The fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will be determined within the next few months. We’ll soon know if America will be saddled permanently with an unaffordable, unworkable, unpopular entitlement when we can least afford it.
The most important thing states can do to thwart Obamacare is to refuse to establish state-level health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasized that establishing exchanges is critical to implementation of the law. Exchanges are government sanctioned cartels where only government approved insurers can sell government approved insurance including all subsidies, exemptions and mandates that they apply. In states that decline to operate an exchange, the federal government may establish one.
The sides are lining up. Strong governors like Christie (New Jersey), Daniel (Indiana), Scott (Florida) and Perry (Texas) have adamantly refused to allow Obamacare a beachhead in their states. They will not create an exchange. On the other hand, governors like O’Malley (Maryland) and Brown (California) are among those who boast of the great benefits that cooperation with Obamacare will bring to their states.
It’s time for Gov. Brewer and the Arizona Legislature to decide where they stand.
It’s disappointing that a strong states-rights advocate like Jan Brewer has even considered creating an exchange. There’s no question that this is a tangible erosion of Arizona’s Tenth Amendment sovereignty.
By bowing to federal government pressure to establish an exchange, Arizona would agree to operate a massive government program of dubious constitutionality. It would be run according to federal rules and mandates. The feds would control the doctors and providers allowed, the health insurance plans and benefits, the subsidies and exemptions. We would do their work, obey their rules and bear the cost.
In fact, it’s even worse than that. Arizona would be responsible for enforcing the individual mandate. We would be required to give the U.S. Treasury the names and taxpayer identification numbers of people who have changed employers and lost coverage as well as those who terminated their coverage or simply chose not to purchase insurance. We would be the IRS enforcer. Why would we do that?
Arizona’s health insurers and hospitals are applying the pressure to comply. They argue that if we control our own exchange, we would be able to create a more Arizona-friendly insurance system. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the law reads.
Arizona’s exchange would operate under rules as prescribed by the Health and
HumanServices Secretary. Any state law would be valid only if it didn’t conflict with federal laws. In practice, that means we could add mandates and subsidies if we wish, but not reduce any of those already in federal law. So we could make health insurance more regulated and expensive but not less so.
It is beyond obvious that the global cost of health insurance is about to skyrocket and millions of people will be forced into the exchanges. The pressure for further subsidies and exemptions for favored groups will be enormous. We would be better off not even having those options on the table.
Then there’s the matter of cost. The federal government will fund the operating expenses – until 2014. It’s kind of comical, like cell phone marketers who offer six “free” months if you commit to the plan. Nobody knows what it would cost to operate a health insurance exchange – maybe up to $100 million annually – but we would be nuts to commit to this unnecessary open-ended expense. Once we sign on, it’s our baby.
Finally, in the 2000-plus pages of legislation that nobody read at the time of Obamacare’s passage, there was a “glitch” that makes states’ decisions even more consequential. The law reads that “premium assistance” – subsidies to hide the law’s true costs – are available only to state-run exchanges, not federal ones. However, employers are charged penalties when their employees receive premium assistance, so under an Arizona-run exchange, employers would be subject to unspecified financial damages that couldn’t be levied under a federally-run exchange. We could protect our state’s businesses and block federal spending all in one motion.
But here’s what matters most. You can’t be on the Repeal and Replace team if you are implementing Obamacare at the same time. It’s time for choosing.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
downtownresident posted at 8:18 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
The spin machine is alive and well here in whacko-ville.
Nobody sees the big picture any more. It's how do I cheat my neighbors out of the most money that rules now.
mnjcpa posted at 8:28 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Great article Tom - exactly the way I feel. downtown I know you'd like to think it's because of those evil Republicans wanting to eat your children, but that fairytale isn't what it's about. We're broke and Obamacare will surge us over the economic cliff quicker than we are already going.
Nullification will be the order the day to escape liberal tyranny.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:13 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Well Tom,
It would appear that we have pending on our horizon the War Between the States, round two. On the one hand, we have rebel states lead by the likes of Christie, Scott, Perry and Daniels who would withdraw from the Federal Government, and on the other hand those lead by Brown and O'Malley who would not divide the house, but have it stand united.
Didn't someone say in 2004 that we don't have red states and blue states but only united states?
Centrist posted at 9:23 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
It is amazing to me what passes as journalism these days. This story has so much factually inaccurate in it I don't know where to start. The sad reality is that if someone like this Patterson fellow gets his misinformed opinions published, others believe it and take it as fact. I am placing a call to the paper on Monday to let them know they should be fact checking their pieces and this guy should be disciplined. It is fine to take a position and attempt to persuade, it is not fine to do so based on fabrication and misdirection. Shame on you Tom.
bblade50 posted at 10:38 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Agree with centrist the bill states that either the states allow an exchange or the Fed goverment with control it I would belive that all states would rather be in control of their own policies on insurance companies.
downtownresident posted at 10:39 am on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Clinton left billions in the bank when he was POTUS.
W and the win-at-all-costs Rovers have drained the bank to line their own pockets.
Tax cuts for the rich HAVE NOT created anything that resembles an economic recovery. Just fatter fat cats with bigger bank accounts.
Let 'em eat cake is the new republican philosophy.
mnjcpa posted at 12:12 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Looks like we've got another tattle tale commenter. You rail about the honesty Centrist in Patterson's article but offer not a shred of evidence that it's not. When Patterson says 'We’ll soon know if America will be saddled permanently with an unaffordable, unworkable, unpopular entitlement when we can least afford it.' It's a truthful statement. Enlighten us.
And Dale those governor's that you hold in such high regard are the state's that are closest to bankruptcy.
I support wholeheartedly nullification because liberals simply don't get - we're broke and we can't afford it.
Centrist posted at 12:40 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Mnjcpa, please don't just drink koolaid and believe what commentators like Patterson say without checking the facts behind their conclusory statements. "unaffordable, unworkable, unpopular...". Where should I start? How about the Idea that it is unaffordable. Patterson would have you believe the STATES are asked to brunt the costs and that if a state does so the cost will be unbearable. In truth, the federal govt subsidizes the overwhelming majority of the cost. The states are actually getting flush with cash to tackle the problem, not digging deep into their pockets. But, Patterson misleads you to believe otherwise. His statement is, "we do their work obey their rules and bear the cost.". Now if you want to argue "well he meant the federal government can't afford it.". Then you are not being honest in your interpretation or facing the truth about where the money comes from. But, by all means mnjcpa educate me on this topic as you suggest you have greater knowledge. But, be prepared as I have done my homework and I believe it is very important to debunk the Fox News version of the facts. It is only when we converse with facts about this law that we can reach places where we can agree to disagree. This country cannot afford to have its population mislead to serve a political agenda of the few over the many.
mnjcpa posted at 2:18 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
First, I don't get my information off of any news channel - haven't listened to one for years. Secondly, I don't claim nor did I claim in my comments that I was an expert in healthcare. Thirdly, what I do understand very well its tax and the truth behind who pays what. And Yes, this is a tax - in fact one of the largest ever levied against people making less than $120k a year that I've seen in my career.
Let's keep it simple then Centrist. You still haven't explained HOW Obamacare is affordable. You've latched on to the states versus federal argument - but the overarching issue is that Obamacare is unaffordable. Enlighten me how it is because where I sit it's absolutely not in any way shape or form. We're $16 trillion in debt that even a tiny blip in the interest rates will send us hurling over an economic cliff and that's BEFORE the real impact of Obamacare costs kick in.
The only reason this has come down to a state's issue is that Patterson's right - it's a hugely unpopular law that was rammed through Congress under Democratic control even thought the overwhelming majority of the country don't support it.
fae4now posted at 2:18 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Mnjcpa,
Supporting nullification is exactly what we can no longer afford!
Nullification takes us back to ground zero - 1 in 6 Americans with no health care and/or access to it. That is 1 in 6 who will still get sick (some chronically, having been denied insurance for pre-existing conditions) or injured and will thus appear on the doorstep of hospital emergency rooms, lacking any other option, and YOU WILL PAY FOR THAT!
So by supporting nullification without presenting any other solution one must assume that either you support the 'let 'em die' position or that you're happier serving the uninsured in the least cost effective way possible - through emergency medicine.
So which is it? Please be specific.
And should we also believe that you are pleased to pick up the tab for all the elected officials salaries, benefits and expenses to have them blather endlessly while accomplishing nothing?
Obamacare may not be ideal but it is the start of something - a solution! Imagine that!
mnjcpa posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Thanks for asking fae4now. Suggesting nullification was my way of making a flippant response to a serious matter. My apologies.
