processes in making an electoral decision than any sort of thoughtless, narrow one upsmanship so commonly seen here.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bucco

How about explain how we pay for it ????

Here, I'll give you an idea. My thought is based on the premise that a national healthcare system, something that will result in the vast majority of citizens being insured, is a good thing, an objective that should be compared to other potential uses of taxpayer money on a list of national priorities. That is, I don't think you should just look at the ACA by itself and expect it to be self-funding. The question is, in my mind anyway, what other elements of government spending with lower national priorities might be reduced in order to pay for an attractive and needed national healthcare program.

ACA is far from perfect. It has some very attractive parts, others that probably should be eliminated or substantially changed, and a few that probably should be added. That legislative effort should go on.

But here's how I would pay for the $1.76 trillion cost projected by the Congressional Budget office for the period from 2013 to 2022. While the costs might not be exactly flat year-to-year, what we're looking for is about $176 billion per year. Just for some perspective, that's 4.7% of total annual federal spending for all purposes.

I'll provide a few ideas on how to fund this program, which I believe should place high on the list of national priorities. What I'll propose will exceed the annual costs of ACA. My assumpmtions, of course, will be to fund ACA with cuts to other federal spending categories which I believe to place lower on the list of national priorities. My priority list and lists by others could be different, of course. I'm working from a baseline of President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which includes $3.67 trillion in spending. That was a 3.7 percent decline from 2012 levels, after adjusting for inflation.

But anyway, here goes...

• Cut Discretionary Spending By 5%. This is exactly Mitt Romney's proposal as a start to cutting government spending, I believe. Such a 5% cut would fund $62 billion or 35% of ACA's annual cost.

• Cut the defense budget by 10%. This would produce savings of $65.3 billion per year, or about 37% of the annual cost of ACA. With the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, a cut of this amount should be almost "invisible" to the Pentagon.

• Cut Medicare Spending by 3%. Such a cut would produce $24.5 billion in annual savings or 14% of the annual cost of ACA. A cut of this magnitude could possibly be achieved without even effecting benefit payments to participants. A cut totaling 3% to administrative costs and fraud reductions should be reasonably easy to achieve.

• Cut Social Security spending by 2%. That would produce savings of $15 billion per year or about 8.5% of the annual cost of ACA. Like my proposed Medicare cuts, this amount could probably be achieved by cuts in adminstrative costs without effecting payments to beneficiaries.

• Cut unemployment benefits by 10%. This would produce annual savings of $12.1 billion or 6.9% of the annual ACA cost. These cuts could be achieved by beginning to scale back on the extended unemployment benefits approved by Congress in 2008-2011. As the economy improves and unemployment declines, a cut of this amount should be very achieveable.

• Increase the tax rate on the top 5% of wage earners by 1%. This would increase the average rate paid by the top 1% from 24% to 25% and for those taxpayers in the top 2-5%, their rates would increase from an average of 18% to 19%. A small tax increase like this would produce increased revenues of $10.25 billion or 5.8% of the annual cost of ACA.

So there you go, Bucco. With just a few very achievable cuts in spending and a tiny tax increase, the cost of the high national priority Affordable Healthcare Act could be more than paid for. The spending cuts I've suggested would produce $189.2 billion per year in funding for ACA, more than its annual cost. Then I would suggest that Congress begin to study ACA itself, to begin to eliminate its higher cost-lower priority elements.

Janmcn....THANK YOU! I could not have said it better. I am one of the 99%.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Here, I'll give you an idea. My thought is based on the premise that a national healthcare system, something that will result in the vast majority of citizens being insured, is a good thing, an objective that should be compared to other potential uses of taxpayer money on a list of national priorities. That is, I don't think you should just look at the ACA by itself and expect it to be self-funding. The question is, in my mind anyway, what other elements of government spending with lower national priorities might be reduced in order to pay for an attractive and needed national healthcare program.

ACA is far from perfect. It has some very attractive parts, others that probably should be eliminated or substantially changed, and a few that probably should be added. That legislative effort should go on.

But here's how I would pay for the $1.76 trillion cost projected by the Congressional Budget office for the period from 2013 to 2022. While the costs might not be exactly flat year-to-year, what we're looking for is about $176 billion per year. Just for some perspective, that's 4.7% of total annual federal spending for all purposes.

