The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies

[mmoan2]

I'm not taking anything personally. And I should have written "net cost," which shows that it is a loss, not a savings.

Anyway, this whole thing about ACA saving the government money stems from a CBO report issued in 2010 which said that health care spending for the feds would decrease by 2020, and the deficit would increase by $200 billion, I think the number was. That report was paraded around in the press like the holy book of Obamacare cost analysis. It also said that costs for individuals would go down as well. In theory, that's the design of the law. Many folks, including an MIT economist who developed one of the projection models used by the CBO to make their analysis, have since reconsidered this conclusion.

I'm just curious to see which state budget hits meltdown status in 2018 when Medicaid enrollment is up 25% or some such amount and Congress decides it can't perpetually pay for Medicaid expansion. States don;t get to deficit spend. In Arizona at one point they had to sell the Executive Tower and Legislature to a private party to balance the budget.

Obviously I have strong opinions about the ACA. The fundamental problem with health care costs in the U.S. are not addressed by ACA, IMO. It should either be a single-payer system or not. Obama won a small victory getting it passed though, so maybe the Dems will continue to move us in that direction or a GOP lawmaker will sponsor a free-market solution that doesn;t exist yet.

[Meltdwhiskey]

OK, so I just discovered the Grill Room yesterday - and this thread.  And there is a great discussion here and a lot of great points made.  But the thing that stood out to me the most trying to catch up on this was the hatred of the Tea Party.  Lots of name calling: whiny little babies, kick them in the balls, whaaambulance, tea baggers, cowards, Me Party, half-wit Megalomaniacs, etc.

Admittedly, I don't know a ton about the tea party and what they stand for - other than that they obviously would like to defeat Obamacare.  So educate me - why the raw hatred for these folks?  Is it just because they don't like Obamacare and you do?

[Mr. Desmond]

OK, so I just discovered the Grill Room yesterday - and this thread.  And there is a great discussion here and a lot of great points made.  But the thing that stood out to me the most trying to catch up on this was the hatred of the Tea Party.  Lots of name calling: whiny little babies, kick them in the balls, whaaambulance, tea baggers, cowards, Me Party, half-wit Megalomaniacs, etc.

Admittedly, I don't know a ton about the tea party and what they stand for - other than that they obviously would like to defeat Obamacare.  So educate me - why the raw hatred for these folks?  Is it just because they don't like Obamacare and you do?

It is not just about ObamaCare.

The tea party attacks everyone, even their own.

That's not necessarily bad, in fact, it can be good.

But they are ideologists, not pragmatists ... and ideologists do not govern well. Look at the do-nothing Congress of 2010 - doing nothing in the middle of a deep depression. The Fed and Obama had to pull rabbits out of a hat.

Business needs certainty to get going and planning -- the inability of the government to agree on anything for more than 2 months makes business hesistant to go forward. We have a lot to do.

Fix the ACA

Pass a new simpler tax code

Fix Immigration

Agree on a budget

Entitlement Reform

Heck, reorganize the government and the budgetary process.

A lot of work to do and everyone is fiddling as Rome burns.

The tea people must learn that victories come in small pieces in government battles. It's not "we want everything we want or we go home!"

[Meltdwhiskey]

The tea party attacks everyone, even their own.

That's not necessarily bad, in fact, it can be good.

But they are ideologists, not pragmatists ... and ideologists do not govern well. Look at the do-nothing Congress of 2010 - doing nothing in the middle of a deep depression. The Fed and Obama had to pull rabbits out of a hat.

Business needs certainty to get going and planning -- the inability of the government to agree on anything for more than 2 months makes business hesistant to go forward. We have a lot to do.

Fix the ACA

Pass a new simpler tax code

Fix Immigration

Agree on a budget

Entitlement Reform

Heck, reorganize the government and the budgetary process.

A lot of work to do and everyone is fiddling as Rome burns.

The tea people must learn that victories come in small pieces in government battles. It's not "we want everything we want or we go home!"

I appreciate the response.  However, all of the things you list sound like any other political movement to me - including pubs and crats. It sounds like you are saying they are doing everything they can to get what they want.  I don't see that as a deviation from any political process.

From what I know about them, I think the tea party would agree that businesses need certainty - they just disagree with you on how to provide it. I also think they would agree with you on your assertions on the tax code, the budget, entitlement reform and reorganizing of the budgetary process.  You might be a tea partier.  Fixing the ACA and your assertion that Obama / Fed saved the economy might be the only things you disagree with them on.

But back to the point at hand - just because someone is ideologists doesn't seem to support that amount of hate and rage against these folks.  Nobody is raging against hippies.  This is vitriol.  There has to be more to it than the fact that they have ideals or you don't think they would effectively govern. I think that about pubs and crats right now - but I'm not calling for violence or resorting to childish name calling.  Tell us why they deserve this. Or just tell us that they are wrong with an actual argument.