What I meant to say was that people are fed up at being manipulated and lied to. Obama hasn't had a budget since he's been in office and it doesn't even cause a blink. The Democratic congress IGNORED the people and rammed a catastrophically expensive regulatory nightmare on the people. There's a few remaining freedom fighters (Perry, Christie, Scott, and I hope Brewer) out there that have the political guts to try to stop this train wreck.
My opinion? I’m a free market competition believer. The `real free market` will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. I would also change the tax code so individual Americans can deduct all health care costs from their taxes. The solution to this is eliminate the federal government's involvement altogether and allow the free market to create the strategy. That is by the way what made America great.
Nothing gets done well with government intervention.
Centrist posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Mnjcpa, in your response you created 5 topics for discussion. We must slow down and take on one issue at a time if we are not to get lost in each other's philosophies. But, taking each in turn:
1). I did not mean to suggest Fox was your source. But, it is undeniable that many of your statements are the type Fox and others like it fuel. Unfortunately, they are often severely inaccurate or one-sided. So, whether you get your news from a tv, computer, radio, or smoke signals one must remember that what you are hearing is being told with a bias. Sure, there are liberal leaning sources, but people who write such misinformed propaganda-like pieces like the one above by Patterson need to be called out for what they are.
2). I did not mean to suggest you were holding yourself out as an expert in healthcare. Sorry if I left you with that impression.
3). Your initial argument was that the affordable care act is unaffordable, unworkable, and unpopular (as that of the article's author) but then you spent nearly 1/2 of your post above blasting the act because it is a tax. A tax, by the way, is a revenue raising device. So I would think you woulbe be glad to see revenue raised to fund federal policy. Perhaps I am missing your point about why a tax is such a problem. Are you against all taxes or just this one.
4). You claim the law is unpopular. How so? Is it the removal of a ban on pre-existing conditions or the requirement that private healthcare insurance companies now spend at least 85 percent of your premium on actual preventive care and research instead of the 60 percent they were spending giving their CEOs, board of directors, and other top executives the 15 percent difference by way of compensation ( there's the unnecessary benefit to a few to the detriment of many argument I was previously making). In the end, the no biased polling demonstrates the public likes each piece of the affordable healthcare act on a piece-by-piece basis. There are 13 pieces by the way. Are you saying all 13 are unpopular. It is only when one demonizes it and calls it obamacare (playing to the reptilian portion of each person's brain) that people being polled will say, "oh yeah, I am against that.". Why do you think that is? It is because of journalistic-hack pieces like the one above by Patterson.
5). So, to the affordability issue. There are numerous sources from which the funds will come. Primarily, however, there is 272 billion of the 311 billion coming from the reductions of individuals on Medicaid. You see, with the mandate, we no longer pay for uninsured folks. That should sit well with you, I would think. There is also the broadened medicare tax on incomes over 250,000. Thereis an annual fee on insurance providers. There is also the 10percent tax on tanning booths, yes someone's choice to hasten skin cancer has a negative impact on our healthcare costs - and imagine if they did so with no insurance...yikes. Finally, there are the changes to Medicare advantage which means 500 million per year will go to funding this program instead of to private corporations who admittedly didn't need or use the money. (that's another topic we can explore).
If you want to know more about where e funds are coming from go to the office of management
Dale Whiting posted at 5:05 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Centrist,
With #3 it is obvious that you are either new to this site or have obtained a new sudonymn. Most of the rest of us centrists have given up on Tom. If memory serves me, Tom is a retired physician and former legislator. Wonder if he was one of those doctors who defrauded Medicare? That might explain his take on the Affordable Healthcare act.
Good luck.
Sincerdly yours,
Dale Whiting with # 3380 ! ! !
Centrist posted at 5:25 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Thanks dale. I am new. Fresh legs to fight the good fight.
mnjcpa posted at 5:46 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Centrist,
#1 - I read and study for fun - the monetary system, history, federal reserve, tax code and regulations, stock market, investment banking news. Not sure if that qualifies for solid information in your world.
#3 - So why did I bring up taxes? Maybe because when fully implemented it's the biggest tax increase in our history in order to grow government like it has never grown before. What has been upheld here is fraud, and the IRS has just become Obama's domestic army. We were deceived. It was a stealth tax on all Americans. This doesn't even slightly bother you? It's the why the governors are doing what they're doing because by not establishing the state exchanges it `defunds` Obamacare.
#3 - Just because I understand taxes means I want more paid to the government? Hardly. I've repeatedly said on this column that the press is doing a great job of stoking class warfare because it's unwarranted. Almost 70% of all tax revenue is paid by the top 20% of the country and almost half pay nothing at all. It's straight from a scene in Atlas Shrugged,
#4 - I'm not going to even bother on this one because you glazed right past the fact I believe in real `free markets`. You can't have those when the government is constantly intervening. I have a study conducted by Pepperdine of over 25,000 business owners and over 90% responded they would be dropping coverage on their employees if Obamacare wasn't repealed.
#5 - Ditto.
I know you're proud of your grasp of the individual issues in the healthcare law, but my belief is you're believing leaders who have already lied to you in the first place. In my world that's gullible.
Centrist posted at 6:28 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Ok, so....
1). Depends on the sources from which you gather the information. Sources relied upon by an accredited degree program or credentialed and qualified experts, YES. The Drudge Report...NO.
2). Biggest in our history? How so? I don't see how. A qualifying health insurance policy costs $80 per month, or $960 per year and the taxpayer is eligible for rebates each year of up to $300. So it is - at best - a 600 per year "tax". That is $50 per month. That hardly comes close to the tax hikes signed into law by reagan
Centrist posted at 6:40 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Moving on....
1). Growing government...nope. Where is the government growth you are speaking of? This law forces individuals to purchase a plan from a PRIVATE carrier. There is little to no impact on public sector employment in order to do so.
2). Fraud...wrong again. The definition of fraud requires detrimental reliance upon material misstatements made with an intent to rely. This does not even come close so I will assume you were speaking in hyperbole which has no place in a discussion intended to find the truth.
3). No, the governors are SAYING they will do what they are SAYING they will do to energize their base and get re-elected. Don't let it work on you. No governor will do it, and if they do, the law takes care of that and the Feds set up the exchange.
4). Sorry, but your argument that 70 percent pay all the taxes is misplaced. Of course they do. We have what is called a progressive tax system. It means that those who prosper more pay more. If you have a beef with that then let's focus on that discussion but don't use it as a distraction in this conversation. Obamacare did not set up the progressive tax system we have nor is it built on it. It is a flat tax.
5). You seem to generally dislike taxes. Why? Do you not recognize the good they do? Do you use roads to get to work? Think about it. There are some things the government should provide for, our founding fathers called it the. "general welfare".
Centrist posted at 6:49 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Also, you appear to have no response to several of the points I made above. Let's not create a side-show throwing words like fraud and army around. Let's debate the issues...
1). How exactly is the law unpopular? Unaffordable? Unworkable?
mnjcpa posted at 8:06 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
I answered the reason why the law is unpopular, unaffordable, and unworkable so you obviously didn't pay attention to the Pepperdine study (among many), the tax and economic impact, and how the IRS is Obama's new police force.
I'm also not sure why I can't say fraud - when it's true, and I can't say army - when the IRS is. I guess that also goes with the foul shots you've thrown at Patterson.
So I'll leave this last comment to answer your questions:
1. I know what I know not from the news or internet media. Look at my moniker and decide for yourself if you’re still the expert on the tax impact of Obamacare because you’re seriously under-informed. Oh by the way, I have advanced degrees in tax and business too.
2. You don’t get it. It’s not the cost of the policy. The majority of the funding for this bill will come from Medicare that’s close to insolvent and the tax increases within the bill over the next 10 years. It's the largest tax increase in American history and it's happening right under your nose and you don't know it.
3. Turn off MSNBC – your brainwashed.
4 & 5 If you don’t understand the connection between taxes and how this bill gets funded then you’ve got some different studying to do. I don't have a problem with taxes. I have a problem with it being toyed with to solve social reform and as a results smaller numbers are paying the bill. The 1% is nonsense when nothing could be further from the truth.
