Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values

[danielpalos]

It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.

Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.

We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.

Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values

We have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause, along with a common defense clause.

There is no, common offense nor general warfare clause.

Domestic spending must have priority if Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for wartime spending.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's hard to feel sorry of idiots like James Walker. How can people be so ******* gullible? Trump had flashing neon lights showing what a con man he was. They deserve their ***** Grabber - the rest of us don't.

This coming from a proud supporter of Obama and who still doesn't realize the con.

You know what Obama realized? How to get a health insurance bill passed.

He also realized the strength of the US is our people, the middle class that built this country.

RWNJ Pootarian traitors believe they want a plutocratic dictator. Will they still believe that as this effects their own lives and the lives of their families?

I hope the damn morons realize how close we came to saving the middle class and catching up to the rest of the world.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.

Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.

We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.

Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values

I agree with Trumps budget, and support this move. Proudly too.

Why? laissez-fair in foreign policy, right wingers!

 

[debbiedowner]

i don't have the slightest concern about what people can afford, and what they can not. I can not afford a Ferrari. my concern is whether or not someone dies simply because he has no access to insurance because he has been denied by the insurance company. before ACA, that was common. After ACA it does not happen. That is a major step forward to joining the rest of the industrialized world.

Bullshit. The ONLY thing the ACA did was to make Libs feel better about themselves.

"After ACA it does not happen"

It didn't happen prior and we're still paying for their care.

In my career as VP of underwriting, if you came to me with a history of cancer, you were denied. If you went to the emergency room and asked for chemo, you would have been told that thee only responsibility the hospital had to you was to stabilize your acute condition. In short, no breast removal operation or chemo. There was no other option for you unless your total assets were below a certain dollar amount, and if you owned a house, you would not have qualified for Medicaid. You would then have been SOL.

And yet they were not turned away and they indeed got treatment. We paid for it. NOW we pay for their Premiums AND their treatment. Such a deal. THe ACA made YOU feel better, it did nothing for them.

Nope, doc, you did not necessarily get any treatment. In fact, one grieving parent in N. Dakota sent me a photo of their child in a casket, because I had denied coverage on the kid, who was a late enrollee on a group plan, who was born with a hole in his heart .

First, allow me to apologize. The thing is I agree with you that something needs to be done. In 2013 when the ACA first went into effect I was able to help people I could never help before. The problem was that I wasn't able to help the people who needed it most, not really. As to your statement, in EVERY ER in EVEEY State there is a sign telling folks they CANNOT be turned away. The ACA was NEVER the answer. MY answer is Medicare for everyone.

Medicare for all or starting at age 50 with a base premium higher than what a normal 65 year old would pay for Part B. Below age 50 go back to the underwriting days and if someone does not qualify put them in a state high risk pool that is funded with currect Medicaid money. This could probably save the Medicare program with healthy 50 plus year olds.

I'm curious did your income go up under ACA or down because of the added requirements? More or less patients? Would you except current Medicare or Medicare Advantage reimbursements if there was Medicare for all?

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's hard to feel sorry of idiots like James Walker. How can people be so ******* gullible? Trump had flashing neon lights showing what a con man he was. They deserve their ***** Grabber - the rest of us don't.

This coming from a proud supporter of Obama and who still doesn't realize the con.

You know what Obama realized? How to get a health insurance bill passed.

He also realized the strength of the US is our people, the middle class that built this country.

RWNJ Pootarian traitors believe they want a plutocratic dictator. Will they still believe that as this effects their own lives and the lives of their families?

I hope the damn morons realize how close we came to saving the middle class and catching up to the rest of the world.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

the middle class that built this country.

People like to say that, but the reality is that were the U.S. to have relied on the middle class to create the things that make us what we are today, we'd still be living in a nation quite similar any number of largely undeveloped ones. Of the factors of production, the middle class provided the labor, but that labor was largely the result of immigration. What spurred the immigration? Capital and entrepreneurship, and those two factors of production by and large didn't come from the middle class.

Throngs of middle class Americans did not invent semiconductors, personal computers, the telephone/telegraph. Hordes of middle class Americans didn't harness the power of electricity or light the darkness. The middle class didn't create huge retail empires, transportation companies, and so on. The greatness that is now the U.S. is primarily the result of a relatively small quantity of individual innovators and inventors acting on their vision and implementing their bright ideas in an economically encouraging business environment.

Of course the captains of industry and commerce who created America hired workers, but they were going to do that one way or another. They'd have shipped them as needed from elsewhere if there weren't already enough workers present. The thing is that the middle class is something that emerged out of the working class' getting paid by industry titans. The middle class didn't just exist as did the upper and lower classes, and the people in the middle class weren't the cause of their rise out of the lower class, other than merely showing up for work.

