President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

This cocksucker will steal your hat and then help ya look for it.


75 Percent of Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75- ... 66067.html

Sounds about right. Am I surprised? Nope....didn't vote for him.

j

So, he is actually paying for everything and reducing the deficit.

Conservatives should be happy...but, they never will be.

So, Obama won't call for raising the debt limit again then, right? After all, he collecting taxes to cover it all. My bet is that before we get through the first quarter of 2103 he will be insisting that it be raised. After all, he's made statements that he wants direct control over the debt limit without going to Congress for approval.

Wow, how ignorant. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit. Two somewhat related, but different topics.

Raising the debt limit allows for payment of debt that has already incurred. Whether you like it or not, it has to be done regardless of what budget is passed. Basically, it's become a political tool for one side or the other to get what they want/don't want in the budget, "if you don't cut Boom Boom's taxes then the piss-our pants party are not going to vote for raising the debt ceiling." So, remove the politics from it and let the President raise it...because it's going to be done anyway - no real choice.

Your mean like the 1.6 trillion Obama spent in his first term?

Yes, and the trillions of deficit spending under W.

You do know that a budget is the future, and debt is current, correct?

It's directly related to both the national debt and current budgets.

Wrong. The current budget talks has NOTHING to do with raising the debt ceiling to pay for CURRENT DEBT.

Rising the debt limit allows the government to borrow more money.

Yes...to pay for the current operating expenses of the government. So, raising the debt ceiling for 2012 has to do with 2012 expenses. 2013 is the future. Yeah, they may as well cover the next five years too...but when the ceiling is hit, it is for the CURRENT YEAR - a budget that has already been passed.

Things would be all well and good if that newly borrowed money only gets put towards the national debt incurred, but it doesn't. They use it for new spending.

Not true. It is used for the current year's spending.

Sure, you can make some magical argument that it 'allows' future budgets to be larger. But, it's an empty argument because when the ceiling IS hit, not raising it would cause such a financial crisis that it MUST be raised. The debt ceiling is irrelevant.

Arguing the size of the budget and deficit spending is a valid argument. But the debt ceiling is a empty political argument with no real validity.

It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

No, it is ignorant, illogical, and just plain stoopid to believe that a debt ceiling crisis has anything to do with future budgets. It is simply NOT TRUE.

It's seems any objection to Obama's actions is a "political tool". Too Funny.

Yes, it is a political tool THAT BOTH PARTIES USE. And, it's not Obama or any President who really uses it - it's congress. I wonder how many times Reagan, Bush, and W raised the debt ceiling? Where were you whiny Republicans then? Oh, yeah, the Republicans didn't make an issue of it THEN...and most people probably don't even remember it happening.

You need to go back to whining about Styx, cuz you obviously have no clue what you are talking about here.

[Monker]

This cocksucker will steal your hat and then help ya look for it.


75 Percent of Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75- ... 66067.html

Sounds about right. Am I surprised? Nope....didn't vote for him.

j

So, he is actually paying for everything and reducing the deficit.

Conservatives should be happy...but, they never will be.

So, Obama won't call for raising the debt limit again then, right? After all, he collecting taxes to cover it all. My bet is that before we get through the first quarter of 2103 he will be insisting that it be raised. After all, he's made statements that he wants direct control over the debt limit without going to Congress for approval.

Isn't that how dictatorships work?
Why not just fire congress and reduce the goverment payroll then? Doesn't make sense to pay for something so ineffective.

Actually, no other country in the world operates with a "debt ceiling". It is effectively - irrelevant.

Just use common sense for a moment. Congress somehow passes a budget and Obama signs it. Then we find in the middle of the year that we hit the debt ceiling. The options are to not pay our bills and operating under some type of limited government...essentially throwing the country into a depression. Or, raise the debt ceiling.

Are people in this forum so naive that they believe the political CRAP that the debt ceiling has any real function at all?

I think it's more naive to think that Obama is raising enough taxes to cover all the spending he has planned. Let's see, the first number he gave was 800 billion which has now grown to 1 trillion in new spending and I am sure that's not the last revision. He wants Congress to approve raising taxes on the wealthy and then he'll discuss spending cuts. I think Obama is naive to think that some people in Congress are as dumb as some of the people that voted for him.

