Here is an interesting Op Ed by a Liberal. I say Liberal since he supports fixing SS by making the wealthy pay more, while giving them no additional benefits. What I equate to making SS and Medicare more like Welfare and Medicaid than they already are.
CNN Why is GOP going after Social Security?
It was interesting that he noted that apparently the SS Retirement Trust Fund has been robbed several times to put more money in the SS Disability Trust Fund. And he thinks it will happen again when the SS Disability Trust Fund hits $0 in 2016.
He also acknowledges that SS Retirement benfits in 2033 will likely be 77% of what they are today if we don't do something to fix the structural problem. It is interesting that both the citizens and politicians choose to ignore this pending problem. Maybe they think if they close their eyes and think positve thoughts, the problem will magically get resolved. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
On whom should we place the burden of keeping our promises? How should this burden be distributed? Should we place it on the wealthy? That certainly seems unfair; they won't get any extra benefit from it, assuming they remain undisabled. Maybe we should place it on the poor. But that seems unfair too, since they won't get any benefit from it, assuming they remain disabled. Maybe we should break our promise altogether since none of us seem to benefit from the help we provide to the disable. Let's just lock them away.
==Hiram
We seem to have a problem. We are going without things we need because we can't find a politically acceptable way of paying for them. Take roads and bridges. Everyone seems to think roads and bridges are good things to have. But they aren't free, someone has to pay for them. Let's consider the logic at play here. Rich people shouldn't have to pay for roads and bridges because they get no special benefit from them. And of course, poor people shouldn't have to pay for roads and bridges because they don't get any special benefit from them. So the result is things we need don't get built, because there is no one to pay for them.
Isn't there something wrong here?
--Hiram
I say place the burden on the people who made the promises, the politicians. One might presume that the ability to do simple math would be a prerequisite for high office, but one would presume incorrectly.
The big problem is the huge number of people who seem to think that government hands out free stuff, when they should understand the TANSTAAFL principle. The problem with government spending is that it replaces individuals' choices as to what is most desirable with politically-driven choices by a few politicians with no interest in what is desirable on an objective or practical or moral basis.
I say place the burden on the people who made the promises, the politicians.
Not those who elected them? But sure, guys like Mitt Romney have lots of bucks. Let's take it all away from them.
"The big problem is the huge number of people who seem to think that government hands out free stuff, when they should understand the TANSTAAFL principle."
It's Republicans, these days, who seem to be claiming that we can fix our roads for free.
--Hiram
I have no problem with SS Retirement, SS Medicare or SS Disability, though I think some people are on SS Disability who should not be.
And that I think we should bring the "premiums" paid and the "benefits" expected into alignment. If you want to distribute more "benefits" than the program can afford, raise the payroll taxes on everyone. I mean they are part of the risk pool.
"And that I think we should bring the "premiums" paid and the "benefits" expected into alignment."
The choice that was made back in 1983 with respect to Social Security was to build up a surplus in the early years to be paid back in later years. Over the long term, this balances out. Does this constitute an "alignment" in your view? Should they have made a different policy choice back in 1983, to adopt a strict pay as you go approach? If they had done that back in 1983, would we better or worse off now?
--Hiram
Hiram,
They did not set the premiums high enough to afford the planned payout. That is why the SS Disability trust fund balance goes to $0 next year. And the SS Retirement and Medicare funds follow suit in less than 18 years.
And as the author notes, pay as you go once the trust funds are empty is not an option without big changes. The funds coming in are significantly less than the funds being dispersed..
"They did not set the premiums high enough to afford the planned payout."
It's not a question of what we can "afford". We can afford to pay our debts. The question is, as a matter of policy, whether we should.
And as the author notes, pay as you go once the trust funds are empty is not an option without big changes.
Is it? We have been overpaying SS for decades. Will that change once the trust fund is exhausted?
--Hiram
Who again is the "we" who can afford to pay "our" debts? The Liberals like the author seem to think the "wealthy" should pay the government's obligation. Even though the government can legally reduce that obligation at anytime.
I am assuming those receiving SS benefits will not be happy to see their benefits cut by ~30%. I won't be happy, however it will not affect my quality of life.
Who again is the "we" who can afford to pay "our" debts?
the people who elected the politicians who made the promises. That's what happens in a Republic, some make promises that bind us all.
