GatewayRedbirds.com

planet p wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... projected/

Forbes wrote:According to a New York Times report out Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office has quietly removed hundreds of billions of dollars from the projected costs of Obamacare, primarily the result of an anticipated decrease in the federal government’s contribution to the Medicaid expansion program along with the projected cost of the subsidy payments to those buying private insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges.

That's not exactly good news.

Arthur Dent wrote:

planet p wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... projected/

Forbes wrote:According to a New York Times report out Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office has quietly removed hundreds of billions of dollars from the projected costs of Obamacare, primarily the result of an anticipated decrease in the federal government’s contribution to the Medicaid expansion program along with the projected cost of the subsidy payments to those buying private insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges.

That's not exactly good news.

It also said according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 75% of the decrease in spending is due to the sluggish economy (which you'd think would cause more people to be eligible for subsidies) and 25% is due to cost cutting measures within the ACA (i.e. rewarding for quality v. quantity of care, more cost conscientious health care choices, etc.).

Two-Thirds Oppose Any ObamaCare Insurer Bailout http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... ailout.htm

I know ibd leans right and I didnt read the entire thing...but s this accurate? Is the govt really guaranteeing insurance companies they wont lose money? That's. That's something I never imagined.

The first several years that's the case. its how they got the insurance companies on board. Similar to the Medicare funding to the states. Of course most of the red states were idiots and turned down the free money. I guess leaving many of your poorest to take on more financial burdens is worth the price to stick it to the communist president.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:The first several years that's the case. its how they got the insurance companies on board. Similar to the Medicare funding to the states. Of course most of the red states were idiots and turned down the free money. I guess leaving many of your poorest to take on more financial burdens is worth the price to stick it to the communist president.

So....you have to be the most socialstic person here ideology wise, no? And a comment ab the federal government guaranteeing a profit for big business makes you go off on ... not enough big business getting in om it?

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:The first several years that's the case. its how they got the insurance companies on board. Similar to the Medicare funding to the states. Of course most of the red states were idiots and turned down the free money. I guess leaving many of your poorest to take on more financial burdens is worth the price to stick it to the communist president.

So....you have to be the most socialstic person here ideology wise, no? And a comment ab the federal government guaranteeing a profit for big business makes you go off on ... not enough big business getting in om it?

haha. No - just being realistic. You think they were going to get anything past both houses of congress without the insurance companies in on it? fuggetaboutit. I certainly want a one-payer system. But I'll take a step in that direction however flawed it might be.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Two-Thirds Oppose Any ObamaCare Insurer Bailout http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... ailout.htm

I know ibd leans right and I didnt read the entire thing...but s this accurate? Is the govt really guaranteeing insurance companies they wont lose money? That's. That's something I never imagined.

I know its real easy to spend other people's money and all that...but the article says "the bailout could reach half a billion dollars in the first year"...and the law only has the "bailout" provision for the first 3 years. When we are overspending on health care by like half a trillion dollars, this seems small.

Also some perspective: we used over a quarter billion dollars worth of munitions in 9 days when we intervened in Libya.

pioneer98 wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Two-Thirds Oppose Any ObamaCare Insurer Bailout http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... ailout.htm

I know ibd leans right and I didnt read the entire thing...but s this accurate? Is the govt really guaranteeing insurance companies they wont lose money? That's. That's something I never imagined.

I know its real easy to spend other people's money and all that...but the article says "the bailout could reach half a billion dollars in the first year"...and the law only has the "bailout" provision for the first 3 years. When we are overspending on health care by like half a trillion dollars, this seems small.

Also some perspective: we used over a quarter billion dollars worth of munitions in 9 days when we intervened in Libya.

but but but war is good. We gotta defend ourself from African nations with 1950s technology.

IMADreamer wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Two-Thirds Oppose Any ObamaCare Insurer Bailout http://news.investors.com/politics-obam ... ailout.htm

I know ibd leans right and I didnt read the entire thing...but s this accurate? Is the govt really guaranteeing insurance companies they wont lose money? That's. That's something I never imagined.

I know its real easy to spend other people's money and all that...but the article says "the bailout could reach half a billion dollars in the first year"...and the law only has the "bailout" provision for the first 3 years. When we are overspending on health care by like half a trillion dollars, this seems small.

Also some perspective: we used over a quarter billion dollars worth of munitions in 9 days when we intervened in Libya.

but but but war is good. We gotta defend ourself from African nations with 1950s technology.

The fact you all are defending it by comparing it to the cost of how much we're spending on the military just shows how wrong it is, even if it is a drop in the bucket.

It's wrong. Period. I don't know how anyone can defend it. It's representative of everything that is wrong with the entire system. Politicians and lobbyists/big business scratching each other's backs.