That is why more Republicans are willing to put tax increases on the table for discussion and why hardline Republican fiscal conservatives (no new taxes) were removed from key committees. You are losing the argument.

Obama isn't going to get everything he wants. Republicans are not going to get everything they want. Ask for more then you want, and get as much as you can. That's called political compromise - something that has been missing in congress the last four years. Get used to it. Republicans have lost a bit of power this last election and it definitely shows.

[Boomchild]

This cocksucker will steal your hat and then help ya look for it.


75 Percent of Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75- ... 66067.html

Sounds about right. Am I surprised? Nope....didn't vote for him.

j

So, he is actually paying for everything and reducing the deficit.

Conservatives should be happy...but, they never will be.

So, Obama won't call for raising the debt limit again then, right? After all, he collecting taxes to cover it all. My bet is that before we get through the first quarter of 2103 he will be insisting that it be raised. After all, he's made statements that he wants direct control over the debt limit without going to Congress for approval.

Wow, how ignorant. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit. Two somewhat related, but different topics.

Raising the debt limit allows for payment of debt that has already incurred. Whether you like it or not, it has to be done regardless of what budget is passed. Basically, it's become a political tool for one side or the other to get what they want/don't want in the budget, "if you don't cut Boom Boom's taxes then the piss-our pants party are not going to vote for raising the debt ceiling." So, remove the politics from it and let the President raise it...because it's going to be done anyway - no real choice.

Your mean like the 1.6 trillion Obama spent in his first term?

Yes, and the trillions of deficit spending under W.

You do know that a budget is the future, and debt is current, correct?

It's directly related to both the national debt and current budgets.

Wrong. The current budget talks has NOTHING to do with raising the debt ceiling to pay for CURRENT DEBT.

Rising the debt limit allows the government to borrow more money.

Yes...to pay for the current operating expenses of the government. So, raising the debt ceiling for 2012 has to do with 2012 expenses. 2013 is the future. Yeah, they may as well cover the next five years too...but when the ceiling is hit, it is for the CURRENT YEAR - a budget that has already been passed.

Things would be all well and good if that newly borrowed money only gets put towards the national debt incurred, but it doesn't. They use it for new spending.

Not true. It is used for the current year's spending.

Sure, you can make some magical argument that it 'allows' future budgets to be larger. But, it's an empty argument because when the ceiling IS hit, not raising it would cause such a financial crisis that it MUST be raised. The debt ceiling is irrelevant.

Arguing the size of the budget and deficit spending is a valid argument. But the debt ceiling is a empty political argument with no real validity.

It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

No, it is ignorant, illogical, and just plain stoopid to believe that a debt ceiling crisis has anything to do with future budgets. It is simply NOT TRUE.

It's seems any objection to Obama's actions is a "political tool". Too Funny.

Yes, it is a political tool THAT BOTH PARTIES USE. And, it's not Obama or any President who really uses it - it's congress. I wonder how many times Reagan, Bush, and W raised the debt ceiling? Where were you whiny Republicans then? Oh, yeah, the Republicans didn't make an issue of it THEN...and most people probably don't even remember it happening.

You need to go back to whining about Styx, cuz you obviously have no clue what you are talking about here.

Where did I say I was a Republican? That just shows how naive you are. You must think that anyone who isn't in Obama's camp is automatically a Republican. Your dead wrong. And yes including the trillions of deficit under w. Bush. Never said that I supported or agreed with how he operated as President. But, Bush has nothing on Obama when it comes to spending since Obama takes the record for more spending in his first term then all the past Presidents combined. As I said Obama will call for the debt ceiling to be raised next year and all new money borrowed on that will go for the new spending he has planned for 2013 and beyond. He couldn't give a rats ass about the national debt. This guy brings a new definition to tax, barrow and spend politicians. Obama has no way of collecting enough money to cover his colossal spending plan without pushing this country into an amount of debt that we will never be able to repay. You have to laugh at V.P. Joe "the village idiot" Biden comment that the Republicans are "going to put you all back in chains". When actually that is exactly what the Obama Administration is setting up to do and not only will we be in "chains" but this country's future generations. That is unless Obama is our "Lord and Savior" as Jamie Fox thinks he is. Maybe we should replace The Statue Of Liberty with a statue of Obama being crucified on a cross.

