I noticed Back left out black people, or should I say Grand Dragon Back.
Printable View
I noticed Back left out black people, or should I say Grand Dragon Back.
I thought of an interesting parallel that I am absolutely sure you will not find comparable: don't we all pay the same for the police force, even though certain demographics are disproportionately targeted for crime and therefore get disproportional benefit for that equal pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
While social equality is a moral thing to support, this does not imply that people who support social equality do not support anything immoral, especially when that anything is completely unrelated to social equality, as drones are.Quote:
"Social Equality" really means jack shit.
The Moral thing to do, is very rarely the right thing to do for a Government.
Hell, it wouldn't be MORAL at all to use drones to kill people. So they wouldn't do that, right?
Well, at it's simplest explanation, the ACA will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next decade, and is paid for by 500 billion in cuts elsewhere (~40% from Medicaid and Medicare Advantage) and about 400 billion in new taxes. I'd say that's a pretty logical argument that someone will be hurt more than they are helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Not according to the Congressional Budget Office which states it should reduce the deficit by $210 billion. In fact they also state that defunding it would increase the deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Quote:
7. How much is the ACA expected to cost, and how is it funded?
The Affordable Care Act includes a number of coverage and other provisions that will require more government spending, but these costs are offset by other ACA provisions that will either bring new revenue into the government, or decrease current spending. In total, the ACA is expected to reduce budget deficits by $210 billion over 2012-2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates in February 2011. This includes $1,390 billion in gross costs related to the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions, offset by $349 billion in coverage-related revenues and savings (including minimum coverage provision penalty payments), and $1,252 billion in other revenues and savings.
The Supreme Court decision may impact the cost and coverage impacts of the ACA. As of July 2012, the CBO estimates that the ACA’s coverage provisions will cost $1,168 billion over 2012-22. This is $84 billion lower than CBO estimated in March 2012, and the lower cost is due to the Supreme Court’s June 2012 decision that limited the federal government’s ability to enforce the Medicaid expansion. CBO estimates that due to the Court’s decision, there will be less government spending on Medicaid, and even though there will be more government spending on exchange subsidies for people who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid, there will be an overall decrease in spending. It’s important to remember that this decrease in spending is because more people will lack coverage; and these numbers don’t account for the costs of uncompensated care.
Although in its July 2012 numbers, the CBO did not update its projection of the ACA’s overall reduction of the budget deficit, it did update a previous estimate of the potential cost of repealing the ACA. CBO now estimates that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion. For more information, see the resources listed below. (FAQ top)
LOLOLOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
LOLOLOLOLOL
It is pretty funny, isn't it? We're just not laughing at the same things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Serious question - you're over 30 years old right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
You do know that politicians select their constituents and then tell them what they want to hear over and over again to ensure their re-election.
Democrats appear to have 'social equality issues more to heart' in the exact proportion required for their re-election - no more, no less.
Just as Republicans are for smaller government in the exact proportion required for their re-election.
People under the age of 30 can be forgiven for not realizing this central truth of American politics. People over 30, not so much.
(I've posted before but just as a reminder - I spent three long years with our lobbyist as my direct report. My cynicism is well earned.)
long day, I should go to sleep.
I think it's fair to say the Democrats have walked the walk on social equality dramatically more than Republicans have on small government. I would criticize the Democrats more for hypocritical warmongering and infringing civil liberties, if I felt the need to levy such criticisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valthissa
Very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
One of us knows complete bullshit when he reads it.. and then there's you and Backlash carrying the water because you are both too stupid or too ignorant to realize you are being played.
Look back in history what the costs of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc were "supposed" to be after they were first introduced. Then look at what they actually were and are now.
The only way the Affordable Care Act is going to save money is if is manipulated in a way to make gullible people believe they are saving money.
And obviously, there are plenty of gullible people out there.
Faced by numbers, you turn, as usual, to assertive disbelief and ad hominem attacks. You are a sad, angry, unpleasant man.