 

[danielpalos]

We used to have a Religious Right and a Moral Majority, when we had a larger, middle class.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.

industrialized nation on earth does this, except us.

It's worth noting that Hong Kong, the world's most capitalist, free enterprise friendly place, has universal health care/health insurance and the standard of care is as good as one can want, save perhaps for the most arcane of procedures and treatments. And don't even try to compare the U.S. with France; the U.S. pales by large margins.

• Comparing the Health Care Systems of High-Performing Asian Countries
  
• Does Hong Kong Have the World's Best Health Care System? | The Huffington Post
  
• 8 places that do health care better than the US
  
• Anecdote -- Hong Kong's private health care puts US to shame

​

It makes no sense at all that the U.S. has the world's largest economy and the worlds largest military, yet is't not first in providing for or facilitating the good health of its populace.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?

Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.

The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)

• Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
• Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
• According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
• For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
• Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
• Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
• Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
• Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.

Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)

​

Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.

• How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
  
• Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
  
• Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
  
• Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
  
• Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.

At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.

• Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
• Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
• Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
• Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.

What are the objectives in your mind?

Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.

Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.

 

[Andylusion]

an understanding of how insurance works.

It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.

Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.

"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.

• It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
• It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.

For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.

When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?

The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.

Not entirely true. There is no guarantee that I could not drop over dead right now, costing the insurance company nothing.

I'm not talking about life insurance. Death is a 100% guarantee. Even then though, level term insurance expires. So you can die after the insurance expires costing nothing. Which is why you can get level term insurance for a million dollars, and yet pay $30 to $50 a month for it.

Your point about invested float, is at the very best, irrelevant. Even your own link says very clearly:
"The insurance industry survives on premiums, but it thrives on float"

If the company "survives" on premiums, then my point stands. My point being that when you demand the insurance companies cover more, you are in effect demanding you yourself pay higher premiums.

"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.

I happen to look up Progressive's investor relation publication. On page 39, you can clearly see that premium revenue, is $22.4 Billion, while Investment income is only $478 Million.

What that means is that if a bunch of left-wingers get together and push through some feel-good legislation, that forces up costs on Progressive by just, let's say 5%. That would be almost a billion dollars. More than double the investment income. Which in turn would require Progressive to pass on those costs to the premium payers.

Which again... was my whole point. All that float crap, was irrelevant to the point. When you demand companies pay out more in insurance policies, you demand in effect, that they charge the consumer much higher premiums.

Which again, is exactly what we see. In 2006 I could get an insurance policy for $67 a month. Today the cheapest is $250.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.

The problem is, I've been to some of those industrial nations with free health care, and I didn't want what they had to offer. Their health care system sucks. Effectively what you are saying is "I want more people to die, like they do elsewhere."

And Medicare is going broke, if you missed it. You want to end up like Greece? Bankrupt and impoverished? Bad plan. A system that isn't' sustainable, is bad for the whole country.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.

industrialized nation on earth does this, except us.

It's worth noting that Hong Kong, the world's most capitalist, free enterprise friendly place, has universal health care/health insurance and the standard of care is as good as one can want, save perhaps for the most arcane of procedures and treatments. And don't even try to compare the U.S. with France; the U.S. pales by large margins.

• Comparing the Health Care Systems of High-Performing Asian Countries
  
• Does Hong Kong Have the World's Best Health Care System? | The Huffington Post
  
• 8 places that do health care better than the US
  
• Anecdote -- Hong Kong's private health care puts US to shame

​

It makes no sense at all that the U.S. has the world's largest economy and the worlds largest military, yet is't not first in providing for or facilitating the good health of its populace.

What does this have to do with the ACA? The ACA does nothing to reduce health care costs. In fact, it does everything to increase health care costs, with more regulations and cost-shfiting from Medicare, which drive up costs.

And on top of that, we get better care than they do in other countries. Higher quality care, costs higher prices. That's how life works.

 

[Andylusion]

Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?

Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.

The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)

• Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
• Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
• According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
• For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
• Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
• Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
• Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
• Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.

Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)

​

Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.

• How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
  
• Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
  
• Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
  
• Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
  
• Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.

At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.

• Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
• Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
• Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
• Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.

What are the objectives in your mind?

Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.

Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.

I can't help it that the facts bother you. Yes, some people at the lowest end, got health insurance now. That doesn't mean as a society we're better off. Most people are not better off. That's why we are pushing to repeal this crap.

And I don't care what your objectives were. You failed. The end. You failed. People are not better off. I'm not. I know many that are not.

You look at vague statistics and make assumptions that because they signed up for Medicaid, that they are better off.

Did you know there is a direct connection between people on Medicaid, and the heroin epidemic?