--Hiram
I won't be happy, however it will not affect my quality of life.
that's because you have already received the benefit of the bargain Ronald Reagan made on your behalf in 1983.
--Hiram
Would we be better off now, if Ronald Reagan had made a different bargain in 1983, to fully fund Social Security on a yearly basis?
--Hiram
So I agree. The payroll taxes should be raised on all of us, not just those making a higher income.
No. It is because I was born into a family who valued education, hard work, saving and investing. And I made a choice to sanction and adopt those values. Also, I was somewhat lucky in being relatively healthy so far.
If the payroll tax rate was a couple of percent higher, the result would have been similar.
Everybody seems to have bought into the MYTH that there is some sort of SS "trust fund" that will make this Ponzi scheme last a few more years. The fact is that TODAY, SS has more outgo than income, and the only way this is sustained is by Congress redeeming some of the IOUs they've given to the SSA over the years. That means they raise the deficit, take the money from somewhere else in the budget (which they'll never do), raise taxes (putting off the inevitable), or cut benefits (also inevitable). There are no other options so long as government [mis]manages the program.
Of course there are trust funds. Just like there are different accounts within companies. The deficit is not increased to pay out benefits, it is increased because bonds are being redeemed for cash.
It is true that the macro result is the same, but the difference is important. For now, recipients are still receiving benefits from money that was collected and ear marked for these purposes.
You're going to have to explain that one to me, because I see a distinction without a difference. The bonds are redeemed so that benefits can be paid, and that adds to the deficit because the money to redeem those bonds has to come out of the already-red-inked general budget.
So let's see...
Let's say that Bob is very good and responsible at saving and investing, and over the years he builds up a bit of a nest egg. However he also has an obsession with nice homes, cars, etc and is willing to take on debt to get them. Finally his excessive spending catches up with him and he is forced to start selling off his investments.
Though Bob's spending was out of control, would that be proof that his willingness to save and invest was a bad thing?
The government did something very good, they forced people to save money and buy insurance that many citizens would not have. They then invested the funds in a very safe investment.
This has allowed hundreds of millions of people to obtain dependent /survivor benefits, disability, retirement, medicare and other benefits. Many of these citizens would have ended up on welfare or medicaid in their old age. Which is truly wealth transfer from rich to poor.
Instead people of all income levels helped to fund these programs. That is why I am against making some pay more for the same benefit. That would be changing these earned benifits into welfare.
The interesting point is that if the payroll tax rate had been maybe a couple of percentage points higher or the benefits slightly lower since the 1980's, the funds may not be in jeopardy.
Instead we have just let the distributions exceed the incoming premiums. And the longer we wait, the worse it gets.
The fact is that TODAY, SS has more outgo than income, and the only way this is sustained is by Congress redeeming some of the IOUs they've given to the SSA over the years.
When did bonds become IOU's? How are they different from each other?
--Hiram
"When did bonds become IOU's? How are they different from each other?"
Good questions, and simple answers. Those trust fund bonds became IOUs the moment they were created, because they represent only the promise of government to repay itself-- a simple bookkeeping entry that can be erased at will. Corporate bonds are actually a claim against assets, and if the SS treasury bonds were held by private citizens, they would have all the value of other US bonds.
"The government did something very good, they forced people to save money and buy insurance that many citizens would not have."
And that justifies forcing the responsible citizen to buy into a lousy investment and terrible insurance? It's still a transfer of the obligations of the irresponsible to the responsible. At least welfare is a more transparent theft. SS is a con.
Actually my very Conservative father did a calculation to find that the return on SS money was ok. (ie compared to low risk investments)
And I challenge you to find better long term care / survivor care / medical insurance with lower premiums. That is why the system is depleting it's trust fund.
. Those trust fund bonds became IOUs the moment they were created, because they represent only the promise of government to repay itself-
Can you point to any evidence of that? Can you explain why a promise of the government to pay itself is any different from any other? When a bond is sold and the proceeds are used to pay a Social Security recipient, is that Social Security recipient a part of government?
--Hiram
In your world it seems the US Government is a simplistic singular entity. In the real world it is a massive complex entity... Kind of like the largest corporation in the world.
Of course, cash flows between accounts and departments.
Kind of like the largest corporation in the world.