I'll provide a few ideas on how to fund this program, which I believe should place high on the list of national priorities. What I'll propose will exceed the annual costs of ACA. My assumpmtions, of course, will be to fund ACA with cuts to other federal spending categories which I believe to place lower on the list of national priorities. My priority list and lists by others could be different, of course. I'm working from a baseline of President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which includes $3.67 trillion in spending. That was a 3.7 percent decline from 2012 levels, after adjusting for inflation.

But anyway, here goes...

• Cut Discretionary Spending By 5%. This is exactly Mitt Romney's proposal as a start to cutting government spending, I believe. Such a 5% cut would fund $62 billion or 35% of ACA's annual cost.

• Cut the defense budget by 10%. This would produce savings of $65.3 billion per year, or about 37% of the annual cost of ACA. With the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, a cut of this amount should be almost "invisible" to the Pentagon.

• Cut Medicare Spending by 3%. Such a cut would produce $24.5 billion in annual savings or 14% of the annual cost of ACA. A cut of this magnitude could possibly be achieved without even effecting benefit payments to participants. A cut totaling 3% to administrative costs and fraud reductions should be reasonably easy to achieve.

• Cut Social Security spending by 2%. That would produce savings of $15 billion per year or about 8.5% of the annual cost of ACA. Like my proposed Medicare cuts, this amount could probably be achieved by cuts in adminstrative costs without effecting payments to beneficiaries.

• Cut unemployment benefits by 10%. This would produce annual savings of $12.1 billion or 6.9% of the annual ACA cost. These cuts could be achieved by beginning to scale back on the extended unemployment benefits approved by Congress in 2008-2011. As the economy improves and unemployment declines, a cut of this amount should be very achieveable.

• Increase the tax rate on the top 5% of wage earners by 1%. This would increase the average rate paid by the top 1% from 24% to 25% and for those taxpayers in the top 2-5%, their rates would increase from an average of 18% to 19%. A small tax increase like this would produce increased revenues of $10.25 billion or 5.8% of the annual cost of ACA.

So there you go, Bucco. With just a few very achievable cuts in spending and a tiny tax increase, the cost of the high national priority Affordable Healthcare Act could be more than paid for. The spending cuts I've suggested would produce $189.2 billion per year in funding for ACA, more than its annual cost. Then I would suggest that Congress begin to study ACA itself, to begin to eliminate its higher cost-lower priority elements.

I ama bit rushed this morning but all good thoughts, however we were told that this bill would pay for itself.

And I just had to smile at your last suggestion....have congress actually know what it is in it !!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

I ama bit rushed this morning but all good thoughts, however we were told that this bill would pay for itself.

And I just had to smile at your last suggestion....have congress actually know what it is in it !!!!

I honestly don't remember whether it was ever alleged that ACA would pay for itself. Maybe in its original version submitted to Congress, it might have been self-funding. But after the lobbyists and Congress finished re-writing it, we have what we have.

Going back and saying, "...but you promised" won't do any more good than it does in the millions of divorces that happen each year. ACA has elements that are attractive, fundamental to an advanced society and absolutely needed if we are to begin to get healthcare costs under control. I don't think it's debatable that fundamental healthcare reform is needed in this country. The path we were on was both unaffordable and wasn't producing good results for all Americans.

So rather than look backwards saying that a promise has been broken, maybe we should look forward and think about placing much of what's in ACA on a list of important national priorities. Then start coming up with two answers...

• How do we pay for it without increasing the deficit and the national debt?

• How do we amend ACA to remove those elements placed in it only to satisfy special narrow interests, modify parts to make it better, and add what might be needed to both improve American healthcare and truly "bend the cost curve" to make our fundamental health and well-being something all Americans can afford over the long term.

Let me say what I think shouldn't be done--repealing ACA would return the national debate back to the bitterness and total confusion of 2008. It would remove tens of millions of citizens from having reasonable healthcare insurance. And it would place the trend of costs back on a path that will drive this country into bankruptcy even faster. Repeal might be an option to be considered if we knew we could rely on Congress to come up with an improved, more affordable replacement. But we all know that placing such reliance on a divisive, ideologized, increasingly divided legislative body is not a reasonable expectation. I haven't heard even one member of Congress or the presumed Republcan candidate for president suggest what a replacement should include. So I think we'd better start fixing the broken parts of ACA and stop wasting time creating all those repeal soundbites, stump speeches and TV ads.

VK - thanks for these two excellent posts. I can't understand how you access all of the information you do, so quickly, and I really admire your ability to put it all together. Your suggestions for how to cover ACA costs are attractive, reasonable and doable. You must have spent a lot of time on this today. I wish I had more time to work on this, but I had to spend the whole day playing in a wonderful benefit golf tournament.