When the tea party started, I thought it was interesting because in my lifetime there had never been a visible group like them.  There are always plenty of protests and pickets and groups and such from the left side - but none (less?) from the right.  I thought it was kinda cool they got their own grass roots group what was willing to show up for stuff.  Then everyone hated them.

[teamroper60]

Anyway, this whole thing about ACA saving the government money stems from a CBO report issued in 2010 which said that health care spending for the feds would decrease by 2020, and the deficit would increase by $200 billion, I think the number was. That report was paraded around in the press like the holy book of Obamacare cost analysis. It also said that costs for individuals would go down as well. In theory, that's the design of the law. Many folks, including an MIT economist who developed one of the projection models used by the CBO to make their analysis, have since reconsidered this conclusion.

The ACA was passed in 2010.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

.....how does the government save money in this deal when they're ponying up subsidies for millions of people and Medicaid enrollment goes from 133% of FPL to 400%? If anything, the costs are being shifted TO the gov't. That's the Tea Party's main rail against the law.

I never said it was actually going to save the goverment money, only that saving the government money was in fact one of the selling points being touted before the bill was passed and again during the last presidential campaign.  Your own statement dating the CBO report agrees with exactly what I said.

I personally don’t (and never did) believe the ACA will save the government money anymore than I believe insurance companies are going to lower their rates simply because they have more customers.   But both statements were made by proponents of the bill.

I agree with you that the ACA does not address the real health care cost issues in this country.   Without tort reform and some regulatory controls over the cost of drugs, healthcare costs are going to continue to spiral upward and out of control.  I do not agree with the idea of a government run system though.   I think allowing the government to take over healthcare would lead to a lower quality of healthcare for everyone and ultimately a shortage of healthcare professionals.

What I find interesting, yet see very little commentary on is for all the talk about Republicans and big business, it was Democrats who upped the ante here via the ACA.  By strong arming the public under color of law to buy insurance without putting a maximum dollar figure on what can be charged for it, Democrats have ultimately ensured the pockets of the insurance industry get lined.  Most people agree that giving subsidies to big oil is a stupid idea, but the only real difference between that and subsidizing the insurance industry via the ACA is who writes the checks.

[mmoan2]

OK, so I just discovered the Grill Room yesterday - and this thread.  And there is a great discussion here and a lot of great points made.  But the thing that stood out to me the most trying to catch up on this was the hatred of the Tea Party.  Lots of name calling: whiny little babies, kick them in the balls, whaaambulance, tea baggers, cowards, Me Party, half-wit Megalomaniacs, etc.

Admittedly, I don't know a ton about the tea party and what they stand for - other than that they obviously would like to defeat Obamacare.  So educate me - why the raw hatred for these folks?  Is it just because they don't like Obamacare and you do?

The "Tea Party" is a label foisted on all GOP members (which these folks embraced because it showed that they were "mavericks" and had strong ideas - hence the parallel image of the Boston Tea Party) who won in 2010. They basically stand for fiscal conservatism and less government, which are core GOP principles. That's not bad at face value.

But I agree with Mr. Desmond. They are ideologues. I actually don't agree that ideologues are ALWAYS bad politicians, but they generally are combative and unwilling to compromise, which makes them difficult to deal with in a democracy where 50% of the population doesn't agree with them.

Their role in the Gov't shutdown fiasco shows the lengths they are willing to go to to promote their ideology. It was a grossly irresponsible way to promote ideas. Now is the time to fix the problems, not by literally holding hostage a million federal employees just because you don;t like big government.

I need to respond to the last two things you said in your last post:

------But back to the point at hand - just because someone is ideologists doesn't seem to support that amount of hate and rage against these folks. Nobody is raging against hippies.  This is vitriol.  There has to be more to it than the fact that they have ideals or you don't think they would effectively govern. I think that about pubs and crats right now - but I'm not calling for violence or resorting to childish name calling. Tell us why they deserve this. Or just tell us that they are wrong with an actual argument.

Who is the "YOU" being referred to here? The name calling is generally inane, but not everyone who disagrees with them are irresponsible about it. But they deserve part of the name-calling. They literally have hundreds of thousands of people believing Obama is a Muslim, that Obamacare is "socialized medicine," when it was a GOP-created idea back in the 90s that relies on private insurance companies, and that we can cut almost every federal agency with a big, sweeping stroke and nothing will happen, but business will grow. Their ideologies are quite strong, and appeal to an overly simplistic solution to problems that is dangerous.