How does government resemble a corporation? Does it have shareholders? Are the members of the public, it's shareholders? Should government show a profit?
There is an idea here that SS government bonds are owned by the government. It follows that the government can forgive those bonds because they represent debt it owes to itself. But did the money that created those bonds come from the government? Or did it come from taxpayers? On what legal theory can government forgive bonds generated from loans made by someone else?
--Hiram
Actually, the SS trust fund is not declining ... yet. Although payments exceed payroll tax revenue, interest received on the existing trust fund means that the trust fund is still growing. In Fiscal 2014, the trust fund grew by $25 million.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
"... interest received on the existing trust fund means that the trust fund is still growing."
OH, then we have a simple solution! Simply have Congress increase the interest rate on these "special" bonds (available only to the SSA) to 70% or so, and the problem goes away!
""That is why the system is depleting it's trust fundThat is why the system is depleting it's trust fund."
No, it is depleting the trust fund because because the promised payouts were higher than income. No corporation could or would do as well only because this is impossible for any entity, even a non-profit one. Only government can hide the bad math for this long.
And let's clear up one thing right now. What, pray tell, would be the difference to the government's total income and outgo if the trust funds did not exist-- i.e. if all SSA payouts came directly out of the general fund, rather than from the "trust fund"?
No corporation could or would do as well only because this is impossible for any entity, even a non-profit one.
Is there a reason why government can do this while private companies can't?
Only government can hide the bad math for this long.
Has this been hidden for any length of time. Wasn't this clearly understood since Ronald Reagan made these reforms in 1983?
--Hiram
SSA Link
Hi Sean,
Please review the attached.
Trustee Report 2014
"Conclusion Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.
By the Trustees
I'm not saying there's not a long-term problem.
Social Security is easy to fix. Medicare is the big problem and the one we should be talking about -- it's much bigger and much more difficult. The funding gap in Medicare Part D alone is bigger than the Social Security gap.
Social Security has been easy to fix for at least twenty years, but it keeps getting more difficult the longer the can is kicked down the road. Senator Rod Grams introduced an effective plan back in 1998, and it's still good but the math has gotten worse. Perhaps disaster will bring action.
Medicare, likewise, the answer is simple. Just get the government out of it except, maybe, for creating a defined benefit (or a welfare supplement), no strings attached. If we don't, that one is headed for hell in a handbasket, too.
The part that is in nearest to "failure" is SS Disability...
I don't care, they are all part of the "overpromise and underdeliver" that is the hallmark of government social welfare programs.
That said, if you want to start the reform process with this "crisis-- imminently bankrupt" program, feel free. Even better if you could point out the coming (actually current) system-wide failure of the whole SS idea.
Even the "drive by" media has documented the well known problem of SS Disability fraud. Lawyers and activists know how to pester the SSA and courts into submission on unverifiable problems like "stress" and back pain. That's what the GOP is looking at, given the sharp rise the past, oh, 6 years.
That said, I filed for my SS last week, and Medicare part A. So, I now switch from giver to taker. I know I can count on the rest of you to pay up!
I am there for you...
Finding solutions to the problems that afflict us has never, ever been the problem. We have known how to fix potholes for decades now. What is difficult is finding the political will needed to solve problems.
I read a DJ Tice op ed piece in the Strib, last Sunday I think it was, when he talked about all the different economic problems associated with the fixing of the roads which pretty much everyone agrees needs to be done. Well, there just isn't a way of paying for stuff that treats everyone equally or pleases everyone. And insisting that no work should be done until such a solution appears is the de facto equivalent of choosing not to make needed repairs either forever, or until another bridge collapses, whichever comes first.
--Hiram
Hiram, I've been dismissing your arguments about the "political will" to solve problems because I think you mean that the only way to solve these problems is by raising taxes. It occurs to me that you are partly right. What is lacking is the political will, but it is the will to prioritize spending WITHOUT raising taxes. There is LOTS of money available to fix roads and bridges if the DFL would quit paying off their freeloader constituencies.
've been dismissing your arguments about the "political will" to solve problems because I think you mean that the only way to solve these problems is by raising taxes.
there are multiple ways of solving problems. One way to pay for roads is to take money we spend on schools and health care and spend it on road repair. Another way is to encourage churches to donate money to road repair. There are many other ways as well. The problem isn't that there aren't ways to do it, the problem is that we don't have the political will to choose between them.
