20 replies to this topic

[hannibellemo]

Please consider inserting your own story and sending this appeal to your senators. Until a more substantial plan to replace the Affordable Care Act ("something terrific" doesn't cut it) they should leave it alone!

 

http://advocacy.lls....ction_KEY=20449

[Buzzm1]

CBO: Fiscal Year federal tax revenues (billions)
FY2016 3,267 (18) deficit $587 billion
FY2015 3,249 (228) deficit $439 billion
FY2014 3,021 (246)
FY2013 2,775 (325)
FY2012 2,450 ...

CBO: Federal corporate tax revenues through December and for Fiscal Year (billions)
FY2017 $75 (prel. est. $270)
FY2016 $85 $300 (9.18% of total federal revenues)
FY2015 $97 $344 (10.59% of total federal revenues)

 

[r06ue1]

The funny thing about debt is that the current economic system depends on it, without debt, the entire thing collapses.  Thank the Keynesians.

[Buzzm1]

Senate passes budget resolution, 51-48; moves toward repeal of Affordable Care Act. http://cs.pn/2j7siKM

[chriskuo]

The main proposals to replace ACA rely on high-risk pools to deal with pre-existing conditions.   These pools have been financial losers and covered only a small portion of the relevant population because they were so restrictive and expensive.  Every state that has had them faced increasing losses.  The Price bill allocates only $1 billion to subsidize them, which won't go far, given how expensive these high-risk pools are.

[chriskuo]

True Keynesians are agnostic toward debt -- deficits in downturns, surpluses in good time.

 

Supply siders are the real budget busters - revenues never increase as much as expected and expenses are never cut as much as planned.

 

The relevance for health care is that with the ACA taxes and individual mandate repealed, either the government will having to fund increasing subsidies of health care with debt or more likely, fewer people will be able to afford health care.

[r06ue1]

lol, when was the last time our government had a surplus?  Like, never.  

 

Austrian                                                      Keynesian

Free-markets                                                Government Intervention

Sound money under a gold standard      Fiat currency

Savings                                                          Debt

Investment                                                     Consumption

deflation is good                                           deflation is bad

Let the inefficient corporations fail            Bailouts

 

 

Keynesian Vs. Austrian Economics Made Simple - Good Analogy?

If you have been confused about the differences between the Keynesian and Austrian schools of economics, may I humbly propose an analogy that may help your understanding.  If you don't think this is accurate or helpful then please let me know.  I'm new to this myself.

 

Fire policy -- In the early 1900s the US Forest Service implemented a new policy to aggressively suppress all forest fires.  Citizens didn't like to see trees burn and the lumber companies saw profits going up in smoke.  Over the years they obtained equipment,  trained men, and worked out elaborate plans.  With a lot of time and money they reduced fire damage considerably.

 

Over the years the forest management experts began to notice problems.  Without periodic small fires the undergrowth became thick.  It ignited easier, acted as additional fuel making the fire hotter, and sent it up into the crowns of the mature trees.  This spread the fire faster and farther, killing more of the forest.

 

With further study they found that in the pasts forest experienced periodic small fires which cleared the undergrowth and burned up the deadwood.  They usually did not reach the crowns and burned themselves out without doing great damage.  They triggered the tree seeds to sprout and start a healthy new generation.  The mature trees also grew better.  The old policy of trying to manage nature was counter productive.  The policy was changed to allow the natural cycle to return.

 

Keynesian school - All recessions are bad and must be suppressed by government actions.  This protects established businesses and jobs.  The methods are elaborate and costly, but a benefit to the public overall.

 

Austrian school - When markets stray too far from reality they must be purged by adversity.  This clears unneeded or failing enterprises so capital is not allocated wastefully, and new businesses can emerge.  Periodic small recessions are the price of a healthy economy.

 

Recent situation -- Unfortunately, after decades of total suppression many forests were overgrown tinder boxes.  At Yellowstone National park the "hands off" policy let a fire get completely out of control before they used aggressive suppression.  36% of the park burned and much of this area is still black 20 years later.  At Los Alamos a "controlled burn" to clear undergrowth ran away from them and destroyed 400 houses. 

 

Yellowstone - Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, current economic predicament.

 

Los Alamos - Recognizing the problem and the perils of trying to make up for past mistakes.

 

 

 

I took that from some website, forgot to get the link but I'm sure it is some Libertarian site.  

 

 

But that is just part of the story, were you aware that there is many, many times more debt in the world than there is money?  

 

http://www.businessi...in-debt-2016-10

 

http://www.mybudget3...to-debt-ratios/

 

http://www.marketwat...hart-2015-12-18

 

 

That is the reason for my post, the world economic system MUST have debt in order to operate properly, if everyone some how paid off all their debt (impossible since there is more debt than money), we would be in a great depression.  

 

In essence, the world's entire economic system is just one ginormous pyramid scheme.

[chriskuo]

The Federal government has surpluses before George W Bush became president and started unfunded wars.

 

Debt is not inherently good or bad.  Britain and the US would never have industrialized without debt.  The railroads were built with debt.

On the public side, much of our highway system was built with debt.  Our public schools were built with debt.  Debt is bad when it is used to finance tax cuts without cutting spending.

 

Back to paying for the medical care for those of us with CML -- should there be a mandate for everybody to buy insurance to finance those of us with expensive diseases (Obamacare) or  throw people with CML into high-risk pools (the Republican plan) and run deficits or turn the sick away.  Which plan makes more sense?

[r06ue1]

 

 

Which plan makes more sense?

 

Whichever makes those at the top the most profit.  

