Health Care Thread

Vaclav_sl said:

They adjust it to take more and more from the high ticket people, it's not really rocket science - considering the average CEO pays close to $200k/year for their insurance policy, there's a ton of wiggle room to either charge them more, or offer them less services that their boku bucks insurance packages cover. Amongst other examples. And maybe normal taxation will step in eventually - it will need future legislation to do so however, right now as the ACA is setup it receives no subsidy funding from the general tax pool - at which point other things can be revised as well.

So for net across his years, he's had one year that added $6b to the annual deficit and all the rest have been quite positive, $407b this past year was shaved off the annual deficit. GET A FUCKING CLUE.

(And before you go "Derp, derp - he was President in 2009" - yes, but Presidents enact their budget for the year following, so the 2009 budget was based on the proposal Bush made in 2008 - similarly 2017 will be Obama's good or bad, 2001 was Clinton's, 1993 was Bush Sr., etc.)

Click to expand...

Bush's largest deficit in 2009, the chart shows was $1414 billion, 955 of which was a bailout. Without paying that bailout, the deficit was 1414 - 955 = $458 billion. I grant chunks of the deficit can be attibuted to one time large expenses in Obama's years also, yet even taking that into account, the average deficit is higher than Bush's largest. In 2012, was there a major bailout? Yet the deficit was $649 billion, significantly above Bush's average.

It's funny because you accuse me of not comparing apples to apples. Take your own advice. (and let us gloss over the irony of you presenting faulty analysis and telling _me_ to get a clue)
______________________________

You seriously think it's CEO's who are going to be paying / reducing coverage? We didn't get to this point in income inequality by passing costs on to the extremely wealthy - we got here by bleeding the middle class dry. ACA is more of the same.

**edit: I meant 2009, not 2008.

Did revenue decrease any during the recession or just baraq Hussein skeeting food stamps?

Picasso_sl said:

Did revenue decrease any during the recession or just baraq Hussein skeeting food stamps?

Click to expand...

You try to paint me as nothing but a frothing-at-the-mouth Fox News retard. I suppose because you recognize that ad-hominem is the only strategy available when you cannot dispute my actual case.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

In 2009, federal tax receipts dropped to 2105 from 2524 (billion) in 2008. However, by 2012, federal tax receipts have recovered to 2450.

Assuming 2009 receipt levels in 2012 (2524 - 2450 = 74 billion increase), the deficit would still be $680 billion - $74 billion = $606 billion, well above the average in Bush years***. Try again.

*** not considering large, one-time bailouts - in Bush or Obama years, in order to make fair comparisons. This was the reason for choosing 2012. Comparing 2008 Bush spending to 2012 Obama spending is not fair comparison, because you must take into account the bailout 2009 vs no bailout 2012. Without 2009 bailout, as shown above, 2009 deficit was $458 billion

edit: please remember my position on spending under both administration:

With this adminstration, I will believe it when I see it, based on the history of misinformation and outright lies. GWB was no miser with other people's money, he blew up our debt wonderfully. But since 2008 the Obama adminstration puts him to shame.

Click to expand...

You do realize that TARP was a two year program, right? That $400-500b was immediate with the rest for the next year, right? Additionally there was $400-500b of off the books (AKA draining the SS trust under "presidential discretionary spending") military spending on Iraq that Obama put back on the Federal budget, although I'm not sure what year - so I can't tell you what year to attribute it to. Re: IraqHow the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

But please, I desperately await your next TheBlaze.com copy pasta.

You seriously think it's CEO's who are going to be paying / reducing coverage? We didn't get to this point in income inequality by passing costs on to the extremely wealthy - we got here by bleeding the middle class dry. ACA is more of the same.

Click to expand...

Not possible without a bill revision - so that's not worth musing until a bill revision is being worked on - as stated at least twice before that you keep wanting to ignore.

Be honest: Are you dense, stupid or being intentionally obtuse?

Vaclav_sl said:

You do realize that TARP was a two year program, right? That $400-500b was immediate with the rest for the next year, right? Additionally there was $400-500b of off the books (AKA draining the SS trust under "presidential discretionary spending") military spending on Iraq that Obama put back on the Federal budget, although I'm not sure what year - so I can't tell you what year to attribute it to.

