Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Not to be snarky, but a government mandated health insurance program can't pay it's way?
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Not to be snarky, but a government mandated health insurance program can't pay it's way?
??? Snarky??? Not sure what you're talking about. Snark requires a basis in reality. That is pre-Obamacare. This has been a big problem for a long time. At it's best, tax receipts covered 60%. The ignorance on this board around healthcare problems and deficits is befuddling.
My company is self insured. The employees pick up over half the cost with premiums and co-pays. Last year, my premiums, only, were over $6700. So, is the system better now? My costs continue to go up every year...my taxes go up every year to pay for someone else's "free" Obamacare..and those with Obamacare usually can't afford the high deductibles they signed up for..so that's progress? Obamacare only gives people the illusion that they have healthcare, and did nothing to fix the rate increase of health care costs.
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:However, what Obamacare is has nothing to do with cost containment. All they have done with this move is to push everyone to high deductible plans, which they can't pay when they need the services. So, the losses are pushed to the hospitals. Great plan, right?
Did healthcare need to be addressed? Yes
But by making it a one party solution with no compromises, you now have the cluster f*ck that we have now.
ElbertoHokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Okay.
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
No way. Premiums were skyrocketing. Employers had carried the brunt of that but they were starting to pass it onto the consumer more rapidly. Healthcare costs were skyrocketing well before Obamacare went into effect.
"status quo" was already out of control.
And the belief that "my healthcare is affordable(since my employer is paying the increases) so why change it?" is a bit of a shortsighted view.
I don't pretend to think that Obamacare is the miracle fix it was billed as. But the status quo was not working. If you think it was, it was because your employer hadn't decided to pass that cost onto you...yet.
absolutvt03 wrote:
Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.
The media has led people to believe the lie that the Republicans are "The Party of No". Republicans offered a lot of alternatives during the healthcare debate, and some of those would have made the bill much better and actually done something to lower costs. They offered tort reform (which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that drives a LOT of health care costs), they offered competition of purchasing healthcare across state lines (and also would help drive the cost down by eliminating a ton of redundant insure company administrative costs in managing 50 plans instead of 1), they offered HSA's, and they offered separating healthcare from employer provided (just to name a few). The democrats basically said we have the votes to pass this without you so sit back and shut up.
When they had the final meeting with Republicans before the bill was signed, Obama even told McCain something to the effect of "We won the election, you lost, and we don't have time to put your ideas into the bill".
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Current revenue streams cover about 86% of the cost with the balance coming from reserves held in the trust fund.
2 comments.
First, in the example above, the revenues from the trust funds, payroll taxes, premiums, and states, came to around $320B. That means that the federal gov has to take $280B out of the general tax fund, and borrow money, to pay for Medicaid. That means the Medicaid program is running at a deficit.
Second, the $600B does not include all federal healthcare costs. When you look at total federal health spending, it was in the $850B range in 2013. So, the revenues from Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums of $320B, only pay for 37% of total federal healthcare spending. The rest comes out of our pockets, or is borrowed, ie the program is at a huge deficit.
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Not to be snarky, but a government mandated health insurance program can't pay it's way?
??? Snarky??? Not sure what you're talking about. Snark requires a basis in reality. That is pre-Obamacare. This has been a big problem for a long time. At it's best, tax receipts covered 60%. The ignorance on this board around healthcare problems and deficits is befuddling.
I guess comprehension of broader points requires understanding of context? We've been discussing the merits/demerits of action or inaction. Well, Medicare/Medicaid are excellent examples of why action can actually be destructive, not constructive. If the solution is worse than the status quo, then yes, inaction is absolutely called for. Moreover, it's what many of the 'just say no' legislators must do to fulfill their constituents wishes.
Conciliation is a two-way street. Were Obama a real leader, and not a punk, he would've acknowledged the flaws in his signature legislation and come to the table for honest negotiations. Better yet, he and the Dems could've done that from the start. But no, they had bigger, much dumber ideas on their minds.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe wrote: Were Obama a real leader, and not a punk, he would've acknowledged the flaws in his signature legislation and come to the table for honest negotiations. Better yet, he and the Dems could've done that from the start. But no, they had bigger, much dumber ideas on their minds.
The "flaws" in his plan are not flaws at all. The plan was NEVER about bringing down the cost of healthcare. The plan by the Dems has always been to put the insurance companies out of business so that we have no choice but to go to a single payer system. As premiums skyrocket, people will demand the government do something. The plan is designed for those insurance companies who can stay in business to have to raise the premiums at an un-sustainable rate so people have no choice but to drop coverage and demand the government do something. If nothing changes, in a few years we will be in a single payer system. That's been the Dems plan all along.