 

Owned & Operated

https://youtu.be/njSV5LtVmR4

[Buzzm1]

The Republican healthcare replacement has been entitled Who Cares ... in 2013, the Affordable Care Act added an additional 0.9% Medicare tax on wages over $200,000 ($250,000 if married) ... the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will lessen the taxes of the wealthiest 400 Americans by an average of seven million dollars.  

 

The Status of Medicare

Following is the latest financial summary, from the annual Trust Fund Statement, for each of these accounts.

 

Hospital (HI), Supplemental Medical Ins. (SMI)

..............................HI..............SMI... (trillions)

Assets (2014).....$0.1973.....$0.0691

Income (2015)....$0.2754.....$0.3699

Outgo (2015)......$0.2789.....$0.3688

Net Increase......-$0.0035.....$0.0003

Assets (2015).....$0.1938......$0.0695

 

HI/SMI

2028 HI trust fund depleted http://on.wsj.com/28MGL5G

[r06ue1]

Nothing in Washington happens by mistake, it is always planned out, these people are not morons like many would like to think.  I told people way back when that when ACA was being discussed that what it would end up being is mandatory health insurance for all citizens and that is what it will end up being.

[Buzzm1]

Rand Paul raises 'big question' of Medicaid rollback 

 

Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that "the big question" over repealing Obamacare will be whether Medicaid expansion is also rolled back, not committing to keeping the expansion in place.

 

The Kentucky Republican, who along with President-elect Donald Trump has come out strongly in favor of a simultaneously repeal-and-replace approach to the health care overhaul, was asked on CNN whether people covered under the law's expansion of Medicaid would continue to receive benefits after a potential repeal/

 

"That's the big question," he said on "State of the Union." "And I don't think that's going to be in the replacement aspect. I think that's going to be in the repeal aspect."

 

"The vast majority of people that got insurance under President Obama's Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, got it through Medicaid," the Paul said. "What we have to decide is what can be kept and what can't be kept. And that's going to be part of repeal."

 

Read more: http://politi.co/2iWY6Pb

[r06ue1]

 "What we have to decide is what can be kept and what can't be kept. And that's going to be part of repeal."

 

Politician speak for:  

"We will keep the parts that fill the coffers of the already super wealthy and do away with everything that benefits the 99%."

[Buzzm1]

The cost of basic Medicare is slated to increase at every opportunity.  The opportunity being any future cost of living increase in Social Security will be offset by an equivalent dollar increase in the cost of basic Medicare.  In 2017, for 70% of those on Medicare, the Social Security 0.3% cost of living increase was offset by a dollar equivalent increase in the the cost of basic Medicare.  The other 30% of those on Medicare  saw a much higher increase.  In addition Medicare Advantage plans increased in cost.  The cost of my Kaiser Senior Advantage plan increased $7 which means my net from Social Security decreased by $7.   I believe that new subscribers to Medicare are being charged a higher rate to begin with ... perhaps Pat could weigh in on this.  My basic Medicare cost is $111/mo.. ... my Kaiser Senior Advantage is an additional $82/mo..

 

How Much Will Medicare Cost You in 2017? http://www.fool.com/...ou-in-2017.aspx

[Buzzm1]

CBO: The GOP's Obamacare repeal could leave 27 million people without health insurance and cause premiums to skyrocket

 

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office within the legislature that provides research on the impact of possible policies, said in a report released Tuesday that a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, would have huge effects on the US healthcare system.

 

According to the report, the partial repeal proposed by Republicans would lead to a huge increase in the number of uninsured Americans and skyrocketing premiums for those in the individual insurance market.

 

Read more: http://www.businessi...e-repeal-2017-1

[Buzzm1]

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act would restore higher payments for services performed under the managed-care portion of Medicare known as Medicare Advantage, according to the Kaiser analysis. This, in turn, would likely lead to increased premiums for people who are signed up for Medicare Advantage. And an end to the law's guarantees that preventive services be provided free to patients could also raise premiums, out-of-pocket costs, or both.

 

Perhaps the most notable change would be to reverse efforts to close the "doughnut hole" for prescription drugs. One provision of the Affordable Care Act dramatically cut the amount that seniors on Medicare have to pay for their medicines. (This is known as "closing the doughnut hole" because prior to the law's passage, beneficiaries got some coverage up to a certain dollar amount, and then none until high-dollar, catastrophic coverage provisions kicked in.)

 

Read more at: http://www.politifac...are-act-repeal/

[beno]

Neither of my senators even bothered to respond to my e-mails.

[Buzzm1]

Neither of my senators even bothered to respond to my e-mails.

beno, there are numerous ways to get the attention of your Senators.  I haven't yet begun to update this since the 2016 election, but for openers: Congress ... I would suggest using every means possible for issues that concern you

[r06ue1]

Neither of my senators even bothered to respond to my e-mails.

 

LOL!  You don't have enough bank to get their attention.  Hand over a "donation" of $10,000 or more and that might do the trick.

[Buzzm1]

Trump signs sweeping order that could gut Obamacare

 

A few hours after taking the oath of office, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order that gives federal agencies broad power to unwind large parts of Obamacare, possibly including the hugely unpopular mandate requiring most Americans to purchase insurance.

 

While only Congress can repeal the law, the several-paragraph order effectively tells the federal government to take as much leeway as possible to "ease the burdens" on individuals and states.

 

One possible outcome is that federal agencies would stop enforcing the individual mandate, which has been the most contentious piece of the law -- a move that could throw the individual insurance market into an almost immediate spiral.

 

"It will make the [market] sicker and on average more expensive. It may lead to carriers reconsidering their participation for the 2018 plan year," said David Anderson, a Duke University health policy analyst who's studied the law's insurance regulations.

 

Read more at: http://politi.co/2jhs3cO