Medicaid increases by 10 million since ObamaCare rollout

This is not true since 90 million people that get insurance through their employer are self insured employers which means their employee count only exists as a pool for that employer and are not counted with the health insurance pool. The ACA did nothing to change this.

 

Offsetting new spending is the definition of not adding to the deficit.

 

Wrong! One adds, one take away. Even the OP stated as much. And the OP changed his verbiage. First he said there would be nothing added to the deficit. Then he responded to my link saying it was deficit neutral. Two very different points.

 

When you add 10 million new medicaid people at a cost of 3,000 per individual per year paid by the government to the private insurance carrier, this obviously does not reduce the deficit.

 

Again, "not adding to the deficit" and "deficit neutral" are the same thing.

Regardless, the ACA actually reduces the deficit on net. (Not surprisingly, the deficit has dropped dramatically since the ACA passed: "The Federal Deficit is Now Smaller than the Average Since the 1980s" | WSJ)

 

You simply provide the most basic of triage, and then release them.

That's it.

Sounds like a plan.

 

This entire post is nothing more than a slanderous attack.

mjz, if you can't express and defend your opinions without immature character assassinations, then just let me know.

Your opinions are no more valid because you tell everybody else they are stupid, uninformed, ideological, etc.

It simply makes you look desperate and immature.

 

And you are wrong again. One added, one took away. And the ACA adds on net......

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

 

I'm going to keep this simple Medicaid is welfare, the same as SSI and SNAP and any one of a number of programs which are funded by taxpayers this means taking from productive workers to give to those getting the benefit including subsidies for those getting them it another kind of welfare.

Now I'm on welfare for disability and many medical issues and need the help and am grateful to taxpayers but I'm aware I'm a burden on the government getting the help, but that is really the purpose of welfare to help those unable to work enough or at all to provide for themselves as its set-up that way. Now you want to put millions more on welfare which has to be funded and the funding seems kind of fancy bookkeeping not hard numbers.

And more vital you need providers to take these people California from what I have heard has issues with expanded Medicaid there and they planned for it in a high tax state.

In simple terms as I see it your funding a welfare program with smoke and mirrors numbers on costs with no plan to add providers to take care of ,as desired, millions more people. Many of which are healthy enough to work and have no special issues which the system was created for handling.

 

For every action reaction.
You bet your ass it's aimed straight at his character
He's proven to be quite the inciter.
But he's "on your side of the political aisle" -- so I get it.
Feel free to call me out.

Here's the deal.
If all you can offer is name calling, opinion, and ZERO substance,
And then you lie on top of it --
Your gonna get a heavy does of your own BS right back.
Publican is a troll.

max

 

Why go to someone's interpretation of the CBO for your information?
Answer: Because it's spun to fit your beliefs.

Medicaid and medicare were expanding dramatically the next 20 years whether there is an ACA or not.
Savings over projections are real savings.

max

 

Negative! At the end of the day it ends up being deficit neutral, while you post a link you didn't read all the way, and at the same time being disingenuous, by not explaining the entire story, as to how it works. And what is so sad, is that you think you fool everybody.

 

When you need fuel oil to heat your house, you strike a deal with a fuel oil company to deliver the fuel at a set price over the winter and then may budget the payments throughout the year.

If later in the year, you manage to strike a new deal with the fuel provider for cheaper oil, you saved money.

By some's estimation in this thread you would have to forget about the cost of the more expensive oil you had a deal on and have already partially paid.
You have realized no savings.

If you don't think you need the fuel oil to begin with (the ACA) - then elect representatives to pass a law that deals with the sitation better.
The ACA is law, it's on the books.
If you support policy that can deal with the millions who don't have health insurance and takes all of that spending out of the budget -- lay it out for us?
Tell us what it is and how it will get passed.
That's what Obama did. He got elected because of it. And he passed it.

I like policy that solves problems and reduces expenditures.
Others just like to blame Barack Obama.

max

max

 

Uhhhhh, and what grade in school should I have gotten to to understand your very easy schooling on budgets,( like some on here should understand but don't, ), as they relate to deficits? Mind you, I did get past high school, so I'm thinking I should understand what you are telling me.

 

Sorry, but welfare is not just for the disabled and folks out of work; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb0UNRl-paQ

 

Yes you are. The liar added to it and something else took it away. You changed your crap from 'not adding to it' to 'deficit neutral'. Thanks for playing.

 

Why not "ditch our drug war" to pay for health care?

 

A weekend goes by and the troll still can't post the quote.
But he's quite willing to play "I know you are, but what am I?"
ahhhh.... kindergarten.
max

 

I doubt anyone got past the Football reference, but the discussion of federally insured crop insurance certainly points out the hypocrisy of many on the far right. Medicare = socialism = bad. Crop subsidies = certainties against the brutal free market = socialism = good
I can't believe these folks buy into their own BS.

max

 

dude, you think that is bad; the right doesn't want to believe Government Is Socialism, and resort to fallacies of false analogy and false Cause, as a result; how typical of the right.

 

Democrats couldn't get a lot of things done with the obstructionists in the House.

 

"You lie"

"You have no substance"

"You name call"

If this is how you debate topics, then go find somebody else to talk with.

 

But they do.

Yea, you are right. It's funny, but I said the same thing in my head. If they get past the football segment I'll be doing good. I find it extraordinary this massive hypocrisy. Medicare is bad socialism , but crop subsidies socialism is not. Go figure!

 

Let me help you out a little.

In Nov 2010 the make up of the Houses of Congress

Senate: 56(D) 58% - 42(R) 42%
House: 255(D) 59% - 179(R) 41%

The Stimulus boondoggle passed without a single (R) vote in the House and 3 turncoat (R)'s in the Senate
The Obama Care Fiasco No Republican voted for passage of the final bill.

If Republicans couldn't Obstruct those two fiasco's, why would you think they could stop the Democrats from doing anything?

 

The Republicans did not control the House in 2009 or 2010. I know that confuses you a lot.