HokieJoe wrote:
Not to be snarky, but a government mandated health insurance program can't pay it's way?
??? Snarky??? Not sure what you're talking about. Snark requires a basis in reality. That is pre-Obamacare. This has been a big problem for a long time. At it's best, tax receipts covered 60%. The ignorance on this board around healthcare problems and deficits is befuddling.
I guess comprehension of broader points requires understanding of context? We've been discussing the merits/demerits of action or inaction. Well, Medicare/Medicaid are excellent examples of why action can actually be destructive, not constructive. If the solution is worse than the status quo, then yes, inaction is absolutely called for. Moreover, it's what many of the 'just say no' legislators must do to fulfill their constituents wishes.
Conciliation is a two-way street. Were Obama a real leader, and not a punk, he would've acknowledged the flaws in his signature legislation and come to the table for honest negotiations. Better yet, he and the Dems could've done that from the start. But no, they had bigger, much dumber ideas on their minds.
And there were people who said that inaction on healthcare was OK, because it was not a problem.
"Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone."
"Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?"
The broader point is that inaction is not OK in this case, because healthcare is a huge issue. I was pointing out the reasons why it is a huge issue, and those issues pre-date Obamacare. You brought up Obamacare. I never said Obamacare was good, so you're snarkiness was misguided. I'm not disagreeing with you on how bad Obamacare is (although there are some very good things in it), or how big of a butthole he is.
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Current revenue streams cover about 86% of the cost with the balance coming from reserves held in the trust fund.
2 comments.
First, in the example above, the revenues from the trust funds, payroll taxes, premiums, and states, came to around $320B. That means that the federal gov has to take $280B out of the general tax fund, and borrow money, to pay for Medicaid. That means the Medicaid program is running at a deficit.
Second, the $600B does not include all federal healthcare costs. When you look at total federal health spending, it was in the $850B range in 2013. So, the revenues from Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums of $320B, only pay for 37% of total federal healthcare spending. The rest comes out of our pockets, or is borrowed, ie the program is at a huge deficit.
You stated that 35-40% of the cost of medicare is covered by receipts, the rest by borrowing. I showed that isn't true. You now want to talk about other health costs, medicaid, etc. That's fine, but I was responding to your original comment, which was wrong.
Current revenue streams plus dipping into the held reserves will fully fund medicare until about 2030 or so.
HokieFanDC wrote:
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories. Simply leaving it alone would bankrupt the country, more than defense, more than social security.
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Current revenue streams cover about 86% of the cost with the balance coming from reserves held in the trust fund.
2 comments.
First, in the example above, the revenues from the trust funds, payroll taxes, premiums, and states, came to around $320B. That means that the federal gov has to take $280B out of the general tax fund, and borrow money, to pay for Medicaid. That means the Medicaid program is running at a deficit.
Second, the $600B does not include all federal healthcare costs. When you look at total federal health spending, it was in the $850B range in 2013. So, the revenues from Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums of $320B, only pay for 37% of total federal healthcare spending. The rest comes out of our pockets, or is borrowed, ie the program is at a huge deficit.
You stated that 35-40% of the cost of medicare is covered by receipts, the rest by borrowing. I showed that isn't true. You now want to talk about other health costs, medicaid, etc. That's fine, but I was responding to your original comment, which was wrong.
Current revenue streams plus dipping into the held reserves will fully fund medicare until about 2030 or so.
Oh come on, you're being disingenuous here.
The first 2 comments about the topic were about healthcare.
HokieFanDC wrote:
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories.
And you,
133743Hokie wrote:
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
I responded directly to your claim that healthcare was not a deficit category. Sorry if I typed Medicare instead of healthcare, but you know we were talking about healthcare in general.
So, Medicare is 70% funded, but it still runs a deficit. The number that comes from the medicare trust funds is $350B, and the cost of Medicare alone is $500B. No matter how you slice it, both Medicare alone, and healthcare in general, are a giant contributor to the deficit.
absolutvt03 wrote:
Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.
The media has led people to believe the lie that the Republicans are "The Party of No". Republicans offered a lot of alternatives during the healthcare debate, and some of those would have made the bill much better and actually done something to lower costs. They offered tort reform (which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that drives a LOT of health care costs), they offered competition of purchasing healthcare across state lines (and also would help drive the cost down by eliminating a ton of redundant insure company administrative costs in managing 50 plans instead of 1), they offered HSA's, and they offered separating healthcare from employer provided (just to name a few). The democrats basically said we have the votes to pass this without you so sit back and shut up.