Centrist posted at 8:19 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Mnjcpa, I find your last post to be conclusory and uninformative. By the way, I am a lawyer who practices in the field of health policy, so your suggestion that your position as a CPA out ranks me is laughable. In short, you are simply mocking conservative talking points and you truly do not know what you are talking about. But, you seem to be pleased as punch with your ignorance, so enjoy it.
mnjcpa posted at 10:17 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
With all due respect a lawyer in the field of health policy doesn't make you understand the numbers and tax issues anymore than a trial attorney understands marital law. Since you've drawn the conclusion that Obamacare is so great there's probably a vested outcome for you in the result going the way it's been going. I've never met a lawyer that understands numbers so if it makes you feel good to insult me to reign superior - be my guest. Way to own it. I respect your point of view but I disagree with yours.
fae4now posted at 10:22 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Welcome Centrist! It is refreshing to hear a new voice, especially one who can speak coherently. This thread between you and mnjcpa has been both entertaining and informative. Being a mere lowly administrator I can not participate in the spitting contest between you, a lawyer and a CPA but...that's never stopped me before!
mnjcpa, just one point in response to your post of 2:50pm. I think it's an important one. In fact the President is obliged by law to submit a budget and in compliance with the law has done so. You may see for yourself by visiting whitehouse.org , Office of Management and Budget. The fiscal 2013 was submitted on 2/13/12. I believe Your anger should be directed at Congress who has failed for a few years now to approve said budget.
I could be wrong but that's how I (lowly administrator, snarkiness intended) understand it.
mnjcpa posted at 10:48 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
Great point fae4now! But Obama couldn't get it past his own party. The central point is fiscal responsibility is ignored under Obama.
BTW- I appreciate your well written comments. Different points of view are interesting-not adversarial.
Slabside posted at 11:53 pm on Sun, Jul 15, 2012.
"Dale Whiting with # 3380 ! ! !"
And 3370 is 20lbs. of manure packed into 5lb bags.
wdgnas posted at 5:46 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
be careful not to hurt mnjcpa's feelings. he is very sensitive.
Centrist posted at 5:53 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Mnjcpa, again all I ask is that you offer factual based retorts and not talking points. Yes, calling the IRS an army is a talking point. Let's try it this way..."how exactly is this law unpopular"? And, i want more than, "people have protested it.". And, yes, I have a working knowledge of tax issues which I suspect meets yours. So, let's stay away from the ad homenum attacks. Show me where you are right.
mnjcpa posted at 6:59 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
I already told you....read my comments everyone of them grounded in facts. Try the Pepperdine study, AICPA, small business surveys and others. The fact that Obamacare is the largest tax increase in history - tax research reports on the impact.
It's clear you've got the policy part down but I doubt that you are all knowing about the numbers otherwise you wouldn't be so oblivious to the outcome. And you would be the first lawyer out of hundreds that I know that does. Anyone that thinks we can afford this monstrosity is deluded. To my point you kept at all the nuances of the plan when I told you I believe in 'free markets' which is a complete contrast from government intervention.
What I wanted to prevent is when you followed through on your tattle tale task with the editor, they could see that others don't agree with you. Patterson's article is spot on and I agree with him wholeheartedly. Further, I don't debate people that feel the need to insult others to get their point across. You do. Be my guest and reign superior.
mnjcpa posted at 8:16 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
A lawyer that specializes in `public policy` is a position that deals with the laws and regulations of the government.
My business benefits nothing from the opinion I have about Obamacare. Can you say the same centrist?
Or is it the way it appears that you’ve joined the ranks of tax collectors, bureaucrats, and the people with badges and guns who say that higher taxes and reduced choices make America rich?
Centrist posted at 8:33 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
mnjcpa,
Unbelievable, although I should have expected it. Not once in this back and forth have you addressed the issue head on. The best you have done is made a vague reference to "the pepperdine study, the AICPA, and small business surveys (whatever that means)". It appears you have nothin g but generalities to discuss. The fact that you have read opinion pieces and cited one likely-biased report in order to form your own belief about the cost of obamacare is of no moment. You fail to recognize that much of what you are relying upon is manufatured by people with a political agenda. Those very same people birthed the idea of a mandate but are now running from it. All I ask is that you think on your own and not follow them blindly. Well, I guess I am also asking that people like Patterson stop lying to people like you.
So, we continue:
1) Please provide me a specific citation to a respected journal, report or study supporting your assertion that: (i) the law is the "largest tax increase in history" only when you provide me with something more than your conclusion can we discuss this.
2) Here is the cite to the aipca www.aipca.org Please show me where in their official reports or papers they claim it is the largest tax increase in history. I couyld not find it.
3) I'll tell you what I find when I google pepperdine study and obamacare, I find an opinion report on the foxbusiness website. Is this your source?
4) You argue I have no understanding for the numbers, so I'll ask again. Pleaswe break down the numbers for me and advise where the issue lies. I have done so above and you have failed to respond. A vague reference to some study no one can finsd or that was engineered by those against the bill is meaningless.
5) You are great at conclusions, "Those who don't see it is unaffordable are (how did you put it) deluded. That is not evidence. That is argument (and by the way it is an insult of others in an attempt to get a point across which you spoke out against above). You do understand I can make the same argument, right. "Those who do not understand it IS affordable are deluded." There we have met in the middle on that one. Now, give me somne facts that I can check or admit you have none.
6) Instead of debating the issue you have asked that we turn this into a "free market" versus "government regulation" debate. I will bite, but I sure hope your next response answrs the original questions without generalities and vague references.
7) So, as to free market versus government regulation. Please do not tell me you believe they are mutually exclusive. I hope you can see that the extremes on either end do not work. By way of example, have you heard of asbestos? The free market dictated using the product in all insulation materials because of its ability to absorb heat. The downside was that when the finers are airborne and breatehed in, they cause cancer. For 40 years, the free market went unregulated and manufactured the product knowing it was unreasonably dangerous to human health. In fact, there are letters back and forth between the CEO of Owens Corning and Johns Manville saying words to the effect of, "Don't tell anybody or we will lose money." Only after a whistle blower and several lawsuits did the industry's bad acts become known. Then, the government regulated it to stop the bad behavior. It is undeniable that the industry would not have stopped without the regulation. Their top executives admit to same. I hope this is a convincing case for when government regulation is necessary. If not, we can talk about tobacco, lead paint, highway construction, etc. So, if we agree there need be some regulation, then we agree it is merely a question of degree. We can respectfully disagree as to the degree, but don't become dogmatic about "the so-called free market" as even the most staunch conservatives eventually concede that argument. So, do we really need to talk about this or will you concede that there are times government regulation is necessary. We do not have to agree that the healthcare crisis in America is ONE of those times, but I hope we can agree that it is only a matter of personal decision as to the degree of government regulation.
8) You have come clean about your true intention for your initial post and I thank you for that. Apparently, you felt the need to defend Patterson. Why? Shouldn't he be able to defend himself? His article is so misinformed (saying things like "questionable constiutionality" - there is nothing questionable about it, tyhat has been decided). Wouldn't you - as the reader - rather receive information that is accurate so that when you debate someone - like me - who holds a different view you are not stumbling to find accurate citations for your beliefs.
9) Finally, you keep wanting to tuern this debate into a me versus you situation when it should be about the issue. You say, "I don't debate people that feel the need to insult others to get their point across." Mnjcpa, please re-read your first post. Here is what your first sentence said, "Looks like we have another tattle tale commentator." That was you drawing first blood. You were the first to attack the author of a comment. Please own that.
Centrist posted at 9:41 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
mnjcpa,
To help kick off the discussion of facts (nuances as you call it), below is a reporting from a non-partisan source that explains few people will ever pay the penalty/tax and so there is no massive tax hike (as you suggest). According to a report from Families USA, 28.6 million Americans (most of them middle-class) will receive tax CUTS under the bill due to entering health care exchanges and receiving affordability credits:
We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion. The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines).
In addition to these tax credits and the fact that more than 30 million Americans will have new access to health insurance, Families USA (a nonpartisan non-profit group) the health care law will help create millions of jobs.
Now, in your response, please do not suggest that when these people do not pay that the bill is somehow underfunded. Remember, the sources of funds are listed above and do not include this so-called penalty/tax.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:55 am on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
I don't know about the rest of Patterson's claims, but this one is inaccurate:
"Then there’s the matter of cost. The federal government will fund the operating expenses – until 2014. It’s kind of comical, like cell phone marketers who offer six “free” months if you commit to the plan."
That's wrong. In fact, the feds will fund the expansion at 100% for three years beginning in 2014. Beginning in 2017, the funding will gradually drop to 90% by 2020, which is the level it will continue to be funded at.
Of course, that could change, but that's true of any program. And as we've seen, when funding's slashed, programs are modified. That's reality.
Patterson sets up an impossible standard -- nothing should change -- then deceives his readers with the comment I quoted.
mnjcpa posted at 12:19 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
What you haven't answered is how do you financially benefit from your position?