Sam Quinones on Heroin, the Opioid Epidemic, and Dreamland | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

So more people can get drugs, at tax payer expense, and sell them on the street, killing people. Thanks. Well done.

You looked at some statistics, and ignore the reality people face. Then wonder why we are not appreciating your BS crap.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.

The problem is, I've been to some of those industrial nations with free health care, and I didn't want what they had to offer. Their health care system sucks. Effectively what you are saying is "I want more people to die, like they do elsewhere."

And Medicare is going broke, if you missed it. You want to end up like Greece? Bankrupt and impoverished? Bad plan. A system that isn't' sustainable, is bad for the whole country.

OH NO! Medicare is going broke!

I have been hearing that since June, 1966, the month that it went in to effect.

Please, spare me!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?

Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.

The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)

• Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
• Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
• According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
• For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
• Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
• Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
• Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
• Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.

Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)

​

Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.

• How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
  
• Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
  
• Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
  
• Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
  
• Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.

At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.

• Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
• Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
• Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
• Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.

What are the objectives in your mind?

Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.

Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.

I've been down this road with Andy before. He wants his multimillion dollar maximum benefit, zero deductible and copay insurance for free, and ACA did not do that, so he is pissed.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.

The problem is, I've been to some of those industrial nations with free health care, and I didn't want what they had to offer. Their health care system sucks. Effectively what you are saying is "I want more people to die, like they do elsewhere."

And Medicare is going broke, if you missed it. You want to end up like Greece? Bankrupt and impoverished? Bad plan. A system that isn't' sustainable, is bad for the whole country.

OH NO! Medicare is going broke!

I have been hearing that since June, 1966, the month that it went in to effect.

Please, spare me!

https://www.cms.gov/research-statis...eports/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2016.pdf

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund Dwindling Faster than Anticipated. In the 2015 Medicare Trustees’ Report, government actuaries projected that the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund would be insolvent in 2030. This year, the Trustees set the date of insolvency at 2028, and if Medicare faces higher-than-anticipated costs, it could become insolvent as early as 2022. The Trustees again note that the HI trust fund does not meet either short-term or long-term standards for “financial adequacy.”[2] This is not a surprise. In January 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had already projected a faster pace of HI deterioration and set the date of HI insolvency in 2026: The “CBO estimates that if current laws governing the program remained in place, expenditures would outstrip non-interest income in all years through 2026 except for 2018, producing annual deficits that were relatively small in the first half of the period but would rise to $54 billion in 2025, the final year before the fund was exhausted.”[3]
Although an important indicator of the fiscal inadequacy of the program, the HI program has never gone insolvent. Based on similar warnings over the years, Congress has always responded when faced with looming insolvency. Historically, Congress has raised HI tax rates on working families; in fact, HI payroll tax rates have been increased 10 times since 1966. Congress could also authorize the transfer of additional general revenues to close the gap (more spending) or enact additional provider cuts, or a combination of all these options.
​

The trustee report clearly says what most of us, not blinded by partisan stupidity, have known. The trust fund is going broke.

And it was going broke back in 1966. The reason it still exists is because congress jacks up taxes on the public. For a short time, after jacking up taxes, it stays funded until it runs out of money again. Then they jack up taxes again.

That's why since 1966, the tax rate for HI, has increased 7 times. And it's still not enough.

Because socialism never works. Never.

And if you and the idiots like you, don't figure this out, eventually we'll end up like Greece. What you said right there, is exactly what the people of Greece said over and over, for decades..... and now they are ruined.

So who was right? All the people who shouted the warnings in Greece? Or the whiny left-wing cry babies, who said exactly what you said "It's been around for ages! It will never fail!"..... oops... it failed. They were wrong. People like me were right.

Just like you are wrong.... and I am right. You may not figure this out until the US is in ruins, but the facts don't lie.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[usmbguest5318]

an understanding of how insurance works.

It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.

Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.

"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.

• It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
• It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.

For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.

When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?

The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.

Not entirely true. There is no guarantee that I could not drop over dead right now, costing the insurance company nothing.

I'm not talking about life insurance. Death is a 100% guarantee. Even then though, level term insurance expires. So you can die after the insurance expires costing nothing. Which is why you can get level term insurance for a million dollars, and yet pay $30 to $50 a month for it.

Your point about invested float, is at the very best, irrelevant. Even your own link says very clearly:
"The insurance industry survives on premiums, but it thrives on float"

If the company "survives" on premiums, then my point stands. My point being that when you demand the insurance companies cover more, you are in effect demanding you yourself pay higher premiums.

"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.

I happen to look up Progressive's investor relation publication. On page 39, you can clearly see that premium revenue, is $22.4 Billion, while Investment income is only $478 Million.