When they had the final meeting with Republicans before the bill was signed, Obama even told McCain something to the effect of "We won the election, you lost, and we don't have time to put your ideas into the bill".
Those are 4 good, conservative ideas, but to say the Republicans - or more specifically, the tea party (because that was the subject of this thread) - have a coherent plan to reform healthcare with those ideas (now or then) does not seem to be accurate. Their message has been clear and consistent - repeal Obamacare, not replace it with different ideas. Up until your post, there seemed to be a consensus that the Tea Party wasn't interested in presenting new ideas:
riverguy wrote:
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
And McCain is part of the "establishment", the Tea Party replaced a lot of people that governed like McCain because the establishment showed nuance and a desire to compromise. "The party of No" isn't the republican establishment, it's the Tea Party. And it seems like a lot of people are ok with them just being the party of no:
major kong wrote:
Yup...I've never grokked this obstruction is bad thing
absolutvt03 wrote:
Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.
The media has led people to believe the lie that the Republicans are "The Party of No". Republicans offered a lot of alternatives during the healthcare debate, and some of those would have made the bill much better and actually done something to lower costs. They offered tort reform (which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that drives a LOT of health care costs), they offered competition of purchasing healthcare across state lines (and also would help drive the cost down by eliminating a ton of redundant insure company administrative costs in managing 50 plans instead of 1), they offered HSA's, and they offered separating healthcare from employer provided (just to name a few). The democrats basically said we have the votes to pass this without you so sit back and shut up.
When they had the final meeting with Republicans before the bill was signed, Obama even told McCain something to the effect of "We won the election, you lost, and we don't have time to put your ideas into the bill".
Those are 4 good, conservative ideas, but to say the Republicans - or more specifically, the tea party (because that was the subject of this thread) - have a coherent plan to reform healthcare with those ideas (now or then) does not seem to be accurate. Their message has been clear and consistent - repeal Obamacare, not replace it with different ideas. Up until your post, there seemed to be a consensus that the Tea Party wasn't interested in presenting new ideas:
riverguy wrote:
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
And McCain is part of the "establishment", the Tea Party replaced a lot of people that governed like McCain because the establishment showed nuance and a desire to compromise. "The party of No" isn't the republican establishment, it's the Tea Party. And it seems like a lot of people are ok with them just being the party of no:
major kong wrote:
Yup...I've never grokked this obstruction is bad thing
I'm fully okay with it. In fact, I demand that response when the alternative is terrible. Someone has to be an adult. Being an adult sometimes means telling a child when to sit down and shut up. No matter how much that child may whine, it's not negotiable.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
absolutvt03 wrote:
Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.
The media has led people to believe the lie that the Republicans are "The Party of No". Republicans offered a lot of alternatives during the healthcare debate, and some of those would have made the bill much better and actually done something to lower costs. They offered tort reform (which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that drives a LOT of health care costs), they offered competition of purchasing healthcare across state lines (and also would help drive the cost down by eliminating a ton of redundant insure company administrative costs in managing 50 plans instead of 1), they offered HSA's, and they offered separating healthcare from employer provided (just to name a few). The democrats basically said we have the votes to pass this without you so sit back and shut up.
When they had the final meeting with Republicans before the bill was signed, Obama even told McCain something to the effect of "We won the election, you lost, and we don't have time to put your ideas into the bill".
Those are 4 good, conservative ideas, but to say the Republicans - or more specifically, the tea party (because that was the subject of this thread) - have a coherent plan to reform healthcare with those ideas (now or then) does not seem to be accurate. Their message has been clear and consistent - repeal Obamacare, not replace it with different ideas. Up until your post, there seemed to be a consensus that the Tea Party wasn't interested in presenting new ideas:
riverguy wrote:
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
And McCain is part of the "establishment", the Tea Party replaced a lot of people that governed like McCain because the establishment showed nuance and a desire to compromise. "The party of No" isn't the republican establishment, it's the Tea Party. And it seems like a lot of people are ok with them just being the party of no:
major kong wrote:
Yup...I've never grokked this obstruction is bad thing
I'm fully okay with it. In fact, I demand that response when the alternative is terrible. Someone has to be an adult. Being an adult sometimes means telling a child when to sit down and shut up. No matter how much that child may whine, it's not negotiable.