A `public policy` lawyer is an expertise whose sole purpose is to work with policy and the government - hardly an independent point of view. You won't answer that question because your career depends upon snowballing people in to believing this hype. Government programs NEVER produce or meet what they project - it's the problem with government intervention.
I could write a small novel in this tiny column to site the number of programs that support this conclusion. And if I felt you were actually interested I could give you plenty of data to support it. My profession considers what I shared with you substantial and it has nothing to do with politics - it has to do with facts. But then our career doesn't rest on the position we take. Such as the budget for OC is flawed from the outset because the estimates are based on tax increases and spending cuts. I have family in management with the IRS and they agree with what I've concluded.
If you've made a career out of perpetuating this nonsense that government can do a better job of this than the free markets then yeah you're right, unbelievable. But I learned a long time ago that liberals are more interested in putting people on the defensive and insulting them if they disagree than they are about learning others point of view.
Let us know how your career would look if government regulations would go away and then we'll understand your motivation. I gain nothing financially from this position - what about you?
I stand by my statement - it's the largest tax increase in American history right under people's nose.
mnjcpa posted at 12:25 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Mike I don't believe nothing should change, but the manner in which it changes is not OC. I'm completely for repeal and replace.
If the `free markets` were allowed to compete, competition would force costs down. That's the beauty of real `free markets`. And I would allow a tax deduction for ALL medical and health insurance costs. You're a student Mike and I respect your point of view. Dig a little deeper in to `free market` theories to understand the topic - anything by Murray Rothbard or the folks at Mises Academy.
Don't get down in the `weeds` with centrist on this person gets this, and that person gets that kind of nonsense. OC is an economic catastrophe that must be repealed.
228 posted at 12:43 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Nothing's changed with you Tom. Now, go back into the cave and be careful not to scrape your knuckles.
Centrist posted at 3:07 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Mnjcpa:
I was so hopeful at the beginning. By your first and second post you lead me to believe there would be substance to your opinions. Sadly, I found none.
I truly thought we could discuss each of the 13 points of the law on a point-by-point basis to see where the disagreements lie. Because, gee whiz, if you have a point to make I would like to hear it. For example, I was so looking forward to finding out if it is the uncomfortableness of a government mandate that you abhor or the infringement upon a board of directors’ free will (perhaps justified, or perhaps not). Now that would have been some amazing dialogue.
We could have discussed how the healthcare business used to be 100% fee for service until Nixon came into office and advanced the idea of HMOs. We could have discussed how from 1977 through 1997 healthcare insurance companies (the HMOs) were left largely unregulated and whether that was good policy considering the results. We could have discussed the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling establishing the validity of a healthcare insurer’s practices and policies with respect to denial of coverage. We could have discussed how since 1995 there has been a redefinition of healthcare services that now includes not only the physician-patient relationship, but also the patient-healthcare insurer; and the duties and responsibilities owed by and to each.
We could have discussed whether a board of directors owes a duty of care to not only its stockholders but also to its customers. We could have discussed how with an unregulated market, many people are unable to purchase healthcare insurance and so they turn to government subsidized programs like Medicaid. We could have discussed how the burdens upon Medicaid have grown exponentially.
We could have discussed all of this. And, we could have discussed how OC is designed to turn all of this around and instill personal responsibility for one’s own healthcare costs and how it is going to do that with an expectation of paying for itself.
In the end, however, all you offer is talking points. So, what we ended up discussing is how you just flat out don’t like taxes. You believe the OC program is too expensive. You believe Obama is waging war against Americans. You believe the IRS is his army. You believe someone (although you never really said who) committed fraud. You believe the free market reigns supreme. You believe your own version of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (by the way even A. Smith did not believe in a complete free market). You believe government does nothing right and has never done anything right. You believe there are hundreds of examples of this. You believe – because of my profession – I must be biased in this conversation. You believe all of this because you study history and investing for fun.
This is becoming boring.
I am sure you have convinced yourself that the talking points to which you cling are correct and that they are each backed up by data you read somewhere (but you just for some reason can’t get your fingers on right now). In fact, I know you WANT to believe that is the case because the opposite is horrifying. If it turns out those talking points are not true, if the so-called facts you read and the so-called experts you listened to are wrong - than it is possible you are being misled by the various media outlets from which you consume this information (and don’t tell me how it is not Fox. You do understand that almost every piece of anti-Obama, anti- Obamacare message is vetted through Fox or its affiliated concerns including the Heritage Foundation, The Drudge Report, and all other Koch brother fueled propaganda machines, right. All you have to do is collect the media excerpts from through out the day to see the script they are all reading from). And, that is a tough pill to swallow. Who wants to uncover the fact they themselves are being lied to by the ones they trust because the liers are working to get you to vote against your own self-interest. I don’t.
So, instead of discussing the actual details of the law, you call those details “nonsense”. Mnjcpa, I ask you to dig deeper. I ask you to understand that the details of the law are not nonsense. They are the very things that shall set you free.
In the end, you can continue to stand by a statement you haven’t been able to prove (highest tax increase) with the vague understanding that someone, somewhere, once should you figures that lead you to believe it. Or, you can read media pieces written by someone who holds a different opinion on this issue and see where the common ground might lie.
There was once a time when I too blindly followed the conservative arguments. It was the 1980’s and I believed everything Ronald Reagan told me and everything he stood for. That was, until that fateful day I was working at the Texas State Capitol in Austin (as a tour guide mnjcpa, not a lobbyist or anything – you can back off the biased argument for a moment) and a friend said, “You believe in Reagan’s philosophies simply because your father does. He was right. I had not investigated those philosophies with an open mind seeking to find answers greater than what my father understood.
Mnjcpa, go investigate what I have written above for yourself. Then, come back and we can have a point by point conversation instead of all of this effort by you to regurgitate the mere conclusions of others. You may be a CPA (although I did not find you on the Arizona Board of Accountacny's roles). You may know something about taxes, but you have not proven it here.
To answer your remaining – off topic – questions:
1) YES, I can say that my business DOES NOT benefit from Obamacare. While it is true I handle healthcare law and policy matters, those matters are unrelated to OC.
2) Please explain your “reduced choices” comment as it appears you have again stumped me. How does setting up exchanges that allow people to procure insurance on the “free market” instead of by opting in to the one plan chosen by their employer equate to a reduced choice?
3) I am glad your family in management at the IRS agrees with you. Mine does not.
4) I love this one, “Liberals are more interested in putting people on the defensive and insulting them if they disagree than they are about learning others point of view.” First, let me say that I am truly sorry you were once so hurt by a liberal that you now have a bad opinion of them all. Please don’t let one bad apple spoil the bunch. Second, have you ever read the definition of Liberal. Let me give that to you: “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.” So, let’s let that sit for a while............Ok. So, third, isn't what you said more directly related to the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Newsflash...they are not liberals.
5) Mnjcpa, are we ever going to discuss any of the original issues: “How OC is allegedly this unaffordable, unworkable or unpopular?” If so, let’s end the discussion of off-topic matters such as my supposed “motivation” for speaking the truth and your general disdain for taxes and government. Those things do not move the ball. If they did, all I would have to say in return is, "I like taxes and I like government regulation." See, not very convincing is it? Please don’t leave me with the belief that you merely deflected all rational debate because you did not have anything more to offer other than, “Go read the Pepperdine Study.”
Thanks.
Centrist posted at 3:29 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Mnjcpa,
So, I did it. I found the information concerning the supposed "highest tax increase" you were talking about. Here is the link:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/07/factcheckorg-is-obamacare.html
Turns out you were wrong. Yep. Turns out the OC is not even 1/4 the size of the highest tax increasee in history. Turns out the misinformation also originally came from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. Mnjcpa, you really ought to check your sources...just sayin'
mnjcpa posted at 6:19 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
Loved your novella but your comments are all over the place. Sure appreciate your life story and giving me communication instructions - didn’t realize you ran this column. Already told you I’m not interested in debating. A policy lawyer that benefits from government and regulation has a biased opinion. It would be meaningless to waste time when your livelihood depends upon how your mind has been shaped. What I will do is `comment` on what I find interesting.
Like yours my opinion was formed from experience. So I’ll explain this yet again ......OC is built on ASSUMPTIONS being UNKNOWN tax increases and spending cuts. That uncertainty blows any reasonable estimate to calculate costs. The budget has been steadily revised and it’s still not accurate. But what you don’t understand is that even a blip in interest rates will send the budgetary component of OC crashing. Economically we’re toast anyway at $16 trillion in debt and any person I talk to of depth in the financial markets gets this – sorry that you don’t.
