OdontoBear66;842850001 said:

---

You do have to think of the healthcare issue in light of what we can or cannot afford. Things are turning bleak in the budgets of many states. Illinois is on the verge of junk bond status. Now Connecticut and New Jersey are but a bit behind. Notice the commonality of the three states. Where are we going in this society with providing things we think are essential needs with projections that turn out understated and which lead to deep financial problems for the future? And I can talk comfortably of this for my concern is for our kids and grandkids, certainly not myself. That indebtedness will not touch me in my lifetime. What can you say about yourself? I would have loved a real nice car out of dental school in 1966 befitting my new found status as a doctor, but it would have been the worst decision possible at that time.

And do not mistake that I argue just cut social benefits and build the military with those dollars saved. Not so. In this the Repubs are as wrong as the Dems. Quite frankly we would probably benefit financially if we paid them the same and had them work one quarter of the hours. JMHO

---

You know what would help-old farts dying off quicker. A large and fastest growing part of medicaid assistance (35%) goes to pay nursing home care costs for people who exhaust their savings paying for end of life care.

Unit2Sucks;842850045 said:

---

Odonto - please explain how HSAs help provide access to healthcare. As far as I can tell, HSAs are just a tax break for who don't need it. The people who are currently relying on Obamacare (or uninsured) don't need tax breaks.

---

HSAs are great if you are someone who makes enough money to be able to save something extra every month (really a lot extra, given what you'd need to pay for a major medical procedure). People who are currently on Medicaid generally don't make that much money.

That's my understanding too Sycasey. People who save love HSAs because it's the best tax deferral going right now since you can get money out at any time. Instead of using the money deferred in their HSAs people pay their medical bills from cash flow and let their HSAs grown tax free. Does anyone really think this is going to help the indigent or working poor?

More like Marie Antoinette than Mother Theresa.

sycasey;842850039 said:

---

Wasn't the amount added to the debt entirely from the financial bailout and economic stimulus? I don't think Obamacare specifically added to the deficit. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

---

Read sycasey, read. I was talking about obligatory outgo of the near past. I did not say it was Obamacare. A government has only so much money and then either taxes for more or prints it. When you have indebtedness, you need to broach how you will pay it and especially as you add more. And we certainly did well at that over the last eight years.

sycasey;842850049 said:

---

HSAs are great if you are someone who makes enough money to be able to save something extra every month (really a lot extra, given what you'd need to pay for a major medical procedure). People who are currently on Medicaid generally don't make that much money.

---

It seems your entire focus is on paying for services for those we added to the medicaid roles in the last five years. Mine is maintaining the highest quality medical care and seeking solutions (of which I don't profess to have) to pay for same. GB54 suggests "old farts dying off quicker". I find that a bit over the top. I would look to affording medicaid recipients basic medical emergency care with no frills at all, and then seek means to add to that. What we have now is not working, and it is primarily not working because of the 20+million we added on. We added it on. It was a fiscal mistake, so dial it down and seek solutions.

With Obamacare medicaid was increased and its cost is the prime reason it is failing. The Dems wrote the program and passed it without any opposition support. Tis theirs to fix, but with solutions palatable to the party in power at the moment. Lower cost with covering a smaller share of the medical bill might be a start. Whoops.

OdontoBear66;842850054 said:

---

It seems your entire focus is on paying for services for those we added to the medicaid roles in the last five years. Mine is maintaining the highest quality medical care and seeking solutions (of which I don't profess to have) to pay for same. GB54 suggests "old farts dying off quicker". I find that a bit over the top. I would look to affording medicaid recipients basic medical emergency care with no frills at all, and then seek means to add to that. What we have now is not working, and it is primarily not working because of the 20+million we added on. We added it on. It was a fiscal mistake, so dial it down and seek solutions.

