Obamacare A Big Lie From The Start...

The reasons for the Post Office is in the Red is the Congress meddled they have a bloated pension plan due to years of overfunding, they can't cut Saturdays out without Congress not meddling, can't do other reforms that would make things more efficient like they should be doing without again Congress meddling. If free to modernize, add popular services and such why is it their fault?

The other agencies its largely the same once in place reforms are hard and not popular say you with Medicare did something basic no pacemakers for those over the age of eighty, due to inefficiency its a lot of money for likely a small long term benefit you know what the backlash would be. Death panels, rationing etc.

 

My post on the Post Office was in response to a post by stjames1_53 that said no government agency has ever operated at a profit. An obviously uninformed position which I probably should not have bothered to refute.

If you want to start a discussion on what's wrong with the Post Office I will jump in with my opinions but don't think health caries the place.

 

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Mark Pryor doubles down on Obamacare
by David Nir



• AR-Sen: Well, this is different: A vulnerable red state Democrat is running an ad in support of Obamacare!

Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor's spot is running for a "six figure buy" and features his father, former Gov. and Sen. David Pryor. The elder Pryor describes how Mark almost died of cancer: While he pulled through, the family ran into problems after the insurance company didn't want to pay for the life-saving procedure. Sen. Pryor then declares, "No one should be fighting an insurance company while you're fighting for your life. That's why I helped pass a law that prevents insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick, or deny coverage for preexisting conditions." While the ad doesn't say that this law is Obamacare, Pryor is clearly taking the most popular parts of the bill and running on them.

Pryor's spot comes at an interesting time in the campaign season. A piece in Bloomberg describes something we've been seeing in our ad roundups: Republicans are using Obamacare far less in their campaign commercials than they were a few months ago. Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg View helps explain why. Healthcare as a campaign issue is becoming far less important to voters, likely as memories of the Obamacare launch fade.

Bernstein also describes how Republicans are in a more awkward position when it comes to the law than they used to be. In 2010 and 2012 before the major parts of the program kicked in, it was easy for Team Red to call for its full repeal. However, it's becoming clear to voters and to Republican politicians that Obamacare is here to stay. While the GOP may hit Democrats for voting for it in the first place and attack some of the more unpopular aspects of the bill, they can't convincingly argue that they'll just repeal the program and be done with it. Republicans in tough races are having to take more nuanced positions: As Bernstein puts it, "they still almost all say they support repeal, but they weasel around the idea that various ACA programs and benefits will be included in that supposed repeal."

By no means is Obamacare dead as an issue. In just the last few days Crossroads GPS ran ads against Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado and CA-07 Rep. Ami Bera completely focused on Obamacare. Pryor's Republican rival Rep. Tom Cotton has also been hitting him on the bill. Still, it's becoming apparent that this cycle will not be a straight up referendum on Obamacare that some people may have predicted just a few months ago. Ads like Pryor's are also a sign that while red state Democrats may still be unwilling to outright express support for the program, they are finding ways to turn it into a positive. (Jeff Singer)




Yup - all true patriots agree: ACA is working!

 

My only issue is what do you do with poor people most reforms to replace the ACA ignore the fact those with low incomes need serious help with medical costs?

One idea I had is expand Medicaid to those at or under 100% of the Federal Poverty line and then with a premium based on income sliding fee scale to double that. For example say John is earning a modest $14,000 a year why not say you are on Medicaid for a premium paid out your paycheck or by you of $58.33 a month or 5% of your pre-tax income and have small co-pays say $5 to see a doctor, one half a hospital bed cost for a hospital stay and cap that at say $1400 a year including the premiums. That might work okay. At least it would solve a major issue. And if Federalized fully you can pass onto states the costs of the uninsured cutting out all payments at the Federal level. It might take some more taxes or considerations but its something to look at.

 

this has been debunked before. There can be no surplus when you have debt. That is akin to saying I have a paycheck, I pay one bill out of five. I still have the debt to pay, but I have surplus. In reality, that ain't so, I still owe the other four debts. If I save money by not paying debt, then I too can claim I have a surplus, while in reality, I still owe the money I'm sitting on to other people. I still must pay those bills.
Deficit spending works the same way. Just because I saved a couple of nickles by negotiating the debtors doesn't relieve me of my obligations. Deficit spending is still spending money you don't have.
I have seen your source before. It has been used in many financial debates. It has been proven that if you have debt, you don't have surplus. (especially if you are behind in those payments)

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Social Security and Medicare funds have always run surpluses and this is why the government owes those accounts over 2 trillion to those funds. If you look at your paystub, you will notice that money is taken out of your pay and designated to Social security and medicare.

 

Unfortunatly for your position all budgets operate on a fiscal (yearly) basis. If you taken more in a year then you spend you run a surplus. This is just basic accounting and you will find no company, individual, or government that uses anything other than an annual accounting system. As long as you pay the interest on your debt and take in more money in a year than you are expending you are running an annual surplus.

And by the way the United States is not behind in it's payments.

Bet you cannot find a single reputable source to support your arguement.