P.S.- you must be going through withdrawal not being able to troll the Styx forum and throw your insults and conduct your sermons on Styx.

[Monker]

As I said Obama will call for the debt ceiling to be raised next year and all new money borrowed on that will go for the new spending he has planned for 2013 and beyond.

First of all, that's NOT what you said. In response to me saying Republicans are still not happy with Obama proposing a budget that has a surplus, you said, "So, Obama won't call for raising the debt limit again then, right? After all, he collecting taxes to cover it all."

What you STILL do not understand is the debt ceiling and the budget are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. How can you not see that? The entire premise of your argument MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL.

If you want to argue about the budget, argue about the budget. Making such an argument about the debt ceiling is what a mindless goober does after he sits about watching FOX all day and listening to Hannity and Limbaugh on the radio.

He couldn't give a rats ass about the national debt. This guy brings a new definition to tax, barrow and spend politicians.

Funny, back in Reagan's day it was the Republicans arguing that the debt did not matter.

Obama has no way of collecting enough money to cover his colossal spending plan without pushing this country into an amount of debt that we will never be able to repay.

Of course...which is why we'll end up with a compromise budget where taxes are raised and spending is cut.

You do realize that the President proposes a budget and then congress throws it away and starts over, correct?

You have to laugh at V.P. Joe "the village idiot" Biden comment that the Republicans are "going to put you all back in chains". When actually that is exactly what the Obama Administration is setting up to do and not only will we be in "chains" but this country's future generations.

Yeah, yeah, and zombie's will rise from their graves, dogs and cats will start living together, Chicken Little will be crushed because the sky fell on him. We all know that is the fantasy people like you believe.

P.S.- you must be going through withdrawal not being able to troll the Styx forum and throw your insults and conduct your sermons on Styx.

Don't know what you are talking about....I can post wherever I want.

[Boomchild]

As I said Obama will call for the debt ceiling to be raised next year and all new money borrowed on that will go for the new spending he has planned for 2013 and beyond.

First of all, that's NOT what you said. In response to me saying Republicans are still not happy with Obama proposing a budget that has a surplus, you said, "So, Obama won't call for raising the debt limit again then, right? After all, he collecting taxes to cover it all."

What you STILL do not understand is the debt ceiling and the budget are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. How can you not see that? The entire premise of your argument MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL.

If you want to argue about the budget, argue about the budget. Making such an argument about the debt ceiling is what a mindless goober does after he sits about watching FOX all day and listening to Hannity and Limbaugh on the radio.

He couldn't give a rats ass about the national debt. This guy brings a new definition to tax, barrow and spend politicians.

Funny, back in Reagan's day it was the Republicans arguing that the debt did not matter.

Obama has no way of collecting enough money to cover his colossal spending plan without pushing this country into an amount of debt that we will never be able to repay.

Of course...which is why we'll end up with a compromise budget where taxes are raised and spending is cut.

You do realize that the President proposes a budget and then congress throws it away and starts over, correct?

You have to laugh at V.P. Joe "the village idiot" Biden comment that the Republicans are "going to put you all back in chains". When actually that is exactly what the Obama Administration is setting up to do and not only will we be in "chains" but this country's future generations.

Yeah, yeah, and zombie's will rise from their graves, dogs and cats will start living together, Chicken Little will be crushed because the sky fell on him. We all know that is the fantasy people like you believe.

P.S.- you must be going through withdrawal not being able to troll the Styx forum and throw your insults and conduct your sermons on Styx.

Don't know what you are talking about....I can post wherever I want.