In regards to my point that OC is the largest tax increase in history - posting a random article from a tax professor demonstrates the tax increases at a point in time. What you’re not grasping is the financial assumptions are the death nail of OC. These change continuously and taxes will escalate to support the assumptions. You don't learn this topic from an article off the internet so with all due respect, your financial naivete shows.
I have nothing against taxes – I just don’t like how it’s used to solve social issues as a political tool between the parties, both of which have been guilty of making it as convoluted as possible to grasp.
Did love your utopian view of how everyone is going to be well taken care of by OC. Unbelievable that people are that out of touch with reality. The difference between you and I is you’ve got a good liberal grudge going on for business where I believe in free markets. I love business – particularly small businesses.
So right there we’re worlds apart in our thinking. Can you possibly consider that your point of view just differs from others and that’s okay?
Centrist posted at 8:11 pm on Mon, Jul 16, 2012.
mnjcpa:
It appears we have come full circle. I am left demonstrating where this article runs afooul of the true nature and extent of the law and you are waxing poetic about generalities and dodging an in depth conversation of facts supporting opinions. Let's, however, be clear about a few things:
1) I benefit from the Obamacare law, no more or less than anyone else. Your attempt to overgeneralize my bias based on my profession is misplaced. You are a cpa. Don't you benefit from advising others as to state and federal regulation. Should we, therefore, implicate your bias. Utter nonsense.
2) You cannot ask for a conversation and then recharacterize it as a debate to avoid the conversation. You asked for this "debate" not me. But, now you shove it off and call it a waste of time. What is a waste of time - apparently - is getting you to see your view is limited by misinformation and a lack of information. Good luck with that though.
3) Apparently, you do not like building policy on ASSUMPTIONS and UNKNOWNS. Well then, apparently in your world no policy could ever be written. They are all - to some degree - relying on same. Again, as a CPA, Iam sure you have heard of the term projections. Apparently, in your world no one can make projections.
4) I leanred 1,000 times more from the internet aritcle then anything you have posted. You have supported your theories with nothing more than a personal belief about "how the financial system works". Not very valualbe to anyone other than you.
5) Of course I can cosider my point of view differs from others. I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am looking for you to show me the path to righteousness. You have refused to do so. In short, it seems aparent it is because you have only one drum to beat and it sounds something like this:
The country is in debt.
No one knows if the proposed taxes and spending cuts will suffice to pay for this program.
Government needs to get out of the way and let corporate america solve the problem.
Well, mnjcpa, that all sounds great in theory. The problem is you offer no solution only criticism. You also fail to acknowledge that history has proven time and time again that raw free market capitalism is just as fatally flawed as communism.
Along those lines, you do understand that in the field of healtcare there never has been nor will there ever be the ability for a free market. First, thereis government regluation over who can be a doctor in the first place. And, I assume you are cool with that regulation. I mean you don't want just anyone setting up shop in the operating room, right. So, if we agree that government regulation of the healthcare field is necessary, then we are back to matters of degree.
Finally, I really am saddened by this experience. Do you know I have never once commented on an article I read online. This is the first. And, I really thought we would have intelligent dicussions. But, instead, you come along and move the conversation from, "Tell me what about the law is unpopular or unworkable" to "taxes suck and so do lawyers who use government regulation for personal gain." Really disappointing.
3)
k33j88 posted at 5:56 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Anything the feds get involved in becomes a cluster-f, and the taxpayers foot the bill. An un-regulated, competitive, free market atmosphere is fertile ground for raising our standard of living. Our socialist, anti-capitalist friends cannot understand this. Maybe they should learn french, where the "evil rich" are leaving the "socialist" country in droves.
Centrist posted at 7:34 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
k33j88,
It is time to go back to 10th grade civics class and learn the difference beween socilism and regulation. Socialism = government owned, operated and controlled. Regulation = Government restricted. There is nothing about Obamacare that is socialism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The law requires the purchase of insurance from PRIVATE companies and the delivery of healthcare from PRIVATE companies. It is a shame too many americans do not know the difference. It merely shows our country's collective ignorance and nothing more.
By the way, the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system is an example of socialism. In that system the government operates the hospitals, employs the physicians and nurses, regulates the delivery of healthcare, and pays for it. You argue that "anything the feds get involved in becomes a cluster-f" but the VA system is proof of just the opposite. It is one of the best healthcare systems in the world and runs extremely efficiently. Investigate that on your own and you will see.
Finally, if you believe that no regulation - whatsoever - is the best way to live in a society because it will somehow "raise our standard of living" you are among a narrow few who do and you have a poor understanding of macro economics.
k33j88, you have a choice. You can read about the things you hold such a strong opinion about and educate yourself to the facts, or you can continue to walk in ignorance spewing uninformed hatred like your post above. Either path you choose is completely your decision, that is the great thing about this country. Me, I take the road to enlightenment. You?
mnjcpa posted at 7:40 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
SUMMARY: You don’t have to be a finance wizard to understand that when we are $16 trillion in debt, that even a tiny blip in interest rates will send us careening over an economic cliff. And then to pile ANOTHER government spending monstrosity on top of it will definitely make it tumble. There isn’t any article on the internet that will teach you that. It’s a common understanding in the financial markets for someone that has a firm grasp on economics, taxes, inflation, and interest rates. Sorry you don’t understand this information – you said you did.
I explained precisely why OC is unaffordable, I didn’t ask to debate you, taxes are okay, and you continue to come back with legal briefs stating otherwise. But to be courteous and hit your points:
1. I don’t do taxes nor benefit from my opinion. I work in the financial markets and understand how the numbers influence our economics.
2. For the third time, I never asked to debate you and don't care what you think.
3. Building something as monstrous as OC on ASSUMPTIONS means that you need to be confident you can meet those objectives. It’s a fatal flaw of OC because we can’t possibly meet the criteria.
4. Good for you that you learned something from the internet article regardless of how limited that helps you to understand the financial implications of OC.
5. Someone that is a tattle tale to the editors about someone’s opinion that’s different than their own is self-righteous - not someone that’s looking for the path to righteousness.
6. AGAIN for the umpteenth time– I never said taxes suck – I said they're used to solve utopian social issues and that's wrong.
I believe in the free markets. I don't believe government should be in our healthcare decisions - AT ALL. I told you my solution - allow the free market to compete for the business and a COMPLETE tax deduction for healthcare costs. Must have missed that while writing your novella. I spend time studying the free market economists - misesacademy is a great place to start. You’re not going to find that inviting because of all that `big business in the boardroom` nonsense that liberals find so offensive.
k33j88 sums up my feelings exactly. Let it go centrist – agree to disagree.
mnjcpa posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Just love the smug arrogance to k33j88 as if you think you've got this issue down. You're not enlightened - a better word for it is entrenched.
Centrist posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
mnjcpa:
Maybe we are finally getting somewhere, let's see:
1) You have morphed a discussion about the characteristics of Obamacare into a discussion about the federal deficit. Nice work! Doing so avoids the need to discuss how this bill actually operates and whether it has any redeeming qualities. I assume you have done so because you really don't know how the bill works. Rather, you have this AMAZING understanding of the financial markets that no one - not even I - can possibly understand. Nice, says alot about the large nest egg I have in Fidelity and Vanguard which I built over 20 years. But, we digress.
2) If you want to have a discussion about the federal deficit and how to manage it, that is for another board and another time. I started this thread to specifically address the misconceptions abnout OC. You hijacked it because you have a VALID concern for the deficit. (Hey, I think we just agreed on something). But, you can't get angry about this program merely because our contry is in debt. The country's financial problems are more complex. This program did not start them and is not expected to imapct them as negatively as you suggest. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the program will falter and cost the country billions. But, wait, I think I have seen that before. Yes, that's right, it was called Iraq. So, you see, discussing t he federal deficit means you have to recognize the bleeding is not just social expenditures of tax money. It is over-expenditure on all things. Progressives (or liberals as you call them) are concerned about the debt. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on this issue (no matter what conservative websites, tv and radio would have you believe). Progressives have offered ways to reduce the debt. Wait, I think the last President to do it was Bill Clinton - a democrat. Have you seen what Reagan and the 2 Bush's did to the federal deficit. Ouch!
3) Stop kidding yourself that you did not invite this conversation. Go back and read your first post. You said (and I quote), "Enlighten us." Come on. Let's not be disingenious about our own discussion especially when one need only scroll to the top to fact check.