As for the "no one is raging against hippies" comment, are you serious? The Tea Party got its name and got elected by staging massive rallies against the "liberals" and the "biased media" and "Obama the socialist," etc. The Boston Tea Party, if you remember, was a colonial

response to the British government and the East India Tea Company where our "forefathers" dressed up like Indians and threw crates of tea into Boston Harbor. You can Youtube videos of Tea Party organizers chanting, through a megaphone, that Obama is a Communist jihadist into large crowds of people who shout in support of them like it was a Hitler youth rally. Not everyone is obviously like that, but that's where their name calling comes from.

---------When the tea party started, I thought it was interesting because in my lifetime there had never been a visible group like them. There are always plenty of protests and pickets and groups and such from the left side - but none (less?) from the right.  I thought it was kinda cool they got their own grass roots group what was willing to show up for stuff.  Then everyone hated them.

Unless you were born after 1992, you should remember the "United We Stand America" and "Reform" parties begun by Ross Perot. Perot earned 18% of the popular vote in 1992 (I think, maybe a little less), but more than any third-party candidate since TeddyRoosevelt. My father was national chairman of the Reform Party beginning in 1996, and was on Ross Perot's campaign team in 1992. I saw from the ground up what went on behind the scenes. Much of it is patriotism, much of it is reprehensible. The "Tea Party" are basically the latest incarnation of these folks - generally Red State, white, older folks who resist liberal social causes like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc., and distrust big government because they liken it to Leninism, Stalinism, and Soviet Russia.

[teamroper60]

Meltdwhiskey,

The ideology of the tea party is one thing and I agree with some aspects of it (smaller government in particular). Their tactics are another and I don’t agree with them at all.   The latest example is the government shut down.  When pressed on the issue, they really didn’t even have a plan, let alone an end game.   They did it because they could.  Cruz just the same as said so.

The one redeeming quality I see in the tea party is they are the only people in congress who are doing exactly what they campaigned on. So they aren’t your typical lying politicians.   However, their antagonistic approach and unwillingness to compromise has led to a congress which is unable to function on even the most basic level.  They need to learn that effective government comes from compromise, not from throwing tantrums like small children.  Until they do so, I see them as a festering sore that the Republican party would be well advised to rid themselves of.

[newtogolf]

The Tea Party is doomed because it assumes most Americans want small government and fiscal conservatism.  At this point almost half the population isn't contributing to the government (paying taxes) and therefore doesn't care about such ideological things.  They will vote for the party that promises to ensure they still get their government checks, free healthcare and cell phones.

[David in FL]

The Tea Party is doomed because it assumes most Americans want small government and fiscal conservatism.  At this point almost half the population isn't contributing to the government (paying taxes) and therefore doesn't care about such ideological things.  They will vote for the party that promises to ensure they still get their government checks, free healthcare and cell phones.

Yep, but as Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

We're there......

[mmoan2]

The Tea Party is doomed because it assumes most Americans want small government and fiscal conservatism.  At this point almost half the population isn't contributing to the government (paying taxes) and therefore doesn't care about such ideological things.  They will vote for the party that promises to ensure they still get their government checks, free healthcare and cell phones.

I think that the GOP is doomed, but not in the way you analyze it. The Tea Party have strong support in districts it represents at the state and federal level. Their constituent bases support small government and fiscal conservatism. In districts where GOP support isn't so strong and moderate politicians are incumbent, as public opinion turns against the GOP because of the strong anti-Tea Party sentiment, moderates will begin losing seats to the Dems. We may have the worst of all worlds for a Republican soon enough - a Democratic House, Senate,and White House with the GOP minority comprised of less moderates and more Tea Party folks. Any GOP bills then won't stand a chance.

I also think the Tea Party knows most Americans don't want fiscal conservatism and they also don't give a crap. They are elected in enclaves where people do want that, and they believe it's best for the country so they go to extreme lengths to make it happen. I would find this admirable if I actually believed in the kind of fiscal conservatism they espoused. I'm all for breaking a few eggs to make an omelet when the end justifies the means, within reason.

[mmoan2]

Yep, but as Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

We're there......

You're right, and if the GOP would even entertain the prospect of severely gutting military spending - the only discretionary budget item that will make any difference whatsoever - we may find more money without raising taxes.

[Meltdwhiskey]

MMOAN2 -

Who is the "YOU" being referred to here?

The folks on this site who were using terms like: whiny little babies, kick them in the balls, whaaambulance, tea baggers, cowards, Me Party, half-wit Megalomaniacs, etc.

As for the "no one is raging against hippies" comment, are you serious?

I guess I was more referring to the folks on this site.  Maybe hippies was a bad example.  But it seemed that the half or so of folks on this site against the TP and for Obamacare seemed to have much more rage and name calling.  There seems to be a real emotional hatred.