But please, I desperately await your next TheBlaze.com copy pasta.

Click to expand...

What the fuck is TheBlaze.com? Picasso asked a question, and I google "federal tax revenue" and did some math. Once again with the ad-hominem. It's funny, because in this case, you might not even need it.

TARP expired by 2012, yes? There you go - 2012 deficit is fair to compare to average deficit in non-bailout Bush years on that basis. As for the SS trust draining - perhaps.

**edit:

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion

Click to expand...

Thus, TARP contributed maybe $24 billion to 2012 deficit, not taking into account that

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Definition | Investopedia
the Treasury was wrapping up TARP and said the government's investments had earned more than $11 billion for taxpayers.

Click to expand...

**
Perhaps you have proven me wrong, and Obama does not spend more than Bush (via draining SS). Please, keep in mind my position on Bush admin spending:

WB was no miser with other people's money, he blew up our debt wonderfully.

Click to expand...

I never voted for President Bush. So you can get off your 'mock the tea bagger / wingnut' thing. I think he did a shit job too. In have in fact voted for three different parties in the past 3 presidential elections. By the fact that you seem to believe it is impossible for me to disagree with how the Obama admin is running the country without being an ignorant wingnut only shows that you are the one blinded by ideology.

**edit:
Let's not forget this chart:
United States Government Debt To GDP | Actual Data | Forecasts

However we argue about deficit spending based for individual years, there is still no doubt that in 8 years, Bush admin expanded Federal debt under $5trillion, while in 6 years, Obama admin has expanded debt $7-8trillion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

frqkjt_sl said:

What the fuck is TheBlaze.com? Picasso asked a question, and I google "federal tax revenue" and did some math.

Click to expand...

So you accepted everything from a singular source and did math based on that source, but not once asked any question about the source, or, as would follow, the data itself?

When you say that you may be proven wrong, we should probably define that more. While Obama has spent more than Bush, the rate of increased spending has decreased under Obama over Bush. This is an important differentiation. So, one might say that it is an improvement over Bush, even if the technicality of it is that he spent more.

P.S. I have no idea if you're Hodj or not, but you're pretty close to being 2.0, complete with links to the definitions of logical fallacies.

You understand how debt works right? You can be putting the brakes on and debt will continue to accrue because it's a net value. Unless he was reducing the deficit by $300b every year so far it would still have been creeping up at this point because until its back to generating $1 surplus it won't go in the other direction, because that's how math works.

And the normal economist opinion is anything over $200b a year is risky to causing an economic spiral FYI - so impossible to do without heading into clearly risky territory. Not to mention your repeated implications that he's continuing to ratchet up the deficit, when the facts are that he's getting them under control slowly be steadily - almost $900b in 6 years, close to the max that economists suggest trying to slow. (3/4 of the max they quote - with how chaotic the political process makes things as well as the reality of how numbers turn out versus estimates, that's a pretty good case of playing it Price is Right style - as high as possible without going over)

And of course cute to show the Debt to GDP thing - notice how a) the growth has almost stopped on the figure and b) you know when implosion is generally worried of? Over 200%.

Hell, China is at 40%, India 85%, Singapore 111%, Japan 214% - pretty sure you'd consider all three four healthy, right? (You should especially like #3 since Singapore is the "libertarian" mecca right now - which you clearly would align yourself with AKA wishy-washy wanna-be economists that really are too narrow minded to see the big picture)

Note: Those are the CIA figures, I just noted you're quoting IMF figures - under CIA figures, US Debt is 75% for comparison. We're #30 or so by CIA standards, #11 by IMF. (And again, the CIA tends to be a bit more reliable...)

BoldW_sl said:

So you accepted everything from a singular source and did math based on that source, but not once asked any question about the source, or, as would follow, the data itself?

When you say that you may be proven wrong, we should probably define that more. While Obama has spent more than Bush, the rate of increased spending has decreased under Obama over Bush. This is an important differentiation. So, one might say that it is an improvement over Bush, even if the technicality of it is that he spent more.