 

finally, someone who admits that the government is stealing from the people who pay into it. Hell, Bush gave all of us a check halfway through one year. Remember that? However, it turned to not really be a freebie. It was repaid when you filed and paid taxes the following year.(it was only an advancement) So if they constantly keep borrowing it, how is it runs in the black, especially when it is constantly being raided. If they had to pay all of that out at once, guess what...they gonna come up mighty damned short.
Medicare also runs with a deficit. So guess what, no surplus. If, and that's a big "IF" the government reapys any or part of the "loan", of course it show as a surplus, until it is used to repay the budget deficit and if it all isn't paid back, they start out in the hole next fiscal year

 

You do understand that most corporations issue debt obligations which they repay over time. And you do understand that people take on debt when they buy homes and in some cases cars. Debt is not a problem if managed correctly, it becomes a problem if it increases to the point where repayment becomes impossible or if the interest on the debt starts to impact the financial health of the entitity.

Concern over the amount of US debt and the fact that is is growing is warranted. Concern over having any debt is an indication of a lack of understanding of economics. Proper discussion on debt financing should resolve around what the debt is financing not the fact that debt is used.

 

Social Security and Medicare haven't run surpluses . Why? #1. Medicare payroll taxes have not been enough to pay Medicare expenditures and the Federal Government has had to pick up the slack, mainly by borrowing the money. #2, Social Security taxes have not been put into a dedicated Trust Fund. When Social Security Admin. needs money to pay benefits they get it from the Federal Reserve. If SS had money to payout benefits, the Federal Government would be able to pay these benefits regardless if it defaulted on loans. Didn't you understand that when Congress failed to raise the debt limit and Obama said SS checks wouldn't go out. Why? because there is no money in a dedicated SS trust fund, I.e. the money we all pay in is not going into a dedicated account. Look it up for heaven sake. Read the CBO reports, Read SSA reports.

Do your homework.

 

Your discussion on Social Security has nothing to do with the discussion about Social Security running a surplus. The way he government handles SS funds is an entirely different discussion.

Try to,stay on topic.

 

he is correct. How can you have a surplus when you are running in the red?

 

Former Obamacare critic's life saved by ACA:



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ure-live-blogging-Obamacare-from-the-hospital



ACA saves lives - and that's the patriotic TRUTH.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Healthcare.gov

Obamacare is STILL a disaster, folks. You are being lied to by certain posters on this thread. But then again, you already know that, don't you?

 

Pretty funny you accuse ACA supporters of not using facts with a post that contains no fact but plenty of ranting.

 

Funny that you believe lying politicians but not your fellow Americans. Speaks volumes about where your loyalties lie.

*Obaaaaaama*

 

No facts here either. I think if you could be intellectually honest for a minute you would admit that there are sincere well meaning politicians and civilians on both the pro and con sides of the health care discussion.

 

Here's a fact... Obamacare is helping thousands... while hurting millions.

It's the millions you chose to ignore.

 

Suggest before further discussion you look up the difference between fact and opinion. Smart mouths are more believable if connected to a smart brain.

 

For all those who believe opponents of the ACA did not have any time to consider the bill before voting here is the history of the legislation.

http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/publications/llj/llj-archives/vol-105/no-2/2013-7.pdf

 

I provided a link to the only place regular American citizens can go to tell their Obamacare horror stories. You can choose to believe your fellow citizens or what you're told by sleazy politicians. Your choice.

 

Budget Surplus
Related Searches: Frugal Living, Financial Planning, Money Management, Tips on Saving Money, Monthly Bills Worksheet
Definition of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently. A budget surplus might be used to pay off debt, save for the future, or to make a desired purchase that has been delayed. A city government that had a surplus might use the money to make improvements to a run-down park, for example.

Investopedia explains 'Budget Surplus'

When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.

Refine Your Financial Vocabulary
Gain the Financial Knowledge You Need to Succeed. Investopedia’s FREE Term of the Day helps you gain a better understanding of all things financial with technical and easy-to-understand explanations. Click here to begin developing your financial language with this daily newsletter.

 

From previously posted link.

Patrick *********
My insurance premiums went up 150% and deductible raised by $2,000.00. Meanwhile my employer is contributing $124.00 less per pay period so I bring less to the table to pay the Co - insurance. (Oh and before this, Co insurance was only for major medical or cosmetic work. Now there are a lot more items). I suspect that was one reason my employer trimmed the payroll and I lost my job. Meanwhile my wife is being harassed by the IRS and she's the only breadwinner in the family. We went to your crap website and found plans we couldn't afford with deductibles that would put us in the poorhouse, so now we get to stand in line at the public clinic hoping to get in, and leaving with a choice : fill the Rx or eat this week, just like my mom on Medicare. So in short, my story is that the ACA has done to me what I wouldn't do to my worst enemy: starve my family, call the taxman, and gotten me fired.

Like(*)·(*)(*)·(*)Reply(*)·(*)Aug 18 at 12:13pm

 

Do you always post spam when losing a debate? Isn't it a little obvious you're trying to change the subject?

 

`Amen Sister...