With Obamacare medicaid was increased and its cost is the prime reason it is failing. The Dems wrote the program and passed it without any opposition support. Tis theirs to fix, but with solutions palatable to the party in power at the moment. Lower cost with covering a smaller share of the medical bill might be a start. Whoops.

---

What does Medicaid mostly cover- care for the elderly, pregnancy, care for special needs children, care for the disabled. It's an insurance program, not a welfare program. Who should pay? We all should

OdontoBear66;842850053 said:

---

Read sycasey, read. I was talking about obligatory outgo of the near past. I did not say it was Obamacare. A government has only so much money and then either taxes for more or prints it. When you have indebtedness, you need to broach how you will pay it and especially as you add more. And we certainly did well at that over the last eight years.

---

It's true you did not specifically say it was Obamacare. You just tried to conflate the two things (Obamacare and the debt) as though they are related without actually stating it. Nice bit of sophistry; I just wanted to make sure no one else was drawn in.

Obama paid for his healthcare plan. He did it by raising taxes on those most able to pay. It did not raise the deficit. Your argument against it does not hold up on fiscal grounds.

GB54;842850064 said:

---

What does Medicaid mostly cover- care for the elderly, pregnancy, care for special needs children, care for the disabled. It's an insurance program, not a welfare program. Who should pay? We all should

---

Special needs children should have considered the national debt before asking all of us to pay for their bad choices.

sycasey;842850065 said:

---

It's true you did not specifically say it was Obamacare. You just tried to conflate the two things (Obamacare and the debt) as though they are related without actually stating it. Nice bit of sophistry; I just wanted to make sure no one else was drawn in.

Obama paid for his healthcare plan. He did it by raising taxes on those most able to pay. It did not raise the deficit. Your argument against it does not hold up on fiscal grounds.

---

Uh, what has been happening over the last year. Doors are closing to Obamacare, state after state. Costs are soaring, premiums are having to be raised driving the middle class wild, insurance companies are dropping the product while all the time it is a tax on the rich and a give away to the poor that is cost neutral?

GB54;842850064 said:

---

What does Medicaid mostly cover- care for the elderly, pregnancy, care for special needs children, care for the disabled. It's an insurance program, not a welfare program. Who should pay? We all should

---

The program was extended in scope way beyond that in its inclusion of millions. Not many could argue with those you point out, but it became a subsidized program where the limits became way to high (into the middle class). And as with any Dem need program it is always the little old lady on the cliff that they showcase. No one wishes to exclude those, but its marketing is expanded a bit much.

sycasey;842850065 said:

---

It's true you did not specifically say it was Obamacare. You just tried to conflate the two things (Obamacare and the debt) as though they are related without actually stating it. Nice bit of sophistry; I just wanted to make sure no one else was drawn in.

Obama paid for his healthcare plan. He did it by raising taxes on those most able to pay. It did not raise the deficit. Your argument against it does not hold up on fiscal grounds.

---

Yes he did, but he also put the hurt on the middle class big time along with many others who were paying for the subsidies. Do you think all that red state anger at Obamacare comes from the 1%? I bet very little does. It comes from way down the ladder. Otherwise there would be close to zero votes or interest. Someone feels they have been ripped off, and it is one heck of a lot more than the 1%.

OdontoBear66;842850085 said:

---

Yes he did, but he also put the hurt on the middle class big time along with many others who were paying for the subsidies. Do you think all that red state anger at Obamacare comes from the 1%? I bet very little does. It comes from way down the ladder. Otherwise there would be close to zero votes or interest. Someone feels they have been ripped off, and it is one heck of a lot more than the 1%.

---

How did he put the hurt on the middle class?

OdontoBear66;842850083 said:

---

Uh, what has been happening over the last year. Doors are closing to Obamacare, state after state. Costs are soaring, premiums are having to be raised driving the middle class wild, insurance companies are dropping the product while all the time it is a tax on the rich and a give away to the poor that is cost neutral?

