Anyone else enjoy the Repubs squirming on Obamacare replacement?

[Zstream]

The debt must not be a big deal because this Republican bill is a huge tax cut for the rich. If water pouring in is an issue, one generally doesn't run for a smaller bucket.

Yeah, I don't disagree, but it's not really an argument when the rich typically have their own insurance, and 50% of Americans pay no federal tax, plus the rich pay for a majority of programs for the poor already. I think you will find more common ground if you put work requirements to subsidies.

 

[fskimospy]

The rest of the Medicaid money (32%) goes to poor adults who can't afford insurance. I think that section of the spending is what many people find distasteful. But that is only if you look at half of the picture. We were paying for their health care anyways through bankruptcies and non-payments of medical bills. So reducing official spending on Medicaid for the poor doesn't help with the problem because we just pay for it in unofficial ways.

Our $19.85T of debt is quite manageable at the moment. That is 10% higher than our $18.04T of GDP. It is the equivalent of someone earning $100k having a $110K mortgage which almost everyone would consider to be quite manageable. Your point is correct though, that debt is growing faster than GDP and will one day become unmanageable. Obamacare, however, isn't the cause of the growing debt. The taxes in Obamacare are higher than the spending in Obamacare. So, getting rid of Obamacare makes our debt worse.

To fix the debt, we need to (a) promise less in the future especially on Medicare, Social Security, and Military spending and (b) tax more now to match the promises that we have already unfortunately made. Both are political suicide.

He's also using a very misleading number as his counts debt the government owes itself. If you're looking at what the government actually owes other entities that's debt held by the public, which is around $14 trillion.

 

[Zstream]

The rest of the Medicaid money (32%) goes to poor adults who can't afford insurance. I think that section of the spending is what many people find distasteful. But that is only if you look at half of the picture. We were paying for their health care anyways through bankruptcies and non-payments of medical bills. So reducing official spending on Medicaid for the poor doesn't help with the problem because we just pay for it in unofficial ways.

Our $19.85T of debt is quite manageable at the moment. That is 10% higher than our $18.04T of GDP. It is the equivalent of someone earning $100k having a $110K mortgage which almost everyone would consider to be quite manageable. Your point is correct though, that debt is growing faster than GDP and will one day become unmanageable. Obamacare, however, isn't the cause of the growing debt. The taxes in Obamacare are higher than the spending in Obamacare. So, getting rid of Obamacare makes our debt worse.

To fix the debt, we need to (a) promise less in the future especially on Medicare, Social Security, and Military spending and (b) tax more now to match the promises that we have already unfortunately made. Both are political suicide.

It's political suicide no matter what. Someone will have to do it.

As I mentioned before, I don't think anyone has an issue helping the poor. I don't think it's the governments job to do so, as charities are much more efficient and to the point than a government run program. However, you will get support for work requirements (volunteer or through government programs) for $$ assistance. Are you really telling me that people can't clean the streets, parks, state buildings in exchange for assistance?

 

[Zstream]

He's also using a very misleading number as his counts debt the government owes itself. If you're looking at what the government actually owes other entities that's debt held by the public, which is around $14 trillion.

All government debt is = Citizen debt

 

[dullard]

He's also using a very misleading number as his counts debt the government owes itself. If you're looking at what the government actually owes other entities that's debt held by the public, which is around $14 trillion.

True.

 

[dullard]

All government debt is = Citizen debt

Not when the government debt is owed to the government. Because we have a $6T asset that you are conveniently ignoring if you only look at one side.

 

[dullard]

It's political suicide no matter what. Someone will have to do it.

As I mentioned before, I don't think anyone has an issue helping the poor. I don't think it's the governments job to do so, as charities are much more efficient and to the point than a government run program. However, you will get support for work requirements (volunteer or through government programs) for $$ assistance. Are you really telling me that people can't clean the streets, parks, state buildings in exchange for assistance?

I'm 100% for providing coverage and benefits for those who work in ways like cleaning streets. Rather than giving people free money and free benefits, we should just say "you are hired". Is that in this bill? No.

Are charities much more efficient if you take away their ~33% government subsidy on everything they do (since the government gives tax breaks to their donors of that amount)?

 

[fskimospy]

All government debt is = Citizen debt

No it isn't. When you take out a $1,000 loan your net worth does not change. You now owe the bank $1,000 but you also have $1,000 in cash (assets) to show for it. The net liability is zero.