What that means is that if a bunch of left-wingers get together and push through some feel-good legislation, that forces up costs on Progressive by just, let's say 5%. That would be almost a billion dollars. More than double the investment income. Which in turn would require Progressive to pass on those costs to the premium payers.

Which again... was my whole point. All that float crap, was irrelevant to the point. When you demand companies pay out more in insurance policies, you demand in effect, that they charge the consumer much higher premiums.

Which again, is exactly what we see. In 2006 I could get an insurance policy for $67 a month. Today the cheapest is $250.

"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.

Ahh, no. "Thriving" is the profit. I don't think you understand what "thrive" means. You should click the link.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?

Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.

The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)

• Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
• Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
• According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
• For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
• Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
• Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
• Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
• Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.

Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)

​

Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.

• How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
  
• Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
  
• Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
  
• Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
  
• Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.

At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.

• Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
• Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
• Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
• Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.

What are the objectives in your mind?

Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.

Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.

I've been down this road with Andy before. He wants his multimillion dollar maximum benefit, zero deductible and copay insurance for free, and ACA did not do that, so he is pissed.

Frankly, having now learned that the man doesn't understand the difference between "survive" and "thrive," I don't put much credence into what ever he says. I know from a remark shared by Marion Morrison that my vernacular may challenge some readers; however, "thrive" surely isn't among the words he had in mind, yet we from Andylusion observe this: Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values.

 

[Flash]

It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.

Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.

We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.

Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values

I didn't hear you bitching about the cost of the military when that asshole Obama was President and bombing Libya, escalating the war in Afghanistan and fighting the Iraq for three years and then sending back more troopes.

In fact when that military did away with Bin Laden you Moon Bats were bragging about it.

This silly partisan crap of Democrat spending good, Republican spending bad is nothing more than bullshit.

Trump is a friggin Progressive. His changes in the budget are minor. We will still have a bloated debt ridden welfare state.

Republicans don't ever decrease government spending. All they do is slightly decrease the rate of growth.

Quite your bitching. We do too much government spending in all areas.

 

[Andylusion]

an understanding of how insurance works.

It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.

Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.

"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.

• It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
• It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.

For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.

When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?

The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.

Not entirely true. There is no guarantee that I could not drop over dead right now, costing the insurance company nothing.

I'm not talking about life insurance. Death is a 100% guarantee. Even then though, level term insurance expires. So you can die after the insurance expires costing nothing. Which is why you can get level term insurance for a million dollars, and yet pay $30 to $50 a month for it.

Your point about invested float, is at the very best, irrelevant. Even your own link says very clearly:
"The insurance industry survives on premiums, but it thrives on float"

If the company "survives" on premiums, then my point stands. My point being that when you demand the insurance companies cover more, you are in effect demanding you yourself pay higher premiums.

"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.

I happen to look up Progressive's investor relation publication. On page 39, you can clearly see that premium revenue, is $22.4 Billion, while Investment income is only $478 Million.

What that means is that if a bunch of left-wingers get together and push through some feel-good legislation, that forces up costs on Progressive by just, let's say 5%. That would be almost a billion dollars. More than double the investment income. Which in turn would require Progressive to pass on those costs to the premium payers.

Which again... was my whole point. All that float crap, was irrelevant to the point. When you demand companies pay out more in insurance policies, you demand in effect, that they charge the consumer much higher premiums.

Which again, is exactly what we see. In 2006 I could get an insurance policy for $67 a month. Today the cheapest is $250.

"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.

Ahh, no. "Thriving" is the profit. I don't think you understand what "thrive" means. You should click the link.

If there was no profit, then how could they "survive" on premiums? A company can't "survive" without profit.

I don't think you know what thrive means. Try clicking on your own link, and reading it.

"to grow vigorously" Is it possible to grow in a non-'vigorous' way? Yes. I make $19k a year. I still put money into savings, and into investments. Would you call it a "vigorous" growth of savings and investments? Obviously not.

But it's still a profitable growth.

Besides that, I already posted the direct numbers, and they clearly show that float is not the majority, or even a super significant revenue stream, relative to premiums.

If your claim was even remotely true, then we would expect that as costs mandated by the government wet up, that competition by the insurance companies would force premiums to stay low, and insurance companies to use the revenue from the float to offset costs.

Of course that is not happening, because the float revenue is more like a small bonus, rather than a significant and stable revenue stream.

Which is another problem, is that like with all investments, the revenue from them is not stable. Some years my portfolio has increased by 20%. Most years, it's a small increase. And a few years, it's lost money. There is no way any company is going to craft their premium costs, around a revenue stream that is not stable.

Honestly, this is getting childish. You are trying to make your entire point, wrapped around how you think the world "flourish" should be interpreted, when I already posted the raw numbers from a companies official investor relations page? Do you not see how childish that is? Can you not move on to something else?