---

Insurers started closing up markets after a Marco Rubio and GOP backed bill. You should research what you write a little more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.amp.html

NYCGOBEARS;842850093 said:

---

Insurers started closing up markets after a Marco Rubio and GOP backed bill. You should research what you write a little more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.amp.html

---

But remember, it's the Democrats' job to fix this problem, even though the Republicans now control everything.

OdontoBear66;842850054 said:

---

The Dems wrote the program and passed it without any opposition support. Tis theirs to fix, but with solutions palatable to the party in power at the moment.

---

OdontoBear66;842850084 said:

---

The program was extended in scope way beyond that in its inclusion of millions. Not many could argue with those you point out, but it became a subsidized program where the limits became way to high (into the middle class). And as with any Dem need program it is always the little old lady on the cliff that they showcase. No one wishes to exclude those, but its marketing is expanded a bit much.

---

Again your view of modern America is stuck in the 1960's not what is going on. The population is older, is no longer covered by cradle to grave health plans and our country is riddled with inequality. Yet you persist in believing that everyone is gaming the system despite the obvious examples people keep giving you.

So what we did in 2012 is near akin to what has been tabled in California right now. SB562---single payer. Turns out the Dems have the votes to pass it but it isn't even palatable to them (or probably more likely their constituents). So it is tabled. Why? Well, the entire state budget in California is just over $200B and single payer would be a mere $400B...Almost double the entire budget.

What I keep coming back to is that we cannot afford Obamacare as it was. Nor can we single payer in California. But in California we are before enactment and we can stay as is. What I suggest with Obamacare is to go back to "as was", and then add incrementally things we can afford. And yes, Dems single handily made the mess by hurrying it through before a Repub house came in January. So it is theirs to participate in the fix, of which they are having nothing to do with.

sycasey;842850065 said:

---

It's true you did not specifically say it was Obamacare. You just tried to conflate the two things (Obamacare and the debt) as though they are related without actually stating it. Nice bit of sophistry; I just wanted to make sure no one else was drawn in.

Obama paid for his healthcare plan. He did it by raising taxes on those most able to pay. It did not raise the deficit. Your argument against it does not hold up on fiscal grounds.

---

While I agree with you that we will find the funds to pay for what is essential and necessary, I hated this mentality that someone else will pay. This should be a collective effort to fund this, not a disengagement of what you personally want and what you are personally willing to pay. When people start thinking about someone else "most able to pay" (what does that even mean?) paying all of what they want and they are just expecting to receive without doing anything to earn even a portion, then we end up with runaway entitlements, ungratefulness, class war and overspending (it is easy to write checks that are not coming from your account). While we, who are better able to help others, have a moral imperative to help the less fortunate, that does not mean that the less fortunate should feel entitled and should be ungrateful. When I go out to dinner with friends who are less able, I may pick up the check but it becomes less meaningful when they just expect it and always think that I should by mandate pay. If someone in my community couldn't pay for medical services and we all decided to get together to create a fund whereby the more fortunate would pay more than they spend from the fund and the less fortunate would pay less than what they use from the fund, I would hope that the less fortunate wouldn't think they could just not pay and demand that the more fortunate pay all.

I wouldn't mind if there was a FICA like tax of same percentage for all (so that even the less fortunate pay a portion and the more fortunate pay way more than they would ever use) and that there is a reasonable co-pay that is affordable but still serves as a deterrence from using more than reasonably necessary. Healthcare, while should be available and affordable for all, doesn't have to be free for everyone. We can each do our part, and be grateful for those who are putting in more than they are taking.

OdontoBear66;842850085 said:

---

Yes he did, but he also put the hurt on the middle class big time along with many others who were paying for the subsidies. Do you think all that red state anger at Obamacare comes from the 1%? I bet very little does. It comes from way down the ladder. Otherwise there would be close to zero votes or interest. Someone feels they have been ripped off, and it is one heck of a lot more than the 1%.