That's fine, even though the opposition party isn't your child, so the analogy makes no sense... Thinking you can deal with Democrats, that have roughly the same power as Republican, the same way you deal with your child may be part of the problem.
As burgruby, DC, and others point out, healthcare in this country was broken before Obama took office, and it's still broken now. Sometimes you have to say "No", I get that and I get that Obama and Democrats aren't trying to meet in the middle either. If you want enough votes to make a difference though, at some point you have to be about more than "no". The anger that Trump and the Tea Party is channeling isn't the same as putting together a coherent plan that includes conservative solutions.
absolutvt03 wrote:
Yeah the idea that you can just sit back and say no to everything while not providing any alternative is a completely ridiculous notion.
The media has led people to believe the lie that the Republicans are "The Party of No". Republicans offered a lot of alternatives during the healthcare debate, and some of those would have made the bill much better and actually done something to lower costs. They offered tort reform (which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that drives a LOT of health care costs), they offered competition of purchasing healthcare across state lines (and also would help drive the cost down by eliminating a ton of redundant insure company administrative costs in managing 50 plans instead of 1), they offered HSA's, and they offered separating healthcare from employer provided (just to name a few). The democrats basically said we have the votes to pass this without you so sit back and shut up.
When they had the final meeting with Republicans before the bill was signed, Obama even told McCain something to the effect of "We won the election, you lost, and we don't have time to put your ideas into the bill".
Those are 4 good, conservative ideas, but to say the Republicans - or more specifically, the tea party (because that was the subject of this thread) - have a coherent plan to reform healthcare with those ideas (now or then) does not seem to be accurate. Their message has been clear and consistent - repeal Obamacare, not replace it with different ideas. Up until your post, there seemed to be a consensus that the Tea Party wasn't interested in presenting new ideas:
riverguy wrote:
Healthcare.
Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone.
And McCain is part of the "establishment", the Tea Party replaced a lot of people that governed like McCain because the establishment showed nuance and a desire to compromise. "The party of No" isn't the republican establishment, it's the Tea Party. And it seems like a lot of people are ok with them just being the party of no:
major kong wrote:
Yup...I've never grokked this obstruction is bad thing
I'm fully okay with it. In fact, I demand that response when the alternative is terrible. Someone has to be an adult. Being an adult sometimes means telling a child when to sit down and shut up. No matter how much that child may whine, it's not negotiable.
That's fine, even though the opposition party isn't your child, so the analogy makes no sense... Thinking you can deal with Democrats, that have roughly the same power as Republican, the same way you deal with your child may be part of the problem.
As burgruby, DC, and others point out, healthcare in this country was broken before Obama took office, and it's still broken now. Sometimes you have to say "No", I get that and I get that Obama and Democrats aren't trying to meet in the middle either. If you want enough votes to make a difference though, at some point you have to be about more than "no". The anger that Trump and the Tea Party is channeling isn't the same as putting together a coherent plan that includes conservative solutions.
Well, think of me as their teacher then.
I've no problem with formulating alternatives. It's part of the process to any solution. Moreover, it will be required as part of any successful effort to repeal Obamacare.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
And there were people who said that inaction on healthcare was OK, because it was not a problem.
"Leading up to the Obama era, nothing needed to be done. Leave it the hell alone."
"Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?"
The broader point is that inaction is not OK in this case, because healthcare is a huge issue. I was pointing out the reasons why it is a huge issue, and those issues pre-date Obamacare. You brought up Obamacare. I never said Obamacare was good, so you're snarkiness was misguided. I'm not disagreeing with you on how bad Obamacare is (although there are some very good things in it), or how big of a butthole he is.
Yeah the discussion has morphed from "doing nothing is ok" to "Obamacare is bad" which are two completely different issues.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
133743Hokie wrote:Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
??? Medicare costs covered by federal payroll tax receipts are only 35-40%. The rest comes from borrowing money.
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Current revenue streams cover about 86% of the cost with the balance coming from reserves held in the trust fund.
2 comments.
First, in the example above, the revenues from the trust funds, payroll taxes, premiums, and states, came to around $320B. That means that the federal gov has to take $280B out of the general tax fund, and borrow money, to pay for Medicaid. That means the Medicaid program is running at a deficit.
Second, the $600B does not include all federal healthcare costs. When you look at total federal health spending, it was in the $850B range in 2013. So, the revenues from Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums of $320B, only pay for 37% of total federal healthcare spending. The rest comes out of our pockets, or is borrowed, ie the program is at a huge deficit.