It is a matter of priority. What's your priority? To receive adequate health care? Or not to fall into a river on the way home from work?
--Hiram
There is LOTS of money available to fix roads and bridges if the DFL would quit paying off their freeloader constituencies.
We spend money on three things, health care, schools and transportation. If you want to raise the amount of money we spend on roads, you have to spend less on the other two. My Republicans friends are right, it's a question of priorities. If we want to spend less on education and health care, I look forward to hearing from Republican legislators who are willing to volunteer their constituents for such cuts.
--Hiram
My priority is for government to be responsible for government things, like roads and bridges, and for the rest of us to be responsible for ourselves. I'll pay for your roads, because I get to use them, too. I don't want to have government take money from me to pay for your health care because I get nothing out of it. It should not be the priority for government to look after individual welfare, but to prioritize the public good.
I know many Republican legislators who will tell you that's a false choice. I can get you $200 million for roads and bridges and not touch education or health care. You're trying to say there is no mismanagement, inefficiency, waste, fraud or abuse anywhere in a $40 Billion (Recently $30B) state budget and I don't believe it. Sure, most of that is going to be in the biggest pieces of the budget-- education and health care-- but the DFL doesn't want to solve the problem by looking for the right solution.
I can get you $200 million for roads and bridges and not touch education or health care.
Republicans often talk about how Democrats want free stuff. I just find this inexplicable. Democrats are acutely aware of how stuff is not free. This is simple stuff, it's not rocket science. What Republicans claim is true; it's a matter of priorities. If you don't raise revenues, if you prioritize one thing it has to be at the expense of something else. Surely there are politicians who will tell you otherwise, but just because some politician is willing to tell you something doesn't make it true.
--Hiram
the DFL doesn't want to solve the problem by looking for the right solution.
Often, I would be content with any solution. I am pretty sure the right solution isn't to let our roads decay because politicians are unable to agree on who should pay for their repairs.
--Hiram
Hiram, you are missing the point of "prioritize." Would you not agree that preventing our bridges from falling down is more important than replacing the perfectly good office furniture at the DOT offices?
"...because politicians are unable to agree on who should pay for their repairs."
I think you mean "unable to agree on where to get the money," but beyond that, why blame all politicians equally when one solution is demonstrably better than the other?
why blame all politicians equally when one solution is demonstrably better than the other?
Because holding politicians accountable for results is one way to get things done.
I read the Wall Street Journal every day. About once a week, sometimes more, there is an op ed piece from somebody who has a problem with one aspect of Obamacare or another. Whenever I read those pieces, the thought occurs to me, why wasn't this problem addressed when Obamacare was being formulated? And just about always the answer is that the interests of the folks who are having a problem now, simply were not adequately represented then. As a good friend of mine often points out, if you aren't at the table, you are on the menu. And that's where so many constituencies who look to Republicans to represent them, currently find themselves.
--Hiram
Hiram, you're going to have to explain this one to me. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, and Republicans weren't even consulted or allowed to amend the legislation. Even SOH Pelosi said that /Democrats/ had to "pass it to see what's in it," so basically there are only Democrats to blame for its initial passage and flaws, and only Democrats to blame for blocking its repeal. I don't see how you can blame all politicians.
Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, and Republicans weren't even consulted or allowed to amend the legislation.
Sure. That's because no Republican was willing to make a deal with Democrats on behalf of their constituencies in exchange for their support. That made a certain amount of political sense for them, because they knew the constituencies they care most about, drug and insurance companies, were effectively represented by others. And more broadly, they were comfortable with Obamacare because they knew it was basically a Republican plan, with a few tweaks. Invariably, the complaints I read in the Wall Street Journal are from small business type folks, who are part of the Republican base, but whose interests are always overridden in Republican by large corporations.
Of course legislation has to be enacted in order to understand what they actually mean. Too bad President Bush didn't have the same understanding about starting wars.