---

And yet the biggest recipients of medicaid in swing states are white voters-presumably a large part of whom voted for Trump

OdontoBear66;842850115 said:

---

So what we did in 2012 is near akin to what has been tabled in California right now. SB562---single payer. Turns out the Dems have the votes to pass it but it isn't even palatable to them (or probably more likely their constituents). So it is tabled. Why? Well, the entire state budget in California is just over $200B and single payer would be a mere $400B...Almost double the entire budget.

What I keep coming back to is that we cannot afford Obamacare as it was. Nor can we single payer in California. But in California we are before enactment and we can stay as is. What I suggest with Obamacare is to go back to "as was", and then add incrementally things we can afford. And yes, Dems single handily made the mess by hurrying it through before a Repub house came in January. So it is theirs to participate in the fix, of which they are having nothing to do with.

---

Got to hand it to Odonto. He just cruises on past the inquiries about his previous mistatements and moves on to his next mistatements.

OdontoBear66;842850115 said:

---

So what we did in 2012 is near akin to what has been tabled in California right now. SB562---single payer. Turns out the Dems have the votes to pass it but it isn't even palatable to them (or probably more likely their constituents). So it is tabled. Why? Well, the entire state budget in California is just over $200B and single payer would be a mere $400B...Almost double the entire budget.

What I keep coming back to is that we cannot afford Obamacare as it was. Nor can we single payer in California. But in California we are before enactment and we can stay as is. What I suggest with Obamacare is to go back to "as was", and then add incrementally things we can afford. And yes, Dems single handily made the mess by hurrying it through before a Repub house came in January. So it is theirs to participate in the fix, of which they are having nothing to do with.

---

Single payer at a state level and not at a federal level is stupid. With free movement from state to state, it doesn't even create the leverage a national single payer system would provide (control of costs from medical, pharmaceutical, etc.) and would allow people to go California just to get free medical service. The reason I am for a single payer system on a national level is that, while I believe medical services should be affordable and accessible to all, that is not possible until we control the cost of medical expenses. Single payer system where one group (the government) can negotiate with all vendors would be the best hope of bringing the cost under control and normalizing the expenses from different hospitals and different areas.

OdontoBear66;842850115 said:

---

And yes, Dems single handily made the mess by hurrying it through before a Repub house came in January. So it is theirs to participate in the fix, of which they are having nothing to do with. So it is theirs to participate in the fix, of which they are having nothing to do with.

---

This is hilarious. Democrats passed the ACA after over a year's worth of debate in which many Republican amendments were added to the bill. Even given that, all Republicans refused to vote for it because of McConnell's stated goals of opposing everything Obama wanted to do.

Meanwhile, the current Republican law was written in secret with no Democratic amendments (indeed no amendments even asked for) in less than a month. Democrats are not participating because Republican leadership does not WANT them to participate. Give me a break with this crap.

calbear93;842850119 said:

---

While I agree with you that we will find the funds to pay for what is essential and necessary, I hated this mentality that someone else will pay. This should be a collective effort to fund this, not a disengagement of what you personally want and what you are personally willing to pay.

---

That depends on how long a view you take. Compared to the 1960s, taxes on the wealthy and large businesses have been gradually whittled away. So essentially these entities have gobbled up the benefits of being in this country while paying less and less of their share. Obamacare's taxes were a relatively small reversal of that trend, after which they freaked the f*** out and dedicated themselves to destroying his legacy.

To me the bigger problem today is everyone (especially the wealthy) acting like any marginal tax increase is an affront to the very idea of freedom and liberty. Do we want to live in a society where we take care of each other or an every-man-for-himself dystopia?

sycasey;842850138 said:

---

This is hilarious. Democrats passed the ACA after over a year's worth of debate in which many Republican amendments were added to the bill. Even given that, all Republicans refused to vote for it because of McConnell's stated goals of opposing everything Obama wanted to do.