What I am saying is Obama will call for raising the debt ceiling for the purpose of using it for boosting the massive current spending regardless of whatever budget he presents. Not use it to pay for existing debt. The mere fact that he has not submitted a formal budget proposal since 2009 just shows you this guy thinks the skies the limit. Obama has no intention of cutting any of this massive spending. And the Republicans that are in Congress are a joke and will provide less and less resistance to it. Hell, were already seeing that. Both parties are complete joke anymore. It's not a fantasy to say that this reckless spending spree that our government is on and with Obama blowing it even more out of proportion, credible analysts have found that it will reach a point that the we will never be able to repay the money the government has borrowed. And that's based on what Obama has said he intends to do. What's a fantasy is those that think the U.S. is too big and powerful to fail. That the countries that are lending the U.S. money (i.e. China) will get to the point of saying "sorry our loan department is closed". Analysts have also found that China is tracking to take over the U.S. as the world's largest superpower. Judging from history once a country loses it superpower status they never get it back. All this talk about the current fiscal cliff pails in comparison to what this nation will have to deal with once Obama is done. I just can't wait to see the look on the peoples faces when their government checks stop coming because the well is dry or the dollar's perceived value drops so low the average citizen won't be able to buy jack shit with it. Then will see how people feel about their " Lord and Savior", Barackoclaus. The simple fact is that taxing and government over spending DOES NOT create economic growth. Guess our leaders have not learned the lessons from history such as the complete failure of the Soviet Union. BTW, what I meant about the Styx forum is that it's so dead in there that you must be going through withdrawal not having the chance throw your insults and sermons of Styx wisdom there.

[Boomchild]

Even more good news from Obama's plan to "reshape" America. Aren't you glad the "Affordable Health Care Plan" is going to make our cost of health care cheaper. Here's a good example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... miums.html

[The Sushi Hunter]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

[Boomchild]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

[slucero]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

[Monker]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

LOL.

You can make an argument for both sides. On one hand, you get people saying government will be able to undercut private industry with cheap healthcare (ie: they think government can out compete private industry...which I think is funny). The other is what you said, the current uninsured will now have to pay for healthcare in some form of insurance therefore adding new payees to the health insurance industry.

Truth is, nobody REALLY know any of the long term effects of Obamacare. Anybody says they do is lying or simply doesn't know the full story of what they are talking about.

[slucero]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

LOL.

You can make an argument for both sides. On one hand, you get people saying government will be able to undercut private industry with cheap healthcare (ie: they think government can out compete private industry...which I think is funny). The other is what you said, the current uninsured will now have to pay for healthcare in some form of insurance therefore adding new payees to the health insurance industry.

Truth is, nobody REALLY know any of the long term effects of Obamacare. Anybody says they do is lying or simply doesn't know the full story of what they are talking about.

I think we agree...

I was making an argument for both sides.. someone is going to pay the bill for those 30 million new payees..

[Boomchild]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

LOL.

You can make an argument for both sides. On one hand, you get people saying government will be able to undercut private industry with cheap healthcare (ie: they think government can out compete private industry...which I think is funny). The other is what you said, the current uninsured will now have to pay for healthcare in some form of insurance therefore adding new payees to the health insurance industry.

Truth is, nobody REALLY know any of the long term effects of Obamacare. Anybody says they do is lying or simply doesn't know the full story of what they are talking about.

Exactly, I am of the opinion that it will destroy the private healthcare business. Already there are costs buried in the bill that are causing healthcare insurance providers to pass that onto their customers. Which could cause companies to choose to pay the fine for not providing a group plan instead of paying the higher costs. The fine could be less of a cost. Then we have states rejecting the insurance exchanges. If I understand it properly, if they do, they get federal funding to cover costs. Should a state choose to not set these up then I believe the federal government has to set something up which would be a more costly way of doing it. I do not see anything yet that shows that this is going to be "affordable healthcare". When the government puts their hands into a system like this they have proven that they cannot properly control the costs and the amount of fraud. All we need to look to is Medicare.

[Monker]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

LOL.

You can make an argument for both sides. On one hand, you get people saying government will be able to undercut private industry with cheap healthcare (ie: they think government can out compete private industry...which I think is funny). The other is what you said, the current uninsured will now have to pay for healthcare in some form of insurance therefore adding new payees to the health insurance industry.

Truth is, nobody REALLY know any of the long term effects of Obamacare. Anybody says they do is lying or simply doesn't know the full story of what they are talking about.

Exactly, I am of the opinion that it will destroy the private healthcare business. Already there are costs buried in the bill that are causing healthcare insurance providers to pass that onto their customers. Which could cause companies to choose to pay the fine for not providing a group plan instead of paying the higher costs. The fine could be less of a cost. Then we have states rejecting the insurance exchanges. If I understand it properly, if they do, they get federal funding to cover costs. Should a state choose to not set these up then I believe the federal government has to set something up which would be a more costly way of doing it. I do not see anything yet that shows that this is going to be "affordable healthcare". When the government puts their hands into a system like this they have proven that they cannot properly control the costs and the amount of fraud. All we need to look to is Medicare.

