McCarthy: Democrats Must Cap Spending to Avoid US Debt Default

We have no choice but to reform Social Security and no one is talking cutting current benefits. We have no choice but to increase our military else China become the dominate power on the globe.

 

When you can show fentanyl use and deaths are lowerbin states than have legalized drugs you may have a point. In the mean stopping federal drug enforcement will not bring fiscal relief the vast majority of drug law enforcement is a local matter.

 

It's jot an either or and I still don't see how you can fix it without legislation to do so it's just going to heal itself.

 

Your post had nothing to do with what I said and there was nothing wrong about. Insurance companies are no different from other publically traded companies which are owned by the people who own the stocks.

 

Not as long as you pay the premium they will pay the coverage you purchased. And the fact remains insurance companies are people anand like any other business they rely on happy customers.

 

when you can show the war on drugs has slowed Drug use, you may have a point

"Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

remember, the abuse is there legal or not, just one makes criminals of those that did not abuse

 

sure, reform by raising the caps on the rich

we have to reduce excessive foreign imports and excessive foreign outsourcing... not increase military spending

btw, the above also helps social security and the debt as it brings jobs back to America

 

Thank you Obamacare

The ACA Increased, Rather Than Decreased, Administrative Costs Of Health Insurance

Anyone who’s worked with government agencies and regulatory bodies – even just by filing taxes returned or getting a driver’s license – might find this hard to believe, but during the “heath reform” debate that produced the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many proponents argued that the increased government involvement in health care would reduce administrative costs for the entire industry. This would either reduce premiums or get more health care for the same money.

Paul Krugman made this argument in the New York Times, and three single-payer advocates made a similar argument in the New England Journal of Medicine. The argument was partly based on the assumption that government is inherently superior at administration, and partly based on the idea that having a single “exchange” would eliminate the need for insurers to incur “wasteful” marketing expenses. Advocates also claimed that requiring a minimum Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) and reduction of executive paythrough limits on the deductibility of compensation (Section 9014) would limit the unrestrained pursuit of profit. The predicted impact was that reducing administrative costs would lead to lower premiums and lower national spending on health care without having to reduce the quantity or quality of actual health care delivered.

Now we know – from actual data – that this did not happen. The ACA made administrative costs of private health insurance go up, not down. While insurance companies did actually reduce administrative costs in the individual market, the amount spent by the federal government to establish and operate the exchanges vastly exceeded that savings. So, the ACA ended up providing government-subsidized administrative services to health insurance companies – surely the opposite result than the ACA advocates (no friends of insurance companies) would have wanted. And the “subsidy” was inefficient: The government spent, on average, $1,539 per person enrolled in exchange coverage, and saved the insurance companies an average of $149 per enrollee by doing so. Overall, the government spent $10.32 for every dollar they saved the insurance companies. (If you average in off-exchange enrollment as well, the government expenditure comes to $628 per covered person.)

Not only is that not “savings” – that’s about the most inefficient subsidy imaginable....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...ve-costs-of-health-insurance/?sh=5ed6e04a9e77

No they do not and their inherent inefficancies not affect cost but also quality. When your customers HAVE to buy from you there is no incentive to operate efficiency or provide good service to insure happy cusotmers.

Thank you Obamacare.and government interdiction in the private market place.

Thank you Obamacare.

 

Raise caps then you have to raise benefits. It's a retirement system. And you are already raising taxes on them to fund more free college, more free healthcare, more free food, more free housing more of everything else. How are you going to pay for all of that if you use the increases taxes to fund Social Security?

 

I had no problem with my health insurance nor did the vast majority of people and Obamacare was most certainly NOT a bipartisan passed bill it only got one Rep vote and that was in the House.

 

As I said I am all for better controls on procurement. In the meantime we have to face the ever growing threat from China and other hostile forces in the world and that is the HIGHEST spending priority of the United States government.

 

They couldn't block it.

How many saw their cost.skyrocketing compared to those who even though they had healthcare before could nownsay they had an insurance policy for which they didn't pay for anyway? You guys always leave out that the vast majority took a HUGE hit because of Obamacare.

Well DUH in was going to cut everyone's healthcare cost by TWENTY-FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS AND YOU COULD KEEP YOUR POLICY AND YOUR DOCTOR. Two of the biggest lies ever told to the American People by a President.