Meanwhile, the current Republican law was written in secret with no Democratic amendments (indeed no amendments even asked for) in less than a month. Democrats are not participating because Republican leadership does not WANT them to participate. Give me a break with this crap.

---

One does not have to be uneducated to be a low information voter, it seems.

dajo9;842850121 said:

---

Got to hand it to Odonto. He just cruises on past the inquiries about his previous mistatements and moves on to his next mistatements.

---

He's become the perfect manifestation of the modern Republican Party dogma. Not sure what he believes, but damn sure he believes in it.

sycasey;842850143 said:

---

He's become the perfect manifestation of the modern Republican Party dogma. Not sure what he believes, but damn sure he believes in it.

---

Odonto believes in moderation. You don't. You suck.

Such abuse suffered at the hands of the intelligentsia. Big shoulders afford support.

OdontoBear66;842850156 said:

---

Such abuse suffered at the hands of the intelligentsia. Big shoulders afford support.

---

You're doing it wrong. You should hit back 10x as hard as you were attacked, preferably by tweet. I would suggest something like the following:

"The failing @dajo9 can't accept the fact that he lost an argument (which by the way he lost bigly, everyone said I won and it wasn't even close). He came to me, bleeding out of his wherever, with questions about my views on healthcare reform, but I said NO! Sad."

sycasey;842850140 said:

---

That depends on how long a view you take. Compared to the 1960s, taxes on the wealthy and large businesses have been gradually whittled away. So essentially these entities have gobbled up the benefits of being in this country while paying less and less of their share. Obamacare's taxes were a relatively small reversal of that trend, after which they freaked the f*** out and dedicated themselves to destroying his legacy.

To me the bigger problem today is everyone (especially the wealthy) acting like any marginal tax increase is an affront to the very idea of freedom and liberty. Do we want to live in a society where we take care of each other or an every-man-for-himself dystopia?

---

I'm sorry, but your response was not really a response. I never stated that marginal tax increase was an affront to the very idea of freedom and liberty. I clearly never stated that we don't need to take care of each other. And I don't know why you chose 1960 as opposed to an earlier period. And my hope is that we don't poison the important issue of healthcare with a separate agenda on wealth redistribution. Why would the Democrats be against a Medicare like tax (without the extra premium on just the wealthy who would already be paying way more than what they will get from it) that allows everyone to make a contribution for something that is good for the country. Whether it is some hawks all for going to war but never serving themselves or class war advocates who want more and more entitlements but never wanting to pay themselves, the disengagement of personal sacrifice from claims of what one states one believes is a serious problem with our politics.

calbear93;842850163 said:

---

I'm sorry, but your response was not really a response. I never stated that marginal tax increase was an affront to the very idea of freedom and liberty. I clearly never stated that we don't need to take care of each other. And I don't know why you chose 1960 as opposed to an earlier period. And my hope is that we don't poison the important issue of healthcare with a separate agenda on wealth redistribution. Why would the Democrats be against a Medicare like tax (without the extra premium on just the wealthy who would already be paying way more than what they will get from it) that allows everyone to make a contribution for something that is good for the country. Whether it is some hawks all for going to war but never serving themselves or class war advocates who want more and more entitlements but never wanting to pay themselves, the disengagement of personal sacrifice from claims of what one states one believes is a serious problem with our politics.

---

I should be clear: I wasn't accusing you personally of seeing taxes as an affront, just the larger Republican Party base and/or leadership (as a group).

OdontoBear66;842850156 said:

---

Such abuse suffered at the hands of the intelligentsia. Big shoulders afford support.

---

They may just be insulted that you have a different opinion. You are disturbing the echo. Shame on you.

Seriously, just shake it off. It's all just banter.

OdontoBear66;842850156 said:

---

Such abuse suffered at the hands of the intelligentsia. Big shoulders afford support.