--Hiram
There is a fairly typical example of the kind of Wall Street Journal op ed piece of which I am speaking in today's edition. The writers first objection to Obamacare is that it costs money thereby adding to the deficit. Well, that's true of any government expenditure, and you could make the same argument about the defense budget. Certainly Obamacare didn't invent health care deficit spending. Notice how the rest of objections mostly are to the effect that we should have gotten a different and better bargain with respect to constituencies. Well, the fact is you can second guess any bargain. You can say about any bargain, I should have gotten more and I should have given up less. If our goal was to create an initiative that satisfies everyone in exactly the same degree, it would be with an understanding that such a goal would never be achieved. But let's ask the next question. Why did folks the writers were concerned with do better at the negotiating table? Don't they have to blame their negotiators? And know that the deal was done without their participation, what should they do going forward? Republicans now control both houses of Congress. This is a perfect time to do what they have never done before; put together a comprehensive health care plan that moves us toward the goals they share with the Democrats, that is, affordable universal health care. Do you see any movement in that direction? Any hearings scheduled? I know it's early days, but the clock is ticking and nothing has happened yet. Is that because despite the no votes, they are content with the way things are, with the slightly tweaked version of Romneycare that is the new status quo?
--Hiram
Let me put it this way. If I were a small business owner, I might very well want to sit down with my Republicans Congressman and ask, "you knew Obamacare was going to get passed. why didn't you get me a better deal?"
--Hiram
Hiram, you're looking at Obamacare like all it needed was a couple of Republican "good ideas" blended in to make it vastly superior to the status quo ante. In my opinion, when you have 2200 gallons of cyanide, blending in 2 gallons of arsenic isn't going to make it better. The Republican response was, and continues to be, exactly correct. This abomination should never have passed and should not be allowed to continue. Forget "replace" until the repeal gets done and the ongoing damage ceases. You do know the CBO predicts another 10 million people will LOSE their insurance thanks to Obamacare, and that millions more will find "affordable care" unaffordable?
you're looking at Obamacare like all it needed was a couple of Republican "good ideas" blended in to make it vastly superior to the status quo ante. In my opinion, when you have 2200 gallons of cyanide, blending in 2 gallons of arsenic isn't going to make it better. The Republican response was, and continues to be, exactly correct.
Our political system, if it is to work, is consensus based. Say what you will about the merits of consensus based system, it does not produce pure policy, because too many people with too many divergent interests have veto power.
What Obamacare did was what Republicans wanted. It created a state based market where private insurers could come and sell their wares. Now I happen to think Repubiicans are pretty naive about the system they advocate, but it's what they wanted and it's what we needed to give in order to obtain the consensus we needed.
About the millions who are losing health insurance. Would millions not have lost, or remained uncovered in a Republican plan? Are Republicans in favor of a law forcing insurance companies to continue their existing policies, and coverage? Do you think that would be a good policy?
==Hiram
--Hiram
One of the things I do find amusing about Republican positioning on health care issues is their criticism that it lacks features, which Republicans oppose providing.
When Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer, what possible response would please them?
---Hiram
"Our political system, if it is to work, is consensus based. "
LOL! Explain to me how Obamacare passed by consensus when not a single Republican voted for it? The beauty of the two-party system is that it increases the possibility of gridlock, so one political party can't run madly off in the (usually) wrong direction. And consensus is different than compromise. Compromise, as you say, ends up with something not purely fish or fowl, and smelling like wet feathers. Consensus means we've taken what we all agree is good and left what we disagree with behind. In the Obamacare case, this would mean the whole thing deleted, but it wasn't.
"What Obamacare did was what Republicans wanted."
Apparently, I do not know a single Republican from your world. Every elected Republican I know voted against it, and every Republican I know beyond that, and that's a lot of them, wants it repealed, at least ("buried double deep with a stake through its heart" as it is sometimes phrased). Most also subscribe to the principle that the federal government should be LESS involved in health care.
And yes, under a /good/ Republican plan, nobody would lose the insurance "they like" and many of the uninsured would get coverage.
Democrats put passing the ACA on hold for months because the President believed that Max Baucus and Charles Grassley could come to some sort of bipartisan deal in the Senate. The notion that Democrats didn't try to engage Republicans on this issue is pure nonsense.
Explain to me how Obamacare passed by consensus when not a single Republican voted for it?
Because it had the support of Republican constituencies like the drug and insurance companies, and because for the briefest moment in our history, the consensus did not include Republican legislators. That condition existed only for about a period of five months, and I don't expect it to recur again in my lifetime.