P.S. I have no idea if you're Hodj or not, but you're pretty close to being 2.0, complete with links to the definitions of logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

LOL.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
There's my source. What the fuck should I do, storm the IRS and count federal tax revenue myself? I'm not getting this info from some bullshit editorial. Check the link.

Without defining terms, we're blowing hot air. The fact that you think making definitions is detrimental to my case .. well, it is only a display of your ignorance.

I said I might have been proven wrong about Obama with larger deficits due to the possibility that Bush hid deficit spending by raiding SS trust. I have not investigated this yet.

You accuse me of using bad sources, but provide none yourself. LOL. In 2009, non-bailout spending was $450ish billion. Obama non-bailout spending is consist. higher. So basically, on the data we have so far, you're saying that after Obama admin increased non-bailout, official deficits by a large chunk, he then decreased the rate of increase from that mark. That's fucking genius.

2009 non-bailout spending was close to $1t as I tried to make clear earlier. TARP was not a one year program - it was staggered in how it was spent budgetwise.

And wonderful link there - it mirrors exactly what I posted, shocker - but yet you want to make claims contrary to the facts in there.

Vaclav_sl said:

You understand how debt works right? You can be putting the brakes on and debt will continue to accrue because it's a net value.

And of course cute to show the Debt to GDP thing - notice how a) the growth has almost stopped on the figure and b) you know when implosion is generally worried of? Over 200%.

Click to expand...

While 'putting the breaks on spending' you might see a net increase in total debt, would you not also expect to see a decrease in rate of growth of debt, except in extreme cases? This has not happened: Bush added under $5 trillion in 8 years (perhaps with some hidden by raiding SS), and Obama has added $7-8 billion in 6 years - clearly the rate of growth is, at best, the same.

I note that non-bailout deficit in 2009 is $458 billion, and in 2012 $606 billion using my federal tax receipt numbers and your deficit numbers. Whether or not they're steadily bring the deficit back down does not account for the fact that they started with higher (non-bailout) deficits in the first place.

Vaclav_sl said:

2009 non-bailout spending was close to $1t as I tried to make clear earlier. TARP was not a one year program - it was staggered in how it was spent budgetwise.

Click to expand...

Granted. With 1 trillion deficit in 2009, average deficit from 2005 - 2009 is $437 billion, using your numbers.

Let's assume non-bailout spending in 2010 - 2012 is similar to that in 2013-2014 (projection), just as an estimate to save doing math. Estimate average 'non-bailout' deficit spending is $664.5 billion 2010-2014. (note: if Obama is truely reducing deficit since 2010, this is an under-estimate)

Bush admin was taking $227 billion per year on average from SS trust? Even if so, we're getting fucked no less now than then. So much for those deficit reductions. But hey, maybe in 2015, right?

Regarding debt to GDP ratio:

Free exchange: The 90% question | The Economist
The average growth in the 90-120% bucket is 2.4%; growth for countries with debts over the 120% threshold sinks to 1.6%. That makes the relationship look linear.

Firm conclusions on thresholds are elusive. A 2010 IMF paper turns up "some evidence" of a 90% threshold; a 2011 study by the Bank for International Settlements identifies a threshold of 85%. But another IMF analysis published in 2012 found that "there is no particular threshold that consistently precedes sub-par growth performance." The costs of even moderately slower growth can quickly add up, however: Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff warn that the average debt overhang lasts more than 20 years.

Click to expand...

It's complicated and a little off-topic. The discussion is growth of federal debt and and recent deficits, not whether 75%-100% debt to GDP is sustainable. Please ignore the GDP ratio link so that we can remain on topic. My apologies.

Ok, stupid math analogy time...

Picture a car going 20... then 30... then 40.... then slamming the gas up to 120 all of a sudden. (Each for a 1 min interval) How far would that car travel?
1/3 of a mile + 1/2 a mile + 2/3 of a mile + 2 miles - a net of 3 1/2 miles.

Now picture the driver switching out, the car still at 120 mph - but every minute the driver hits the brakes by 20 mph.
2 miles + 1 2/3 miles + 1 1/3 miles + 1 mile, etc. - that's a total of 5 miles already even though he's using the brakes constantly.