---

Sometimes when a majority of intelligent people disagree with you . . . it means you're wrong about something.

calbear93;842850163 said:

---

Why would the Democrats be against a Medicare like tax (without the extra premium on just the wealthy who would already be paying way more than what they will get from it) that allows everyone to make a contribution for something that is good for the country.

---

I too would love to not pay taxes for things that I don't get anything out of. For starters, I would rather not make any contributions to the military because as far as I can tell I don't get anything for my money.

Seriously, I for years have said we should let people have a say on pay in their taxes just for informational purposes. Everyone files a tax return and we could get very good data on where people want their money to go. It wouldn't be that difficult administratively. We put a man on the moon, surely we could figure out how to take in a little bit more data about taxpayer spending preferences.

In my idealized version, we would come to some fundamental agreement on what a true baseline is for non-discretionary spending and then let people vote with their tax dollars on the discretionary piece. I'm not advocating we go down to $0 military spending but I would like to see it down at 1.5-1.75%. Given how large an expenditure that would remain, it's still massive dollars and we would benefit from economies of scale so we should still have the best military in the world. Anything above that should be discretionary and could be based on taxpayer preferences. Of course we would have to do some normalization and we couldn't drastically change the budget from year to year to match taxpayer data but that could be addressed in a number of ways and most likely with some sort of glide path.

Anyway, long story short I would rather my money fund social programs than the military, but we can't all have what we want.

calbear93;842850165 said:

---

They may just be insulted that you have a different opinion. You are disturbing the echo. Shame on you.

Seriously, just shake it off. It's all just banter.

---

Thanks for shame...But please don't think there is anything to shake off---my post was dripping in sarcasm. It is fun to watch the call go out for the echo.

Unit2Sucks;842850178 said:

---

I too would love to not pay taxes for things that I don't get anything out of. For starters, I would rather not make any contributions to the military because as far as I can tell I don't get anything for my money.

Seriously, I for years have said we should let people have a say on pay in their taxes just for informational purposes. Everyone files a tax return and we could get very good data on where people want their money to go. It wouldn't be that difficult administratively. We put a man on the moon, surely we could figure out how to take in a little bit more data about taxpayer spending preferences.

In my idealized version, we would come to some fundamental agreement on what a true baseline is for non-discretionary spending and then let people vote with their tax dollars on the discretionary piece. I'm not advocating we go down to $0 military spending but I would like to see it down at 1.5-1.75%. Given how large an expenditure that would remain, it's still massive dollars and we would benefit from economies of scale so we should still have the best military in the world. Anything above that should be discretionary and could be based on taxpayer preferences. Of course we would have to do some normalization and we couldn't drastically change the budget from year to year to match taxpayer data but that could be addressed in a number of ways and most likely with some sort of glide path.

Anyway, long story short I would rather my money fund social programs than the military, but we can't all have what we want.

---

Huh? Was that meant to be responsive to my post? If so, you lost me. I have no idea how your post is responsive to my idea that everyone contribute to funding of the government paid health insurance like we do for existing Medicare instead of only the top 1% or so paying. As always, I post something, and you respond with a completely different discussion. Not sure how what I wrote is relevant to your discussion on people choosing how their tax funds are being used.

But interesting that you think you get nothing out of military. I thank our brave soldiers in the military for risking their lives and keeping us safe (including you). Too bad you think what they do has no value to you.

It was responsive to your comment about taxing the rich more for something they won't benefit from.

How are children supposed to contribute to their healthcare? I think Reagan talked about protecting "Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us".

As for the people people risking their lives, I think the answer is quite obvious. I would prefer they don't risk their lives when it is unnecessary and I think it is for the most part unnecessary. I don't think we should abandon veterans or everyone in our military but that doesn't mean I support spending so much on something I don't consider to be of comparable value. I don't think we would be less safe with a much smaller military and in fact may actually be safer because we may be less of a target.

EDIT: I will also add that it's a shame you don't value the men, women and children who can't afford healthcare without the help of others.