When the left hand of the government owes the right hand of the government $4 trillion dollars one half of the government has a $4 trillion liability and the other half has a $4 trillion asset. The net liability is zero.

 

[Zstream]

Not when the government debt is owed to the government. Because we have a $6T asset that you are conveniently ignoring if you only look at one side.

I'm not ignoring anything

I'm 100% for providing coverage and benefits for those who work in ways like cleaning streets. Rather than giving people free money and free benefits, we should just say "you are hired". Is that in this bill? No.

Are charities much more efficient if you take away their ~33% government subsidy on everything they do (since the government gives tax breaks to their donors of that amount)?

I'll have to do more research, but from a 10k foot view, I'd definitely take the tax break and let the charity do its work. I'm not here to argue whos bill is what, as we all know it's political suicide. Unfortunately, Obama gave away too many things to now take back, making this going back and forth stupid.

If a party put work requirements to subsidies or tax breaks, would you vote for it? Let's say Repubs put it in, what you be one of those that argues for the sake of argument like many of the posters on this forum routinely do?

 

[Pens1566]

Eh, has anyone covered what the latest version of the bill (if even publicly available) does to nursing home care? Is it included in the medicaid cuts? At least to the extent that medicaid covers?

 

[Zstream]

No it isn't. When you take out a $1,000 loan your net worth does not change. You now owe the bank $1,000 but you also have $1,000 in cash (assets) to show for it. The net liability is zero.

When the left hand of the government owes the right hand of the government $4 trillion dollars one half of the government has a $4 trillion liability and the other half has a $4 trillion asset. The net liability is zero.

That's not how it works, the asset is a tax that the American people must pay. At least those that pay specific tax.

I cannot pay my worker $4k and say it's an IOU and the worker goes to a bank and says he has $4k in assets. That's not how it works. If you want to debate, let's debate. I'm not going to argue over your interpretation of business, ethics, and printing money.

 

[Sunburn74]

as charities are much more efficient and to the point than a government run program.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. The overhead for many large charities is incredible with only pennies on the dollar making their way down to actually helping the people in need. I remember reading about the ALS organization that was behind the ice bucket challenge and think it was something like 10 cents on the dollar making its way down to actually ALS research with a lot of the money going to leadership salaries and other similar things.

On the flip side, when you look at say VA spending for medical expenses or Medicare spending as payment for health expenditures you'll see ruthless efficiency.

 

[dullard]

I'm not ignoring anything

You are if you talk about the $20T debt and not our $6T in assets. The government could tomorrow pass a bill that forgives that $6T the government owes itself. Then suddenly we only have $14T in debt. Nothing would change.

If a party put work requirements to subsidies or tax breaks, would you vote for it? Let's say Repubs put it in, what you be one of those that argues for the sake of argument like many of the posters on this forum routinely do?

If done right, I would be for it. But it has never been done right. What about when there absolutely is no work available at all? We need something for that situation, which has never yet been proposed. Instead this particular bill says that all new mothers must look for work, find work, and get back to work within 8 weeks of giving birth regardless of complications (surgery required). A blanket work requirement is completely unacceptable, a situation-based work requirement is just fine.

I'd much rather have a bill that eliminates virtually all entitlements and hires people instead. But that is government spending to hire people. And one party is flat out against government spending.

 

[Zstream]

I would strongly disagree with this statement. The overhead for many large charities is incredible with only pennies on the dollar making their way down to actually helping the people in need. I remember reading about the ALS organization that was behind the ice bucket challenge and think it was something like 10 cents on the dollar making its way down to actually ALS research with a lot of the money going to leadership salaries and other similar things.

On the flip side, when you look at say VA spending for medical expenses or Medicare spending as payment for health expenditures you'll see ruthless efficiency.

Well, I would think some criteria should be enforced, no? I'm used to donating to charities that have 85+ cents / dollar going.

 

[Zstream]

You are if you talk about the $20T debt and not our $6T in assets. The government could tomorrow pass a bill that forgives that $6T the government owes itself. Then suddenly we only have $14T in debt. Nothing would change.

If done right, I would be for it. But it has never been done right. What about when there absolutely is no work available at all? We need something for that situation, which has never yet been proposed. Instead this particular bill says that all new mothers must look for work, find work, and get back to work within 8 weeks of giving birth regardless of complications (surgery required). A blanket work requirement is completely unacceptable, a situation-based work requirement is just fine.