I've paid less attention to paying for ACA than studying provisions which might be problematic, impractical or result in unreasonable costs. So far I haven't found any I am convinced should be dropped from the overall plan. That's why I've asked Bucco if he is aware of any such provision.

So with respect to costs, I haven't learned yet whether ACA cost projections include any offsetting revenues. Are revenues projected from those who chose to pay penalties instead of buying insurance? 40 million uninsured would contribute 27.8 billion to the Treasury annually if most of the uninsured chose to pay the penalty. If only half bought a policy from a state or federal exchange, that would bring about that same amount into the coffers.

So, until I discover specific elements that I feel would derail the overall effort , I thoroughly agree with your that the last thing we should do is repeal ACA and start over.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

VK - thanks for these two excellent posts. I can't understand how you access all of the information you do, so quickly, and I really admire your ability to put it all together. Your suggestions for how to cover ACA costs are attractive, reasonable and doable. You must have spent a lot of time on this today. I wish I had more time to work on this, but I had to spend the whole day playing in a wonderful benefit golf tournament.

I've paid less attention to paying for ACA than studying provisions which might be problematic, impractical or result in unreasonable costs. So far I haven't found any I am convinced should be dropped from the overall plan. That's why I've asked Bucco if he is aware of any such provision.

So with respect to costs, I haven't learned yet whether ACA cost projections include any offsetting revenues. Are revenues projected from those who chose to pay penalties instead of buying insurance? 40 million uninsured would contribute 27.8 billion to the Treasury annually if most of the uninsured chose to pay the penalty. If only half bought a policy from a state or federal exchange, that would bring about that same amount into the coffers.

So, until I discover specific elements that I feel would derail the overall effort , I thoroughly agree with your that the last thing we should do is repeal ACA and start over.

I have posted much of how it is to be paid on the thread...

"We know now how the fed will pay for AHA"

interestin reading...very much backloaded it appears

Bucco,

I've read your comments about costs in the other thread. You point out that costs are backloaded. That is not some kind of conspiracy to fool the public or the President's cruel plan for 'bait & switch' to bankruptcy. It's backloaded primarily because the plan is increasingly phased in over the years. VK's suggestions for paying for the plan are a good example of how ACA is affordable. I agree. I think we are basing our conclusions on history. You disagree and your position is a flat denial of our history as an ingenious, amazing problem solving nation.

Neither of us can predict the future. For goodness sake, after a year out of Afghanistan we could pocket an extra 123 billion in today's dollars. I believe we can't refuse to take the right or more fair path simply because of the fear that it will be too expensive. My glass is half full. I've never taken any steps forward in life without some fear or another. But I've taken lot of steps and not regretted one.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I honestly don't remember whether it was ever alleged that ACA would pay for itself. Maybe in its original version submitted to Congress, it might have been self-funding. But after the lobbyists and Congress finished re-writing it, we have what we have.

Going back and saying, "...but you promised" won't do any more good than it does in the millions of divorces that happen each year. ACA has elements that are attractive, fundamental to an advanced society and absolutely needed if we are to begin to get healthcare costs under control. I don't think it's debatable that fundamental healthcare reform is needed in this country. The path we were on was both unaffordable and wasn't producing good results for all Americans.

So rather than look backwards saying that a promise has been broken, maybe we should look forward and think about placing much of what's in ACA on a list of important national priorities. Then start coming up with two answers...

• How do we pay for it without increasing the deficit and the national debt?

• How do we amend ACA to remove those elements placed in it only to satisfy special narrow interests, modify parts to make it better, and add what might be needed to both improve American healthcare and truly "bend the cost curve" to make our fundamental health and well-being something all Americans can afford over the long term.

Let me say what I think shouldn't be done--repealing ACA would return the national debate back to the bitterness and total confusion of 2008. It would remove tens of millions of citizens from having reasonable healthcare insurance. And it would place the trend of costs back on a path that will drive this country into bankruptcy even faster. Repeal might be an option to be considered if we knew we could rely on Congress to come up with an improved, more affordable replacement. But we all know that placing such reliance on a divisive, ideologized, increasingly divided legislative body is not a reasonable expectation. I haven't heard even one member of Congress or the presumed Republcan candidate for president suggest what a replacement should include. So I think we'd better start fixing the broken parts of ACA and stop wasting time creating all those repeal soundbites, stump speeches and TV ads.

This is what I have tried to say, only much less eloquently. Good job VK!