YES.

 

I knew someone would worry about the rich, already covered

they can add a new 2% gap for the 150k to 250k...

guess what, the middle class pay ss tax for every dollar they earn, the rich can pay the tax for the first 250k

 

Republicans blocked the measures that were part of the "Obamacare" design for reducing costs.

Capitalism has had many decades to present improvements to our healthcare system.

Even today, our system is fully dependent on capitalism. It just includes regulation to fix the issues that capitalism has no motivation to fix.

 

This bill was created by bipartisan committees in the House and Senate who operated with full freedom to talk to the public about issues being addressed, progress, etc.

There is PLENTY of evidence that this process was carried out with serious respect and cooperation.

Sen McCain (AZ) pointed out later that after changes required the amendment process there were literally hundreds of Republican proposed amendments that were approved and became part of the ACA.

Your presentation of the passage of the ACA is highly simplistic.

Besides, Republicans stated that in retribution for their losses in the previous election they picked healthcare as a platform for demonstrating that they still had the power to block legislation.

THAT is what motivated the final Republican votes on the ACA - NOT some responsible assessment of the legislation and its benefits for constancies.

 

NO, I'm NOT referring to the dollars issue, where the savings measures could not pass.

I'm referring to the broad interest in the features of coverage that the ACA provided - allowing people to buy insurance, ensuring that insurance companies couldn't dump the sick, etc.

The reason for requiring insurance policies was that insurance companies were concerned that people could buy policies when they get sick and then dump them when they get well - making it essentially impossible for insurance companies to survive.

That insurance company requirement was dropped regardless of what insurance companies wanted.

Today, insurance companies solve the problem by charging customers (you) enough to cover this behavior.

 

wow, Republicans say people want to work longer, they want to raise the retirement age

"Republicans Vow To Cut Social Security: 'People Want To Work Longer'"

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/01/republicans-wanting-cut-social-security

 

Why wouldn't I stick with facts.

 

dupe

 

Give me the DoD study that says all need upgrades and expansions can be funded by cutting fraud waste and abuse. And that is after the fact. We need to grow the budget NOW for the future. We have a huge deficits in our arsenals due to Ukraine which is ongoing. YES audit the heck out of the DoD. If the process can be reformed reform it. The best thing that could be done is get the politicians out of it. Go read the history of the USAF air refueling tanker fiasco where Senator Murray interceded with here infamous statement about they don't build things in Alabama. ALL FOR reforming. But that's not going to ensure our defense and yes my sons both Marines one a mustang who just retired a Major after 28 years the other on a medical retirement and I have had keen interest in our governments budgets and spending including DoD spending. So you don't need to waste time with anecdotal stories about it.

 

The claims were made ON THE BILL THAT WAS PRESENTED AND PASSED. If was a failure cost for families have almost doubled many had to give up insurance entirely and self insure because of the premium and deductible increases. YES insurance companies are charging more when it was promised cost would DROP.

Tell me other than an alleged $30 million getting a piece of paper saying they had insurance, what was the success that justified the cost?

 

The bill was discussed in committees and provisions voted out of committee but the bill was NOT bipartisan and got only ONE Republican vote out of both houses of Congress. It is Obama and the Dems bill and they have yet to address it's failures.

 

This is the real proper play by democrats.

If the GOP impeach Biden, convict him and let Kamila Harris become President and put a progressive as vice president.

She's someone the GOP would have a hard time actually throwing dirt on since she was tough on crime, a former police officer and prosecutor and she's be the first women president which would pull in some voters for the next election.

 

Over and over I've pointed out that the cost reduction aspects of the ACA were cut in order to gain passage.

Republicans chose the ACA as a demonstration of their continued ability to affect America - something that they felt needed to be proven after their election fiasco.

So, yes - Republicans were able to block price reductions!

What a great success for them!

NOW, you want to blame Obama - who was not even part of the creation of the bill. The bill was created by bipartisan committees in the House and Senate. The thing is, Dems have chosen bipartisanship EVEN when they had a super majority!

When will Republicans consider bipartisan negotiations? It doesn't look likely for our current budget problem, as McCarthy went DIRECTLY to his move to hold America hostage.