People currently without insurance will no longer be going to emergency for care, many not paying for it...which drives up costs for everybody. This, BTW, was Reagan's version of universal healthcare and has been a stand-by for decades for Republicans, "you can always just go to he emergency room....they can't refuse you."

These same people who are currently uninsured will be able to get preventative care, which is cheaper...and not have to wait until it becomes urgent care - which is expensive...which drives up the cost of insurance for everybody.

Finally, mandated coverage requires everybody to join. If you know anything about insurance you know that the more people who are in a plan, the cheaper it is for everybody....group insurance is cheaper than individual insurance. This is why Republicans and conservatives were for the mandate back in the days they were for Healthcare reform. If you look into it, Obama was originally NOT for a mandate...it was Mitt Romney's ex-advisor's who convinced him there HAD to be a mandate to lower costs as far as they could be.

Therefore, you have no idea how the above which I stated mixed with any negatives you can think of will balance out and affect costs. Your biases are showing if you think you do.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

[Boomchild]

The majority of individuals who voted accordingly to get Obamacare are the same individuals who are the only ones to benefit from it. Obamacare is just another government handout for non-working individuals and individuals who lived a wreckless life where they can't afford their own health care. Another government tap into the working American's earnings. With this Obamacare in force, the government can now raise the amount they take as much and as often as they wish, just like all the other monies they take in the form of taxes. Am I surprised? Nope......I didn't vote for him.

Yep, and I also believe that the it is designed to destroy the private health insurance business. Maybe not right away but will slowly choke the life out of them. Then it will be a one payer fully government operated healthcare system. One interesting thing is the states that are refusing to set up the required insurance exchanges. One would think this would be coming from only Republican controlled states but there are Democratic states such as PA that are refusing to set them up.

Uh. it's not designed to destroy the private healthcare industry.. its designed to enrich them by bringing 30 million more new payees...

LOL.

You can make an argument for both sides. On one hand, you get people saying government will be able to undercut private industry with cheap healthcare (ie: they think government can out compete private industry...which I think is funny). The other is what you said, the current uninsured will now have to pay for healthcare in some form of insurance therefore adding new payees to the health insurance industry.

Truth is, nobody REALLY know any of the long term effects of Obamacare. Anybody says they do is lying or simply doesn't know the full story of what they are talking about.

Exactly, I am of the opinion that it will destroy the private healthcare business. Already there are costs buried in the bill that are causing healthcare insurance providers to pass that onto their customers. Which could cause companies to choose to pay the fine for not providing a group plan instead of paying the higher costs. The fine could be less of a cost. Then we have states rejecting the insurance exchanges. If I understand it properly, if they do, they get federal funding to cover costs. Should a state choose to not set these up then I believe the federal government has to set something up which would be a more costly way of doing it. I do not see anything yet that shows that this is going to be "affordable healthcare". When the government puts their hands into a system like this they have proven that they cannot properly control the costs and the amount of fraud. All we need to look to is Medicare.

People currently without insurance will no longer be going to emergency for care, many not paying for it...which drives up costs for everybody. This, BTW, was Reagan's version of universal healthcare and has been a stand-by for decades for Republicans, "you can always just go to he emergency room....they can't refuse you."

These same people who are currently uninsured will be able to get preventative care, which is cheaper...and not have to wait until it becomes urgent care - which is expensive...which drives up the cost of insurance for everybody.

Finally, mandated coverage requires everybody to join. If you know anything about insurance you know that the more people who are in a plan, the cheaper it is for everybody....group insurance is cheaper than individual insurance. This is why Republicans and conservatives were for the mandate back in the days they were for Healthcare reform. If you look into it, Obama was originally NOT for a mandate...it was Mitt Romney's ex-advisor's who convinced him there HAD to be a mandate to lower costs as far as they could be.

Therefore, you have no idea how the above which I stated mixed with any negatives you can think of will balance out and affect costs. Your biases are showing if you think you do.

I'm sorry did you say something???