I'd much rather have a bill that eliminates virtually all entitlements and hires people instead. But that is government spending to hire people. And one party is flat out against government spending.

I highly doubt there is ever no work to be needed. Let's not talk hyperbole as it doesn't lead to anything productive.

 

[dullard]

I highly doubt there is ever no work to be needed. Let's not talk hyperbole as it doesn't lead to anything productive.

Look at rural America. You have farm jobs, but that is seasonal. What do you do in the 10 months that aren't planting or harvesting season?

 

[fskimospy]

That's not how it works, the asset is a tax that the American people must pay. At least those that pay specific tax.

I cannot pay my worker $4k and say it's an IOU and the worker goes to a bank and says he has $4k in assets. That's not how it works. If you want to debate, let's debate. I'm not going to argue over your interpretation of business, ethics, and printing money.

There's nothing to debate, you just don't know what you're talking about.

You're right that you can't pay your worker $4k in an IOU and have him claim it as an asset. The reason he can't claim it as an asset is because presumably in this example you're not legally required to honor your IOU. If you were legally obligated, he could absolutely list it as an asset. This is why when banks own loans they are listed as assets on their balance sheet. You don't really have a debt if your employee doesn't really have an asset. Either way it zeroes out.

 

[brycejones]

Look at rural America. You have farm jobs, but that is seasonal. What do you do in the 10 months that aren't planting or harvesting season?

In all fairness I have a feeling farmers would be very happy if farming only required two months of work a year.

 

[brycejones]

I did. Don't blame me because you cannot understand it.

Yet you frequently complain about not being understood around here....


But hey keep on keeping on.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Look at rural America. You have farm jobs, but that is seasonal. What do you do in the 10 months that aren't planting or harvesting season?

you may want to rethink that question. I live in farming area, and there's a fuckton more work than just 2 months out of the year. They're turning the fields, prepping them and have been for about a month now, since the weather has allowed it.
Oh and harvest is a several month affair as well, as is prepping the fields for winter.

 

[JEDI]

Reports that Mulvaney told GOP the bill is now the bill (no more negotiating) and the president demands a vote tomorrow or he'll leave Obamacare in place.

yup.
Trump threatens to leave ObamaCare in place if repeal bill fails:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...op-to-take-it-or-leave-it-on-obamacare-repeal

omg lol!
he knows there's no way the bill will pass as its written.

so the only conclusion:
Trumpf has just basically admitted that Obamacare is better than anything that the Repubs can put out there.

 

[dullard]

In all fairness I have a feeling farmers would be very happy if farming only required two months of work a year.

you may want to rethink that question.

Farmers yes, farm laborers, not so much. But do you honestly expect an unemployed person on Medicaid can move to rural lands, purchase a farm and farm equipment, and start out life in their new job as a farmer? This is just too high of an expectation. You either inherit the land or have wealth to buy it. The rest are day laborers with short bursts of work and no available jobs elsewhere.

And there is a big difference between corn and cattle. Cattle require work every day of the year. Corn, not so much.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Farmers yes, farm laborers, not so much. But do you honestly expect an unemployed person on Medicaid can move to rural lands, purchase a farm and farm equipment, and start out life in their new job as a farmer? This is just too high of an expectation. You either inherit the land or have wealth to buy it. The rest are day laborers with short bursts of work and no available jobs elsewhere.

And there is a big difference between corn and cattle. Cattle require work every day of the year. Corn, not so much.

I'll conceded the temporary labor part, that's very seasonal, probably closer to 4 months than 2, but still. And corn does require quite a bit of of upkeep between the planting, fertilizing, insecticide, herbicide, watering, I helped the detasseling one summer and those were LONG hot days. But there were probably 15 - 30 high school aged kids doing the labor.
And farming isn't really for the small farmer anymore, it's for the corporations.

 

[Vic]

What I don't quite understand is why the GOP has invested so much political capital into the AHCA. Particularly as it doesn't seem to fix any of Obamacare's flaws, and only creates new ones.

 

[First]

What I don't quite understand is why the GOP has invested so much political capital into the AHCA. Particularly as it doesn't seem to fix any of Obamacare's flaws, and only creates new ones.

Yup, it makes no sense from the perspective of wanting to actually fix healthcare or the ACA. It makes both considerably worse.

The one perspective AHCA it makes sense from; keeping their repeal promise (at any cost) and enriching the wealthy. Sad that this is what the modern GOP has come to.