The Republican legislative contingent does not comprise the Republican Party. And it's the participation of elements of the Republican Party as a whole, not it's congressional contingent in the consensus that made Obamacare possible.
--Hiram
Interesting use of the word "engage." Similar to the way Democrats use the word "compromise," meaning, "you agree with us."
Two rogue Republicans and every Democrat does not a consensus make. And I notice that as soon as Al Franken was seated as the 60th Democrat, the thing sailed through on a strict party-line vote.
"The Republican legislative contingent does not comprise the Republican Party."
No, but they are the part that counts. True, only about 85% of rank-and-file Republicans want Obamacare repealed. That's close to consensus; Even about 50% of ordinary Democrats agree. Why do we still have it?
No, but they are the part that counts.
If it counted so much, why was it unable to stop Obamcare, and now that they have an unfettered majority in both houses, why have they made no move to provide an alternative?
--Hiram
"And I notice that as soon as Al Franken was seated as the 60th Democrat, the thing sailed through on a strict party-line vote."
The ACA passed in March 2010, some eight months after Sen. Franken took office.
Sean, you are correct. My portrayal of events was correct in spirit. I found the following narrative helpful.
"So how did Obamacare become a law? It’s actually pretty interesting. If you recall, the Democrats in the House weren’t able to pass their version of a Healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They took out essentially all of the wording of it, and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It gets better. The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats [including new Sen. Franken], just enough to pass Obamacare. After the bill passed the Senate tho, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that, if the House made any changes to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare. So they made a deal with the Democrat‐controlled House of Representatives: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. So now PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House. Confused yet? Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. In order to pass the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate decided to change the rules. They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill now. This rule was only used for budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. This rule was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. Too bad... they used it anyway . So then both of the “Acts” passed both houses of Congress and were then signed by President Obama. All done by Democrats without a single Republican vote in favor of it. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along”. They certainly couldn’t have made this law without it. How do you feel about that?"
"...and now that they have an unfettered majority in both houses, why have they made no move to provide an alternative?" -- Hiram
They've just voted to repeal Obamacare. That IS the alternative.
Use of reconciliation to pass wide-reaching reforms wasn't invented in the Obama Administration.
Reagan used reconciliation to pass COBRA in the 1980s. Welfare reform went through under Clinton using reconciliation. All 3 rounds of Bush tax cuts were tailored specially for this purpose as well.
One of the principal complaints Republicans have about Obamacare is that people had their insurance cancelled. How many Americans would have had their insurance cancelled had Republicans been successful the other day in repealing Obamacare?
--Hiram
"How many Americans would have had their insurance cancelled had Republicans been successful the other day in repealing Obamacare?"
The same number as Obama promised would lose their insurance under Obamacare. Only in reality.
The same number as Obama promised would lose their insurance under Obamacare. Only in reality.
You don't have a specific number?
--Hiram
Yes. That number is zero, and when Obama said it it was a lie. Still is.
That number is zero, and when Obama said it it was a lie. Still is.
Well, I don't see how that could be. Quite a lot have gotten their health insurance through Obamacare. Republicans quite explicitly want to take their insurance away.
--Hiram
We're talking about people LOSING their insurance, and Obama promised "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." It was the Lie of the Year, remember?
"Republicans quite explicitly want to take their insurance away."
Please provide multiple explicit citations from Republicans. I'm quite sure that no Republican plan is going to repeat the Lies of of Obamacare. If it was me, I would write into the legislation, first and foremost, that anybody with an Obamacare plan that likes their plan can keep it as long as they make the payments. I would expect that number to dwindle rapidly.
We're talking about people LOSING their insurance, and Obama promised "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." It was the Lie of the Year, remember?
So was that in the Republican legislation repealing Obamacare. Did it require insurance companies that sold insurance plans through the system must continue offering those plans? Prior to the enactment of Obamacare, insurance companies could cancel policies at will. Did the Republican legislation change that? Maybe the problem is that no on knows what impact it will have. Maybe we have to enact it to find out what it means.
--Hiram
Please provide multiple explicit citations from Republicans.
that's the point of repealing Obamacare.
--Hiram
Sorry, that is not an explicit statement by Republicans that the purpose of repealing Obamacare is to take insurance away from people. Quite the opposite is what is being said, which is that repeal would PREVENT more people from losing the insurance they like and want to keep.