[slucero]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

Indeed and the end result wont be any better than any of the other times that we tried to ignore the fact that the basics of supply and demand apply to healthcare.

[Monker]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

Indeed and the end result wont be any better than any of the other times that we tried to ignore the fact that the basics of supply and demand apply to healthcare.

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obamacare will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

[Memorex]

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obamacare will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance.

I'd LOVE to see any research to support that. That would make me feel great. So far, it's cost me quite a bit with increased premiums (nearly all insurance carriers are saying this will continue due to Obamacare), the loss of some benefits starting next month with my insurance company, and of course the reduced FSA account, which I use every bit of.

I haven't read any recent analysis that states anything about costs going down. Would be nice though.

[Boomchild]

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obamacare will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance.

I'd LOVE to see any research to support that. That would make me feel great. So far, it's cost me quite a bit with increased premiums (nearly all insurance carriers are saying this will continue due to Obamacare), the loss of some benefits starting next month with my insurance company, and of course the reduced FSA account, which I use every bit of.

I haven't read any recent analysis that states anything about costs going down. Would be nice though.

It just seems to me with the utter financial failure that the government has had running Medicare that this won't be any different. When you look at things as a whole when the government is in control of anything it ends up costing more then what they have presented to cost. They never seem to put things in place to control the waste, abuse and fraud.

[slucero]

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obamacare will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

A healthier America does not come from universal healthcare (Obamacare).. those two are not symbiotic.

The truth is.. as healthcare has advanced over the last 50 years.. America has gotten less healthy.. just look at obesity.. at an all time high. We're sicker and fatter than we've ever been..


As I recall... the original primary cause for Obamacare was reducing the cost of healthcare... and now it was passed because they "guessed" it would drive down healthcare costs??? That's not real encouraging... given all the empirical data regarding the existing cost of healthcare, and all the "smart" bean counters in D.C. who supposedly worked on this.

We deserve having D.C. be able to factually "prove the math"... that it actually reduces costs.. using existing empirical data... before they take America on a wild, cost escalating goose chase. That's why the OMB said it would do just the opposite, because they actually did the math.


Given the lack of any real data proving otherwise, and the OMB's own review.. it's entirely possible this was never about 30 million people, but more about enriching insurance companies...

[steveo777]

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obamacare will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

A healthier America does not come from universal healthcare (Obamacare).. those two are not symbiotic.

The truth is.. as healthcare has advanced over the last 50 years.. America has gotten less healthy.. just look at obesity.. at an all time high. We're sicker and fatter than we've ever been..


As I recall... the original primary cause for Obamacare was reducing the cost of healthcare... and now it was passed because they "guessed" it would drive down healthcare costs??? That's not real encouraging... given all the empirical data regarding the existing cost of healthcare, and all the "smart" bean counters in D.C. who supposedly worked on this.

We deserve having D.C. be able to factually "prove the math"... that it actually reduces costs.. using existing empirical data... before they take America on a wild, cost escalating goose chase. That's why the OMB said it would do just the opposite, because they actually did the math.


Given the lack of any real data proving otherwise, and the OMB's own review.. it's entirely possible this was never about 30 million people, but more about enriching insurance companies...

Nah. That would go against the democratic agenda, which is to throw the money down to the lower rungs.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Social Security and this Obamacare sort of have the same general idea behind it, which is, "everybody pays into it and everybody gets something out of it". If this is correct, why is it that Social Security is failing and why will Obamacare not fail for the same reason(s)?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

Indeed and the end result wont be any better than any of the other times that we tried to ignore the fact that the basics of supply and demand apply to healthcare.

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obama care will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

Look you see what happened with Emergency rooms when EMTALA passed - a strain on resources, closure of some emergency rooms, new regulations on who could and couldn't get treated in them. Care in emergency rooms worsened because it was more scarce and expensive. Obama care does the exact same thing with the 30 million people into the system, it just does it on a larger scale. Its just not in the emergency room anymore. Same supply and demand and allocation issues this time on a bigger scale. It didn't work on a smaller scale , its not likely to work on a larger scale

Yes of course its my opinion. But its not guess work its an argument which is : Premise 1 - The healthcare industry is subject to the economic laws of supply / demand and price allocation like every other, the breaking of which leads to price increases and shortages. Premise 2-0. Obama care is in contradiction to those basic laws of supply and demand. Conclusion - Obama care will result in shortages and higer prices. If my two premises are valid (and I think they are ) then my argument will be proven

[Monker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Social Security and this Obamacare sort of have the same general idea behind it, which is, "everybody pays into it and everybody gets something out of it". If this is correct, why is it that Social Security is failing and why will Obamacare not fail for the same reason(s)?