DO YOU SEE THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH YOUR STUPID STATEMENT YET?

He can't unring the bell of his starting point, anyone with that starting point unless they cut spending hazardously (see my previous statements) would be in the same position because it was so high before.

Re: SS Fund spending - it stopped in 2010 - so no, we're not getting "equally fucked by that". (And last I heard he was pushing for a bill or Amendment to harshly restrict dipping into the trust in the future - but not sure where that went, news on it was minimal)

frqkjt_sl said:

LOL.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
There's my source. What the fuck should I do, storm the IRS and count federal tax revenue myself? I'm not getting this info from some bullshit editorial. Check the link.

Without defining terms, we're blowing hot air. The fact that you think making definitions is detrimental to my case .. well, it is only a display of your ignorance.

I said I might have been proven wrong about Obama with larger deficits due to the possibility that Bush hid deficit spending by raiding SS trust. I have not investigated this yet.

You accuse me of using bad sources, but provide none yourself.

Click to expand...

For all the talk of spending "cuts," the fact is that spending by the federal government has continued to rise under Obama. But it has gone up far less rapidly than it did under Bush.The Office of Management and Budgetprojects federal spending in the current fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30) to be just under $3.7 trillion - or 4 percent more than it was in 2012.
By our calculations, spending has risen a total of 11.2 percent since Obama first took office - counting $203 billion in new spending added under Obama in fiscal 2009. That's the most we figure Obama can fairly be credited with adding to the FY2009 spending levels he inherited from Bush after he took office nearly four months into the fiscal year. For details on how we arrived at that figure, see our June 4 "Obama's Spending" article.
By comparison, federal outlays increased by 33 percent in Bush's first term (comparing actual spending for fiscal 2005 with that for fiscal 2001, which was the last year for which Bill Clinton set spending levels). And spending rose another 34 percent in Bush's final term, even after subtracting Obama's $203 billion from fiscal 2009.
As we pointed out in our June article, one Republican analyst has credited Obama with adding somewhat less spending than we do to Bush's fiscal 2009 levels. So it could be argued that spending rose a bit more in Bush's last term, and has risen a bit less since then, than our figures indicate. But even so, federal spending rose at least three times faster under Bush than it has so far under Obama.

Click to expand...

Obamas Numbers (Quarterly Update)

Vaclav_sl said:

Ok, stupid math analogy time...

Re: SS Fund spending - it stopped in 2010 - so no, we're not getting "equally fucked by that". (And last I heard he was pushing for a bill or Amendment to harshly restrict dipping into the trust in the future - but not sure where that went, news on it was minimal)

Click to expand...

I wrote:

While 'putting the breaks on spending' you might see a net increase in total debt, would you not also expect to see a decrease in rate of growth of debt, except in extreme cases?

Click to expand...

Your analogy is just what I said we should expect if the brakes are put on.

After the driver switch at 120mph and slowly braking, the total distance traveled is still increasing, but each minute the increase in distance traveled is less than the increase in the previous minute.

If total distance traveled is analogous to federal debt - then the analogy does *NOT fit, because after Obama admin took over, we have are actually adding more to the debt per year, not less.

It's basic math, Bush admin added <5trillion in 8 years, Obama admin 7-8trillion in 6. If you want, I'll even grant that SS trust was raided by Bush, supressing his numbers. Even in that case, the 'putting on the breaks' analogy does not fit.

Re: SS funding -
I did not mean Obama admin is raiding SS trust also. By 'still getting fucked', I meant by out of control government spending, first under Bush and now continued by Obama admin.

**edit: I will grant that Obama is now trying to reduce deficits. However, the fact that he's spent more in 6 years than Bush in 8, seems to indicate he was already spending more, and is now just reducing down to previous levels.

BoldW_sl said:

ut even so, federal spending rose at least three times faster under Bush than it has so far under Obama.

Click to expand...

I haven't checked the numbers, but this is how I see it. It seems that if Bush took over with relatively low spending and cranked it up quickly, we should not be surprised that rate of spending increase under Bush was relatively high.