You stated that 35-40% of the cost of medicare is covered by receipts, the rest by borrowing. I showed that isn't true. You now want to talk about other health costs, medicaid, etc. That's fine, but I was responding to your original comment, which was wrong.
Current revenue streams plus dipping into the held reserves will fully fund medicare until about 2030 or so.
Oh come on, you're being disingenuous here.
The first 2 comments about the topic were about healthcare.
HokieFanDC wrote:
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories.
And you,
133743Hokie wrote:
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
I responded directly to your claim that healthcare was not a deficit category. Sorry if I typed Medicare instead of healthcare, but you know we were talking about healthcare in general.
So, Medicare is 70% funded, but it still runs a deficit. The number that comes from the medicare trust funds is $350B, and the cost of Medicare alone is $500B. No matter how you slice it, both Medicare alone, and healthcare in general, are a giant contributor to the deficit.
I just responded to your words. I can't tell what you're intending other than what you write. You said Medicare and I showed you Medicare is solvent, not running a deficit.
133743Hokie wrote:
Medicare is funded via two trust funds that can only be used for Medicare. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is funded via payroll taxes paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. These funds are used to pay for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits (see below for a list). Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded via Congress, premiums from people enrolled in Medicare and other avenues, such as investment income from the trust fund. Those funds pay for Medicare Part B benefits, Part D benefits and program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for fighting abuse and fraud.
The 2015 Annual Report on the Social Security shows that for fiscal year 2014, the hospital insurance segment of Medicare received $227 billion from payroll taxes and another $18 billion from taxes on Social Security benefits. It also received $80 billion from premiums paid by beneficiaries and another $8.7 billion from transfers paid by states. Some $5 billion came in from reimbursement and another $243.7 billion came from the U.S. Treasury. Almost $5 billion came in from other miscellaneous sources, and then the Medicare administration reaped another $11.2 billion in interest income on its holdings for the year. These numbers total nearly $600 billion in 2014 and they are expected to increase modestly each year for the foreseeable future. Medicare constituted 14% of the $3 trillion federal budget in 2014, and Medicaid accounted for 9%.
Current revenue streams cover about 86% of the cost with the balance coming from reserves held in the trust fund.
2 comments.
First, in the example above, the revenues from the trust funds, payroll taxes, premiums, and states, came to around $320B. That means that the federal gov has to take $280B out of the general tax fund, and borrow money, to pay for Medicaid. That means the Medicaid program is running at a deficit.
Second, the $600B does not include all federal healthcare costs. When you look at total federal health spending, it was in the $850B range in 2013. So, the revenues from Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums of $320B, only pay for 37% of total federal healthcare spending. The rest comes out of our pockets, or is borrowed, ie the program is at a huge deficit.
You stated that 35-40% of the cost of medicare is covered by receipts, the rest by borrowing. I showed that isn't true. You now want to talk about other health costs, medicaid, etc. That's fine, but I was responding to your original comment, which was wrong.
Current revenue streams plus dipping into the held reserves will fully fund medicare until about 2030 or so.
Oh come on, you're being disingenuous here.
The first 2 comments about the topic were about healthcare.
HokieFanDC wrote:
My opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of most people, is that healthcare needed a major overhaul. It is one of our biggest deficit categories.
And you,
133743Hokie wrote:
Healthcare was not a deficit category. What are you talking about?
I responded directly to your claim that healthcare was not a deficit category. Sorry if I typed Medicare instead of healthcare, but you know we were talking about healthcare in general.
So, Medicare is 70% funded, but it still runs a deficit. The number that comes from the medicare trust funds is $350B, and the cost of Medicare alone is $500B. No matter how you slice it, both Medicare alone, and healthcare in general, are a giant contributor to the deficit.
I just responded to your words. I can't tell what you're intending other than what you write. You said Medicare and I showed you Medicare is solvent, not running a deficit.
How is healthcare a deficit category?
Medicare is not solvent (we're really talking liquidity here, but it's solvency is even worse). You actually posted the numbers showing that it is not solvent. Medicare taxes and premiums bring in $350B and Medicare costs are $500B. The other money comes from borrowing money and income taxes. How do you think that represents solvency?
And the additional $350B in other healthcare costs don't have a revenue stream. It is 100% insolvent.
The gov't has borrowed from the Medicare trust fund (excess money collected over the years above costs paid out) to do other things. The $250B from the gov't is money the fund had but the gov't. took for other uses. It's a bookkeeping exercise. Bottom line is Medicare has brought in enough money over the years to pay for itself and will continue to do so until about 2030.