4) Sorry to break it to you, but all policy is built on assumptions and projections, financial or otherwise. I think you are letting your anger about the federal deficit cloud your judgment about why and how laws are generated. This particular law was created to address a growing and difficult problem. Many debates were had. Much in the way of your "free market and tax deduction" concept was discussed. There are so many issues with that, I wouldn't know where to start. As I explained above, there is no way for healthcare to be a "free market". You see a free market is defined as an exchange at arms length where there is no undue pressure to sell or buy and no coercion on either side. In a healthcare setting, a father does not have the frreedom to decline the exercise of healthcare to his dying son after a car wreck (for example). So, there is undue influence to buy the product. Therefore, sellers of the product have an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and unfortunately they do. So, the government comes in to regulate. And, by the way, no where in the respected field of economics is a free market defined as a "no rules" market. So, this idea that government can, would or should stay out of it, is nonesense and that is the reason you will never see your version of "let the private companies duke it out" put into place. It has nothing to do with socialism or federal government run amock.
5) I hope you leanred something from the internet article I sent you. And, I have the sneaky suspicion that you did. You see, by taking a wise and appropriate review of the tax, one recognizes Rush got it wrong again.
6) Again, with the name calling. Tattle tale. Really? Really? Come on. I thought we were passed that. I guess not. So, I'll explain. I do think it is important to call out inaccurate and misleading reports such as the one above. I call it educating the masses with the hopes of bringing us back together again as a country. You call it tattle tale, I guess.
7) Also, it is not that I am speaking out against Tom's opinions that are different than mine. It is that I am addressing the inaccurate information upon which he forms those opinions. A small distinction, but an important one. Especially for those who would categorize me as "self-righteous."
8) Big business in the boardroom. Not exactly sure what you mean by that and I truly believe this is WAY off topic. But, you brought it up. So, I am curious, what is it you think I believe is nonesense about big business boardroom activity. Seriously. Because, you know what, I think you will be truly suprised at how much I not only know about it but how much I (as a proud progressive, or liberal as you call it) champion it. But, come on, you brought the topic up. Worse, you even suggested I find it to be nonsense (and you did so unprovoked). So, let me have it. What is it I don't find inviting because of all that big business in the boardroom nonsense.
Mnjcpa, are you ever going to directly answer the following questions:
How is it that Tom Patterson is correct in characterizing OC as unpopular?
How is it that Tom Patterson is correct in characterizing OC as unworkable?
How is it that Tom Patterson is correct in characterizing OC as unaffordable, other than the fact we have a federal deficit and that OC is built on economic assumptions and predictions that you have personally decided (with a little help from your conservative media) are unfounded?
Going forward I would rather limit our discussion to these 3 questions then play nanny-nanny boo boo games with you about conservative ideals vs progressive ideals. Come on mnjcpa, if you want me to "enlighten you" I need precise answers to precise questions. The devil is in the details, or as you call it, the nonsense nuances of the weeds.
mnjcpa posted at 8:57 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
I have, I did, I'm done.
Good luck.
Centrist posted at 9:13 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
As expected,
Next time you invite someone to "enlighten you" be prepared to stay on topic. And, by all means, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
On a serious note, I hope this discussion has helped you and that you will not be so close minded about social policy making in the future.
Good luck to you too.
mnjcpa posted at 9:41 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
You explained nothing about the affordability of OC other than detail about who gets what, when, and why in OC and a one off article off the internet on taxes. That does NOTHING to explain its affordability and you presume that the government never makes a mistake.
Whether you understand it or not, the national debt has everything to do with everything in this country - even OC and your limited understanding of the `free markets` is apparent.
Finally, get over yourself that you're some teacher of this concept - smug arrogance kind of gets in the way of making that happen. Getting thoughts across in a 3 inch column is difficult in itself. But if you honestly want to share your knowledge maybe pare down the legal briefs and your life history and quit insulting people like k33j88.
Centrist posted at 10:31 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
I see we are back to nanny, nanny boo-boo and no data or facts supporting a position on the topic at hand. Well, I'll bite but again at the end I'll ask you to answer the original question which is how on can defend the position that OC is unpopular or unworkable.
1) I did offer a blanket introduction to how it is affordable. I explained the anticipated costs and sources of income. Where the failure has been is in any type of detailed response from you. Your response is: We already have debt that is nightmareishly affected by interest rates, there are no guarantees that the funds will be there, and why are we relying on tax revenue especially when we are already in debt. That is a great start to a response and it explains legitimate general economic concerns but it does not counter the specifics I gave. It does not demonstrate that OC is unaffordable, only that it is uncomfortable. I wonder if you were so adamant about keeping down expenses when Bush invaded Iraq.
2) I do not presume the government does not make mistakes. On that you are mistaken. I will freely admit the government has made mistakes. See my comment about Iraq above.
3) I will agree that the national debt has an influence on the success or failure of OC. So, we are in agreement on that (Wow, thereis 2 points). What I will not concede is that the national debt is an excuse for refusing to implement OC. Rather, I see its implimentation as a tool to reduce the debt. If we are not spending billions each year on the uninsured, we are in a better financial shape.
4) My limited understanding of the free markets. Wow! Talk about insulting people. What have I said here that demonstrates a limited understanding? In truth and in fact, I bet you are actually impressed with my understanding of economics. Oh, wait, I do have a piece of paper on my wall written in latin. Yes, and I think it says somethnig about economics and Duke University. Yep, that's right.
5) Sorry about the smug arrogance. I thought that was necessary considering your condecending tone.
6) Insuling k33j88. Really? Did you read his post? He used terms like cluster-f and called hard working god fearing good americans like me socialists (a term he really misused). And, how exactly did I insult him?
Mnjcpa, here we are again. You have argued that I have not shown how the law is affordable and I have argued that you have not shown how it is not. But, you have not once defended Patterson's suggestion that the law is unworkable or that it is unpopular. Can we just agree that you are conceding those 2 points and agree that you are unable to cite specific data demonstrating the law is unaffordable (while you retain the right to argue that the national debt and the government's failed assumptions are somehow on your side)?
mnjcpa posted at 11:05 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Made my way through another legal brief...... Just respect that others opinion differs than your own and a 3 inch column isn't a method to get ideas framed correctly. I think your thinking is flawed, you think mine and Patterson's are. Your not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.
Life goes on. Good luck.
Centrist posted at 11:53 am on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
You see, I wish it were that simple...But, you need to recall the entire reason we embarked on this mission. I said the information and data supporting Patterson's (and apparently your) opinions was inaccurate. Therefore, I we are NOT merely discussing differing opinions but rather the adequacy of the supporting data. If this were a mere battle of opinions, it would have been a foolish endevor because (despite what you believe) I very much respect a differing of opinion (remeber, that is what defines me as liberal). What I will not tolerate are uneducated and misinformed opinions masquerading as fact. Patterson (and now, unfortunately, you) offer very little (besides the obvious) to support your opinoins. The national debt is a major concern, but it is not THE reason to deny our country obamacare. The issue is much more complex. That is the first point I was asking you and Patterson to acknowledge. The next would be that there is nothing in the law itself that is so objectionable. That is where I asked you to be specific. If there is something that for policy reasons or otherwise should not be in the law, please do tell. Of course, you couldn't or you didn't. You just kept clinging to Rush's misinformed assertion that it is the highest tax hike at a time when tax hikes are intolerable. Thank goodness Rush does not write our country's policies.
Mnjcpa, you must not read many legal briefs because these small entries are 30-40 times shorter than those I draft. They also contain much more complicated terms such as "superceeding intervening causation" or "notwithstanding the concurrent acts of negligence." So, you should know you are getting off light.
In conclusion, it is sad (but anticipated) that you would end our conversation by claiming we reached a stalemate. In truth, we did not. Of course you think my reasoning is flawed and I think your reasoning is flawed. That concept, however, begs the question. Can you establish that mine is flawed, NO. Can I establish that yours is flawed, YES (to the extent you let me by revealing what your reasoning is, but you very cleverly hide your detailed reasoning under blanket statements of "national debt" "interest rates" "taxes". To each of those, I say "So?" You gotta give me more because there are only 2 gurantees in life my firend: death and taxes and Obamacare attacks each with precision.
Life does go on...for the insured.
Good luck.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:50 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
SOCIALIZED HEALTCARE DOESN'T WORK IN CANADA OR ENGLAND. IN THE NORWAY, SWEDEN, DENMARK THE CITIZENS PAY 50% OF THEIR GROSS INCOME TO TAXES.
IF YOU WANT THE UNITED STATES TO BECOME ANOTHER CUBA OR VENENZUELA.............THEY VOTE DEMOCRAT.