Social Security is losing money because current retirees are paid for by current workers. Therefore, if you are retired your children and grandchildren are paying for it....and you paid for your parents and grandparents. Social Security is NOT some type of savings account that you pay into while you work. The reason it is in trouble is because the baby boom generation is now retiring and retirees will outnumber workers VERY soon

[Monker]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

Indeed and the end result wont be any better than any of the other times that we tried to ignore the fact that the basics of supply and demand apply to healthcare.

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obama care will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

Look you see what happened with Emergency rooms when EMTALA passed - a strain on resources, closure of some emergency rooms, new regulations on who could and couldn't get treated in them. Care in emergency rooms worsened because it was more scarce and expensive. Obama care does the exact same thing with the 30 million people into the system, it just does it on a larger scale. Its just not in the emergency room anymore. Same supply and demand and allocation issues this time on a bigger scale. It didn't work on a smaller scale , its not likely to work on a larger scale

Yes of course its my opinion. But its not guess work its an argument which is : Premise 1 - The healthcare industry is subject to the economic laws of supply / demand and price allocation like every other, the breaking of which leads to price increases and shortages. Premise 2-0. Obama care is in contradiction to those basic laws of supply and demand. Conclusion - Obama care will result in shortages and higer prices. If my two premises are valid (and I think they are ) then my argument will be proven

It is so guesswork for the simple fact that costs are already artificially inflated by those who do not pay for more expensive emergency room care. How that balances out in the supply/demand equation IS a guess.

[Memorex]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Social Security and this Obamacare sort of have the same general idea behind it, which is, "everybody pays into it and everybody gets something out of it". If this is correct, why is it that Social Security is failing and why will Obamacare not fail for the same reason(s)?

Social Security is losing money because current retirees are paid for by current workers. Therefore, if you are retired your children and grandchildren are paying for it....and you paid for your parents and grandparents. Social Security is NOT some type of savings account that you pay into while you work. The reason it is in trouble is because the baby boom generation is now retiring and retirees will outnumber workers VERY soon

Um, it's in trouble for more reasons than that. They borrow from it consistently, for one.

[Boomchild]

We deserve having D.C. be able to factually "prove the math"... that it actually reduces costs.. using existing empirical data... before they take America on a wild, cost escalating goose chase. That's why the OMB said it would do just the opposite, because they actually did the math.

Good luck with that one.

[Boomchild]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Social Security and this Obamacare sort of have the same general idea behind it, which is, "everybody pays into it and everybody gets something out of it". If this is correct, why is it that Social Security is failing and why will Obamacare not fail for the same reason(s)?

Social Security is losing money because current retirees are paid for by current workers. Therefore, if you are retired your children and grandchildren are paying for it....and you paid for your parents and grandparents. Social Security is NOT some type of savings account that you pay into while you work. The reason it is in trouble is because the baby boom generation is now retiring and retirees will outnumber workers VERY soon

Um, it's in trouble for more reasons than that. They borrow from it consistently, for one.

Just one more example that letting the government get more involved in things like healthcare or the inferences that they wish to take control of our private retirement plans (i.e. 401K) is a bad idea. Our founding fathers designed our system of government to be limited in it's effects to our freedoms. It seems to me that were are moving away from that at a faster pace.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

With regard to healthcare,the problem is that healthcare really hasn't been run entirely as a free market for nearly 40 years now. Specifically the manner in which price works as an efficient allocator of resources. First you had an increasing shift from the end consumer paying directly and then getting reimbursed by the insurance company to the insurance company always pays. this was the first distortion of supply and demand - doctors and hospitals started to choose what to charge. In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. To rip of a quote from the economist Murray Rothbard" the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service."

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit" The system of Medicare only exacerbated this- creating that ever increasing demand without the natural interactions of supply / demand and equilibrium price movements.