"Sorry, that is not an explicit statement by Republicans that the purpose of repealing Obamacare is to take insurance away from people."
Do you think a policy is improved by the fact that it's supporters are unwilling to be explicit about it's most obvious and direct consequences?
--Hiram
No, and Obamacare is the prime example. Every criticism that Republicans made has proved true, and almost every promise of Obamacare has been broken.
Every criticism that Republicans made has proved true, and almost every promise of Obamacare has been broken.
there are a lot criticisms that can be made of Obamacare, many of them valid, and many of them I have made myself. If our standard for any policy initiative is that we can't implement until it's reached a level of perfection such that no criticism can be made by anyone, we will never do anything.
It was always clear that insurance companies could cancel coverage. If the president promised otherwise, he was mistaken, or if you prefer, he lied. But insurance companies could do that before the enactment of Obamacare. The criticism of Republicans in this respect, was also a criticism of the status quo,, one that they wouldn't change.
--Hiram
The difference here is that, in your version of reality pre-Obamacare, insurance companies COULD cancel your insurance under certain conditions, for their own purposes. After Obamacare, they were FORCED to cancel policies that both they and their customers were happy to have in force. Like all grand liberal social pipe-dreams, the all-important difference is WHO decides?
After Obamacare, they were FORCED to cancel policies that both they and their customers were happy to have in force.
My understanding is that this is incorrect. Existing non conforming policies were allowed to be grandfathered in. It was the companies that decided not to offer them.
--Hiram
That is largely an incorrect understanding. See:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html
As I understand the link, existing plans would be grandfathered in under Obamacare, but new plans would not. Nor is it Republican policy then or now to require insurance companies to continue policies once they have been issued. Maybe that's why Republicans never made an issue of this matter when Obamacare was being considered. The fact that health insurance companies can change or terminate policies according to their terms is one of those things that is so obvious, that they often go unmentioned.
--Hiram
That may have been the good intention, but the subsequent regulations made it impossible. Good intentions often make terrible legislation.
That may have been the good intention, but the subsequent regulations made it impossible.
I don't disagree, but was it Obamacare that made it impossible, or at least unlikely to happen? Health insurance policies changed all the time before Obamacare, and there was nothing particularly wrong with that. This is just another frustrating to me example, of Republicans criticizing Obamacare for not doing what they oppose doing. This is something that comes from not having a current policy, and from a form of political amnesia that allows Republicans to forget policies that they once supported.
Republicans now control Congress. If they think insurance companies should be required to continue policies once issued, they have the ability to propose such legislation, to have hearings on the issue, to pass it and to put it on the president's desk. That's what serious legislators do. Is there any sign that it's being done?
--Hiram
That may have been the good intention, but the subsequent regulations made it impossible.
I don't disagree, but was it Obamacare that made it impossible, or at least unlikely to happen? Health insurance policies changed all the time before Obamacare, and there was nothing particularly wrong with that. This is just another frustrating to me example, of Republicans criticizing Obamacare for not doing what they oppose doing. This is something that comes from not having a current policy, and from a form of political amnesia that allows Republicans to forget policies that they once supported.
Republicans now control Congress. If they think insurance companies should be required to continue policies once issued, they have the ability to propose such legislation, to have hearings on the issue, to pass it and to put it on the president's desk. That's what serious legislators do. Is there any sign that it's being done?
--Hiram
"...they have the ability to propose such legislation, to have hearings on the issue, to pass it and to put it on the president's desk."
Yet in the other thread you criticize Republicans for taking votes that they know will never get past the President's veto.
Besides, why should they take up legislation that is not within the purview of Congress at all?
Yet in the other thread you criticize Republicans for taking votes that they know will never get past the President's veto.
Presumably, if they work hard on putting together legislation, they would have more success in coming up with something the president will sign.
I have read lots of threads complaining about Ms. Pelosi's remark that we don't know what's in legislation until it's enacted into law. In this case, Republicnas have no idea at all what the impact of what the legislation they propose repealing Obamacare would have on anyone.
--Hiram
" Republicnas have no idea at all what the impact of what the legislation they propose..."
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow do." You don't.
Besides, what Republicans propose with the repeal of Obamacare is well known, because we have seen the terrible consequences of that terrible legislation.
Post a Comment