IF YOU WANT THE UNITED STATES TO STAY A CAPITALIST, PATRIOT NATION.....THEN VOTE REPUBLICAN.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE "GUTS" TO MAKE A DECISION...THEN VOTE INDEPENDENT OR GREEN OR WHATEVER FLAKY POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ON THE BALLOT.
Cerulean posted at 3:51 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Centrist said to mnjcpa, “ Progressives have offered ways to reduce the debt. Wait, I think the last President to do it was Bill Clinton - a democrat.”
President Obama offered a compromise that would have reduced the deficit by 4 trillion over ten years. House speaker Boehner was in negotiations but the tea party Know Nothings refused to acquiesce.
President Obama tried, I will say again, to reduce the deficit by 4 trillion over ten years but the tea party Know Nothings in the House would not agree. The tea party Know Nothings are intolerable obstructionists.
Centrist posted at 3:52 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Leon,
Obamacare does not equal socialized medicine. Moreover, Obamacare is nothing like the health care systems in place in any of the countries you mention. How much do you understand about their systems? How much do you understand about Obamacare? The british system is a single payor system whereby the government actually provides the facilities, the care, and the insurance. The residents pay into the system and get a base-line level of care in return. By the way, they are always free to pay more for more care. They needn't take the base-line care offered. Here, under Obamacare, we would each contniue to buy PRIVATE healthcare insurance (not a government sponsored plan), we would continue to go to PRIVATE hospitals, and pay PRIVATE providers. Moreover, you are now mandated to buy coverage from one of these PRIVATE companies. Therefore, there would be just as much - if not more - competition in the marketplace. Very much UNLIKE the systems in place in the countries you list.
Also, I doubt any of the republican values and platforms meet your needs. Do you earn over $250,000 per year. Don't tell me the conservative talking points have actually convinced you to vote AGAINST your own self-interest. I truly hope that is not the case.
Good luck!
Centrist posted at 4:11 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Tell it Cerulean. Tell it, on the mountain....Just tell it.
mnjcpa posted at 5:28 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Terrific article on why it's not affordable, unpopular, and unworkable.
http://mises.org/daily/6099/Government-Medical-Insurance
Centrist posted at 7:11 pm on Tue, Jul 17, 2012.
Well mnjcpa, it looks like we have finally done it. We have finally gotten there. We are apparently done with all of your name calling and superficial discussion of the national deficet. Bravo! But, ofcourse, you had to quote someone else's work (not your own words) and a known anarchist at that. Never-the-matter. We can discuss old Rothbard if you would like. But, of course, remember how well quoting him worked for old Ron Paul a few months back. Ouch!
At any rate, we first need to recognize that Rothbard's conclusion is that healthcare insurance (government sponsored or otherwise) artifically boosts demand and artifically restricts supply. He supports his first premise with the belief that "neither the government nor Blue Cross pay a fixed sum to the provider but rather are forced to pay whatever the provider demands." In Rothbard's estimation this means the suppliers are literally creating their own demand and that they have an endless stream of payments coming from a third party. However, Rothbard's theories are not supported by practice or convention. Intruth, the health care insurance companies are so big (by most estimations they took over control of the health care process - by revenue - in or about 1992). It is and has been for about 20 years the insurance companies setting the price for services. Have you ever looked at an EoB (Explanation of Benefits). What that says is something like,"Hey, your doctor charged $500, we paid him $200. If he wants more of our clients' business he won't be coming after you for the balance." So, in truth, it is the providers who are forced to secume to the insurance carriers prices and not the other way around as Rothbard proposes. In fact, I have physicians in my office all the time complaining about the insurance carriers reduced charges and slow pay. And, as such, there is no "artifically inflated demand curve" as Rothbard would have you believe.
Next, he suggests that "medical care"is such a vague term that buyers are influenced to seek the benefits of their policy more frequently than they need because, heck, they ain't paying for it. Again, as it turns out, he is wrong. Medical care is easily defined. The difficulty in modern medicine is defining "reasonable and necessary care." Which, as it turns out means the buyers are constantly battling for their coverage, not enjoying it with reckless abandon as Rothbard postulates. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Heck I just felt like going in to the hospital for my heart surgery today because I know I don't need it but my health insurance carrier is going to pick up the tab anyway." Right. It does not happen. As such, there is no artifical supply.
Before we go on and finish with Rothbard, it dawned on me that you should be reminded that his editorial does not address the unpopular nature of obamacare or its supposed unworkable nature. And, I assume your reference was intended to show that the law is somehow unaffordable. But, inreality, it does not do that either. Rothbard was discussing the difference between fee for service and health care insurance. I am actually a huge fan of fee-for-service. But, that is another topic and so I was not going to go there.
In the end, what we find about Rothbard's claims is that they are inherently reductionist and overly simplistic. Rothbard died in 1995. He was not alive to see the current healthcare crisis. Even if he were, I doubt his writings would have changed. Many other well respected economists (including one William Buckley) dismiss him as a misguided fool. This is definitely apparent in the "sky is falling, the sky is falling" desperation he throws out at the end of this essay. Something about how the US will become like the soviet union. Yeah, that really isn't my worry. If it is yours, then I feel sorry for your unwarranted level of anxiety.
So, mnjcpa, next time go out into the world wide web and find me a liberterian piece on the unpopular nature of the law and we can work on that one. Thanks.
mnjcpa posted at 6:48 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
I post what I find interesting, not what you direct me to write.
Mises Academy is one of them and I follow their information along with Tom Woods, Wall Street Journal, and Paul's ability to have his message heard has much more to do with the political machines of both parties, not his ideas.
You must have missed the note that I don't care what you think. I didn't post the article to set you off in another long narrative, of which again, I don't care what you think. So I'll assume that since I've repeated that you're practicing that good liberal way of stalking people that disagree and harassing them for their beliefs.
Centrist posted at 7:06 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
mnjcpa,
You do understand that by saying 3 times, "I don't care what you think" you are not helping your argument that somehow you arethe tolerant one.
And, of course you wanted me (and others) to read it, that's why you posted it. And you had to know that once you did, I would comment. Let's not be disingenous here.
Stalking, no. That requires me making the initial contact. So, responding, yes. Just fixing your syntax there for ya.
mnjcpa posted at 8:35 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
A reply 18 minutes after mine first thing in the morning is stalking in my world.
This is really much simpler than you make it. Our ideology is starkly different.
Your profession depends on bigger regulations, so it’s no surprise that you feel the way you do and I respect that. But my work isn't in government and regulations - it's with small businesses. I talk to these people every day across America and I can tell you centrist they don't feel the way you do. They are scared to death of the people in the WH right now and I don't blame them.
For me, I like to keep things simple:
1. The original budget for Obamacare was $900 billion. The CBO estimates it to now exceed $2.6 trillion. We don’t even know what the state exchanges will cost as Patterson points out.
2. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is the highest it’s been since WW2.
3. I believe ALL government projects become wasteful boondoggles. You point out VA – but I will use that stalwart of government programs Medicare as an example. The actuaries report that it is expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as 2011's estimate. What is misleading is that tax increases and spending cuts were counted towards the ability for Medicare to remain solvent, otherwise it’s due to be bankrupt in 2016. Many financial analysts are predicting it will be sooner than that.
4. We are perilously close to an economic cliff and it factors considerably into the discussion. Bernanke’s announcement yesterday confirms what I’ve been predicting in this column for months.
That’s all I need to know to reject the notion that OC will be run well and I why I want it repealed. Disagree with me if you want but save your novellas for someone else.
Folks another great book on the economy is by Peter Schiff - The Real Crash & How An Economy Crashes.
Centrist posted at 9:35 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
You are correct, our ideaology is starkly different and that does cause us to come at the issue from different directions but it does not automatically make either of us correct. Remember, my focus is on ensuring opinions (or ideaology as you put it) is backed by sound and valid information and data.
As a cpa advising small businesses, on what exactly are you advising them? Wouldn't that be financial policy and process? Wouldn't that necesarily involve state and federal regulations? Don't shy away from your connection to the process as well. But, I do believe that even though our professions depend on regulation (come on now, yours does too) we can have personal opinions not unduely tainted by that.
By the way, not everone is scared to death of the people in the WH. However, I certainly was when that person was Bush.
Keeping it simple:
1. The budget may very well be unknown, that is not uncommon. It also does not make it unaffordable. It is a valid concern however. Point noted.
2. To compare federal spending to a percentage of gdp is like taking a photo of a moment in time and has very little bearing on direction. What you need to do is film a video and, since Obama has been president federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in 60 years. In truth, he is not growing government anywhere near what other republicans did.