Unless you were born after 1992, you should remember the "United We Stand America" and "Reform" parties

That is why I added "less".  This is probably the biggest rally type movement.  And I was fairly young back then.  I didn't realize that was the actual beginning of the reform party.  But either way, the point was that since the 60's or so, most rally rally protest type groups have been liberal.

The point of it all is the apparent hatred I noticed in this thread.  When I first started reading it - it really showed through in a way that seemed to make people loose their cool and their logic and just start name calling.

TEAMROPER -

The ideology of the tea party is one thing and I agree with some aspects of it (smaller government in particular). Their tactics are another and I don’t agree with them at all.   The latest example is the government shut down.  When pressed on the issue, they really didn’t even have a plan, let alone an end game.   They did it because they could.  Cruz just the same as said so.

It certainly didn't go well.  And I certainly don't want to get too far into a defending the TP kind of role here as I think I'd differ with them on most social issues (according to what MMOAN2 describes anyway).  But I think there was a point to it.  They wanted to defund Obamacare.  They wanted to use a political or procedural tactic to achieve what they or maybe even their constituents want.  That may be ugly, but I consider it business as usual.  Politicians are always pulling tricks, skewing numbers, filibustering, gerrymandering, spinning, hiding, lying and whatever else is at their disposal to get what they want.  And the same could be said for our courts and how two sides go against one another.  This instance was very visible and maybe a little farther than things are normally taken - but this isn't new or grossly outside of the realm.

The one redeeming quality I see in the tea party is they are the only people in congress who are doing exactly what they campaigned on. So they aren’t your typical lying politicians.   However, their antagonistic approach and unwillingness to compromise has led to a congress which is unable to function on even the most basic level.  They need to learn that effective government comes from compromise, not from throwing tantrums like small children.  Until they do so, I see them as a festering sore that the Republican party would be well advised to rid themselves of.

I see what you are saying - but I'm not sure the whole thing couldn't use a shakeup about now.  I really don't see any good guys up there.  I couldn't have been any less upset about a government shutdown.  You might have seen the TP holding things hostage, but I saw both sides doing it.  As you've stated, there are a couple of redeeming factors about them and many antagonistic ones.  But I don't see them as much worse than the rest of the bunch.

[Meltdwhiskey]

The Tea Party is doomed because it assumes most Americans want small government and fiscal conservatism.

I think you are on to something there.  I don't think many Americans hold these out as important concepts at all.

[mmoan2]

The ACA was passed in 2010.

I never said it was actually going to save the goverment money, only that saving the government money was in fact one of the selling points being touted before the bill was passed and again during the last presidential campaign.  Your own statement dating the CBO report agrees with exactly what I said.

I personally don’t (and never did) believe the ACA will save the government money anymore than I believe insurance companies are going to lower their rates simply because they have more customers.   But both statements were made by proponents of the bill.

I agree with you that the ACA does not address the real health care cost issues in this country.   Without tort reform and some regulatory controls over the cost of drugs, healthcare costs are going to continue to spiral upward and out of control.  I do not agree with the idea of a government run system though.   I think allowing the government to take over healthcare would lead to a lower quality of healthcare for everyone and ultimately a shortage of healthcare professionals.

What I find interesting, yet see very little commentary on is for all the talk about Republicans and big business, it was Democrats who upped the ante here via the ACA.  By strong arming the public under color of law to buy insurance without putting a maximum dollar figure on what can be charged for it, Democrats have ultimately ensured the pockets of the insurance industry get lined.  Most people agree that giving subsidies to big oil is a stupid idea, but the only real difference between that and subsidizing the insurance industry via the ACA is who writes the checks.

Right, on March 23. The CBO wrote a report in January, 2010 that was used to sell the bill, and another one in early 2011 to say " see I told you so."

[saevel25]

Actually the gallop polls show that a good majority of Americans think the government is to intrusive, and has to much power.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Actually the gallop polls show that a good majority of Americans think the government is to intrusive, and has to much power.

I can see a poll yielding these results.  If asked, sure, the government is too intrusive.  But I don't see a bunch of Libertarians getting elected any time soon.  While they might agree on principle, they don't consider it important enough to vote on.  Voting on what the government can do for you or spend on you is a much better draw.

[k-troop]

Actually the gallop polls show that a good majority of Americans think the government is to intrusive, and has to much power.

And a majority of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act. A majority of Americans also want obamacare repealed.

[newtogolf]

And a majority of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act. A majority of Americans also want obamacare repealed.

A majority of Americans and politicians have no idea what the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare is.  Their opinion of it is based on whatever the media they subscribe to told them it was.