You could argue that by the time Obama took over, spending was pretty much already as high as it could go, leaving him little room for increase. Thus, a lower rate of increase, purely based on starting points.

So what does lower rate of increase under Obama prove, then? Out of control spending is out of control spending, no matter if it's 20% more than last year or 2%.

Christ dude, you are too stupid to live...

You say exactly the point and then go on to miss it or ignore it. When spending was sky high as he came in and slowing has to be done at a safe pace, it's going to keep carrying forward a long time.

Again, back to cars... Indy 500 first 400 laps one dude is going 20, last 100 he wakes up and goes 200. Other dude starts at 200 but has issues that drops him 20 every 100 laps. Who's making the better time?

The dude who's slowing by a ton, even though he's slowing because the initial velocity was so high.

It's not a difficult concept to understand, the hardest part is the need to not slow too quickly but you seem to understand that but not the easiest part.

**edit: made an important change to correct a mistake - I redefined Q; the original wording did not say exactly what I had intended, on reflection.

Vaclav_sl said:

Christ dude, you are too stupid to live...

You say exactly the point and then go on to miss it or ignore it.

Click to expand...

I did not ignore it. I directly addressed the point - specifically, I said that what we should expect to be happening is not, in fact, happening if your analogy is true. Therefore, I conclude the analogy is false.

Let's use logic, not analogies. IF we are putting brakes on spending (yet seeing increase in total debt) over a period of time, THENthe national debt increases less on average each year.

What comes after THEN is the 'necessary condition' - often symbolized by 'Q'. What comes after IF is the 'sufficient condition' - often symb. by 'P'.

'If P then Q'.
Necessity and sufficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The assertion that Q is necessary for P is colloquially equivalent to "P cannot be true unless Q is true," or "if Q is false then P is false."

Click to expand...

Therefore, I may argue that if Q is false, then P is false.

Q =the national debt increases less on average each year.

Under Obama admin, basic math tells us we're adding more in debt per year on average. (<$5trillion Bush, 8yrs, $7-8trillion Obama, 6 years). Therefore, Q is false.
National debt of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(If you trust these numbers, compare 2013 to 2007. Although there's a large decrease in amount of debt added 2012-2013, in 2013 still add more than pre-financial crisis levels. Comparing these years makes sense, due to the uncommon circumstances that distorted spending from 2008-2012ish)

Since Q is false, P is false.

P = "we are putting brakes on spending (yet seeing increase in total debt) over a period of time"

Therefore, we are NOT "we are putting brakes on spending (yet seeing increase in total debt)."

Whether the Obama admin plans to put brakes on spending going forward, 2014 and on. Well, I hope so. But we are discussing 2009-2013/14.

**edit: let me help you to refute me -
You must either show that:
1) P does not imply Q, OR
2) I have incorrectly reasoned that Q is false.

So far, you have only repeated back to me "If P, then Q" - then called me stupid. That is not a refutation.

Final edit: If you will agree, I would like to drop this topic. I'm bored of it.

ad hominem

Frq: Initial velocity is an important factor in evaluating something like that fairly. And it's funny, for being supposedly nonpartisan, it's only the fringe right that push that stupid argument once presented with the spending data.

I'll say it another way. You seem t o understand too much budget cutting too quick is supposed to cause the risk of a depression, correct?

What would be your ideal level of cutting for him to be slowing adequately? Do that, then do the aggregate math and see where his numbers end up - hint: there's three possible answers with your muses - completefailure from too little being cut, a fractional bit more success but still faster than W so still failing your primary test although better, or going into unsafe territory cor the economy so again a failure.

It is a Catch-22 as you present it, unless he's a wizard that can ignore the rules of reality the figures you're talking about are IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT RISKING ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

Yes, I'm disappointed Obama has not proven himself able to dunk a basketball on a 50 foot rim unassisted but considering it defies reality to do so, I don't hold it against him - you, just like your Teatards in arms (one or not you're allied to them on this stupid argument), on the other hand have a standard to reach that literally requires the impossible or ignoring every major economist out there regarding speed of cutting.

Frankly, it's childish to criticize someone for a situation where you can't ever present a path for them to be successful without being self destructive. But, please, go on.