3. Sorry you have such a low opinion of government. In my opinion, it could be based upon misinformation. Of course, I whole heartedly admit that is my opinion as I have no way of knowing all sources from which you have drawn information over the years. However, you should look into the VA and Medicare a little further. You may be interested to learn that Medicare operations are only 4% of their budget and Medicare is NOT going bankrupt.
Although Medicare faces major financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances. In fact, Medicare’s financing challenges would be significantly greater without Obamacare which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Therefore, repealing Obamacare would make Medicare’s financial situation much worse.
4. Schiff, on him we agree. I agree with 95% of what he says. See, there is a reason my moniker is "Centrist" even if you want to paint me as a one-sided liberal.
Also, I am sorry you are disturbed by my punctuality. I'll try to wait 19 minutes from now on. Also, so you know and so it is clear that you have defamed me by claiming that I committed a crime when I did not, the definition of stalking in Arizona is as follows:
A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either:
Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person's safety or the safety of that person's immediate family member and that person in fact fears for their safety or the safety of that person's immediate family member. OR
Would cause a reasonable person to fear death of that person or that person's immediate family member and that person in fact fears death of that person or that person's immediate family member.
mnjcpa posted at 10:16 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
In my experience I've never been able to reason with a liberal. It's a sucker bet because the discussion becomes ridiculous. And when you add that you personally benefit from increased government regulation will surely have your position.
I disagree about your conclusion on Medicare, but you’ve missed the point. I’m building the case that OC is unaffordable. Medicare’s initial design was well-intentioned. But as is typical in government programs once it starts, then another regulation comes along to fix what's wrong, and then the next thing you know the original budget design is long forgotten. The simple recap was to demonstrate the `unaffordable` part of the argument. From where I sit the government is a sponge with a police force, never working better than a private sector business model.
"Unpopularity" in my mind was based on poll numbers. Polls have consistently shown that American people disfavor the program and still don't want it. I talk to thousands of business owners every year and I can share they emphatically disagree with you. And that was before Obama went off teleprompter Friday and let people know how he really feels about capitalism.
"Unworkable" just means that it's built on a faulty premise. The entire health insurance system will be administered according to government rules about who gets what, etc., etc., just like a government program with rationing the only brake on demand. Yet it will be administered by insurance companies who will take their normal admin fee. It's the worst of both worlds and as I’ve pointed out will lead to higher demand for scarcer services, with the usual effects on quality and access.
Yeah the media did a swell job on the smear job on Bush. I thought he was a decent man with morals and character something serious lacking in the Obama administration.
So you see, from the get go our ideology is radically different.
Centrist posted at 11:33 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
My experience has been when arguing with a so-called conservative (either a republican or libreterian) one gets personally attacked instead of discussing the issue. It is primarily because the conservative only has superficial ideaology on his side, not the pesky facts. To me, this was proven true by you until your last 3 posts which actually started to address the issue at hand.
You can disagree with my conclusion about Medicare but you can't deny it is anchored in fact. The 2012 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2024; at that point, the payroll taxes and other revenue deposited in the trust fund will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.
You are building a case that Obamacare is unafforable. And, you have made some small points. But, one should be careful not to overstate them.
Similarly, don't rely on polls. There is no way a poll on national policy making has a large enough sample size or enough of a control to rule out bias in the polling sample. That is what Fox News does not understand. Wait, they totally understand it. That is, in fact, what they rely on. (By the way, I know you don't watch Fox, just sayin'.)
The fact that you are quoting conservative talking points, such as being "off teleprompter" is just plain scary.
Sadly, I am afraid all of this will have to come to an end. My wife has told me that this is unfair and I should just stop. I tell her that I am just helping mnjcpa see that his opinions, as tightly as they may be held, need to have a basis in fact not just propoganda or iedals and that by speaking with someone in the industry he can achieve that (I assume you are a male because females would typically not have engaged so fiercely). She tells me that while my belief may be true, it is a no win situation because mnjcpa formed his opinions with propoganda and without the industry's facts and that he is too pot committed to reverse course now. She (a psychologist) tells me that when placed in a situation such as this the underinformed but passionately committed will just continue to deflect and insist they are right. It takes months of therapy to break through a world view built on uniformed bias. So, she has asked me to stop. If there is 1 thing I do, it is listen to my wife. So, sadly, I am done here.
Please understand that if you continue to post, I will not respond. Please also understand that my lack of response is not to be construe as acquience to anything posted perviously by you or anything you may subsequently post. Rather, I have moved on.
We may see each other somewhere else on this site. If so, I hope you will bring your libriterian views and we can re-engage.
I M. Fletcher.
mnjcpa posted at 12:02 pm on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
To my point precisely that liberals have a world view that's impossible to debate - with smug arrogance and conceit. Good luck.
k33j88 posted at 7:51 am on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
Good morning Centerist. Please accept my apologies for not responding sooner. You see, I'm one of those "taxpayers" that has a very limited, open window, to address those of alternate views. Let me be clear----dissent protects democracy---. This patriot doesn't subscribe to your rhetoric, but will defend it to the death your right to say it However, this taxpayer, not a tax user, will not resort to the "liberal', "progressive" playbook that you, sir, hold so very dear to your heart. Victim card, race card, personal attacks-------you folks are so predictable. Long live the "Tea Party".
mnjcpa posted at 11:16 am on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
Great job k33j88 - I don't know why I let this liberal arrogant snob push my buttons. They're so predictable.
My last post at 10:16 am really sums it up. His `facts` on medicare can be countered by what the medicare actuaries report. And the thousands of business owners I talk to annually mean nothing to him. But everyone should pay attention to point #3 - because if sums up why OC must be repealed.
MrBrightside posted at 2:59 am on Tue, Aug 7, 2012.
He lost me at Government sanctioned cartels. The insurance companies/hospitals/pharmaceuticals are already over charging for everything. Healthcare prices can be reduced. The Affordable Care Act will only cover the people who are truly in poverty. I don't understand why there are so many whiney people in Phx, you guys have a good economy still. Wait til you look like California/Michigan.
MrBrightside posted at 4:03 am on Tue, Aug 7, 2012.
I just read all the comments lol. Amazing. mnjcpa, How do you even leave a comment like that at the end? Centrist just owned you in every way possible. You provided nothing.
It's not socialism or a government out to get you. They aren't taking over Health Insurance companies...Makes no sense that anyone can say that.
Alot of health issues arise with people and alot of people are not insured. I would be $140,000 in debt if the hospital I stayed at in Michigan didn't have a charity program to cover all my bills. I'm lucky to be alive..
Also, the VA is a straight up social program and it runs pretty good imo. I've seen my Dad and his friend go through it and it was a way better hospital than the one I went to.
Cas Lee posted at 7:57 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee
mxsfen posted at 7:18 pm on Mon, Nov 12, 2012.
Oakland Raiders Jersey is your best choice
Carson Palmer Jersey is your best choice
Darren McFadden Jersey is your best choice
Philadelphia Eagles Jersey is your best choice
Michael Vick Jersey is your best choice
LeSean McCoy Jersey is your best choice
DeSean Jackson Jersey is your best choice
Nnamdi Asomugha Jersey is your best choice
Pittsburgh Steelers Jersey is your best choice
Troy Polamalu Jersey is your best choice
Mike Wallace Jersey is your best choice
Antonio Brown Jersey is your best choice
Ben Roethlisberger Jersey is your best choice
Heath Miller Jersey is your best choice
James Harrison Jersey is your best choice
San Diego Chargers Jersey is your best choice
Philip Rivers Jersey is your best choice
Antonio Gates Jersey is your best choice
San Francisco 49ers Jersey is your best choice
Patrick Willis Jersey is your best choice
Randy Moss Jersey is your best choice
Alex Smith Jersey is your best choice
Anthony Davis Jersey is your best choice
Frank Gore Jersey is your best choice
Vernon Davis Jersey is your best choice
Seattle Seahawks Jersey is your best choice
Marshawn Lynch Jersey is your best choice
St. Louis Rams Jersey is your best choice
Sam Bradford Jersey is your best choice
Steven Jackson Jersey is your best choice
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jersey is your best choice
Josh Freeman Jersey is your best choice
Tennessee Titans Jersey is your best choice
Jake Locker Jersey is your best choice
Chris Johnson Jersey is your best choice
Washington Redskins Jersey is your best choice
Robert Griffin III Jersey is your best choice
Ryan Kerrigan Jersey is your best choice