Monker is right the EMTALA law ("Reagans healthcare") only worked to distort supply / demand curves further (by the way it is very questionable whether this helped any people without insurance in real emergency situations. Prior to EMTALA most hospitals already had voluntary ethical policies around getting involved in helping emergency cases and then working with charities or deriving payment plans, and having priced in some level of risk. What you got instead was an ever increasing use of the emergency room situation, an ever growing body of rules and confusion, around what is and isn't a real emergency, fewer emergency rooms and in fact fewer emergency cases treated. Yes this will be gone with Obama care, but you should realize that what will happen is that the supply/demand price crisis that surrounded Emergency room treatment only gets kicked into the wider hospital system (Obama care is effectively a bigger EMTALA)- so nothing gained or lost there.

Obama care isn't an assault on the free market healthcare system - because before Obama care it wasn't run as a market! . Thats why I hesitate to say it will make the problem with healthcare prices worse. Every indication is that things will carry on with their current trajectory (not good), so nothing will improve.
Forcing people to joining healthcare exchanges/ insurance providers will further distort the supply / demand curves involved with Healthcare and will likely drive prices up - BTW It wont increase the the frequency of people taking out preventative care making catastrophic care less expensive (it would only make those preventative services would explode in price BTW) - what it might do is just encourage risky behavior amongst people who would have otherwise chosen not to purchase healthcare insurance. (I might just sleep with that sleazy girl from the sawdust bar if I can get a free syphilis shot tomorrow morning! and free statins will fuel my desire for double cheeseburgers three times a day along with a daily 18 pack of beer )

There are other philosophical reasons not to support it - forcing individuals to do things such as taking out out healthcare or having pay for others to have things that violate your religious beliefs (the contraceptive mandate) and all the other mandates and taxes on business are all immoral. In economics terms though Obama care is only one more forkful of crap heaped on the shitpile which Johnson, Reagan, and Bush helped build and every other president contributed to.

So the net is 30 million new payees for the healthcare industry, with the cost for those who cannot afford to pay themselves spread amongst taxpayers.

Indeed and the end result wont be any better than any of the other times that we tried to ignore the fact that the basics of supply and demand apply to healthcare.

That is 30 million payees who do not have to resort to the ER for care. Therefore, unless you are a cold blooded reptile, the 'net gain' is a healthier America....even in your scenerio.

I also believe that it is POSSIBLE that Obama care will drive down costs in both healthcare and health insurance. Everything you are saying here is basically your opinion. It's really just all guesswork.

Look you see what happened with Emergency rooms when EMTALA passed - a strain on resources, closure of some emergency rooms, new regulations on who could and couldn't get treated in them. Care in emergency rooms worsened because it was more scarce and expensive. Obama care does the exact same thing with the 30 million people into the system, it just does it on a larger scale. Its just not in the emergency room anymore. Same supply and demand and allocation issues this time on a bigger scale. It didn't work on a smaller scale , its not likely to work on a larger scale

Yes of course its my opinion. But its not guess work its an argument which is : Premise 1 - The healthcare industry is subject to the economic laws of supply / demand and price allocation like every other, the breaking of which leads to price increases and shortages. Premise 2-0. Obama care is in contradiction to those basic laws of supply and demand. Conclusion - Obama care will result in shortages and higer prices. If my two premises are valid (and I think they are ) then my argument will be proven

It is so guesswork for the simple fact that costs are already artificially inflated by those who do not pay for more expensive emergency room care. How that balances out in the supply/demand equation IS a guess.

The effects of EMTALA on supply and demand in emergency rooms is/was hardly guesswork. the laws of supply and demand are not guesswork, but if you need empirical evidence, so be it - There is a nice summary of a comprehensive study here:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/583456

Again you see basic economic laws at work here. Simple micro-economic principles that can be applied to every economic situation. Furthermore simple economic reasoning could have predicted how Bush's Medicaire Part D led to increased demand with little heath gains but if you need a study
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16011 there's one for that two.

That's not even to touch how the principle of insurance company always pays direct and medicaire itself have led to price increases and shortages.

Given that Obama care follows the same supply / demand assumptions as these other disasters , we can be pretty sure where things will head