• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A REALLY bad day for liberals

Why they borrow it, of course. It is the foundation of sound fiscal management. Deficit spending spurs the economy and debt doesn't matter. Money grows on trees. You haven't been keeping up. ;)

I know.

Its hard to keep up with their convoluted theories on how to grow a free market economy.
 

I'd say that's the most convincing counterargument I've seen from you. I'd like to think I'm raising yer game.

Here's some more evidence to keep you laughing:

Employer Health Insurance Premiums at a 10-Year High, with Slower Growth After 2010

Because the Affordable Care Act, which went into effect in 2010, included provisions that applied to employer plans beginning that year, we looked at trends in premiums before and after 2010. All nongrandfathered plans (i.e., health plans that were not in existence when the ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010) are required to allow young adults to remain on or enroll in a parent’s plan to age 26 and include recommended preventive services without cost-sharing. Both these provisions were expected to modestly increase premiums. In addition, health insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent or 85 percent of premiums on medical costs for small and large employer health plans, or pay rebates to employers and covered employees. This provision has been found to have a mild decreasing effect on premiums.

The analysis shows that the rate of growth in premiums after the passage of health reform slowed, compared with the average annual growth rate in the seven years prior to the law. From 2003 to 2010, premiums for employee-only plans grew at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent. In the three years since the ACA was enacted (2010–2013), growth in premiums slowed to 4.1 percent per year.

The reduced rate of premium growth was more pronounced in large employer plans than in small employer plans, primarily because premiums in large employer plans grew at a faster rate in 2003–2010 than did those in small employer plans. Premium growth after the passage of the Affordable Care Act was about the same for both large and small employers.​

ave_premium_emp_spons_single_and_fam_03_10_13.webp

Annual Employee Premium Contributions Have Grown, But Rate of Growth Has Slowed in Recent Years

In an effort to reduce their costs of providing health insurance, employers over the past decade have increased the amount that workers contribute to their premiums and to their health care, through higher deductibles and copayments. As a result, employees are paying more for plans that provide less financial protection.

In 2013, U.S. employees contributed 21 percent of the total premium for employee-only coverage. This is unchanged from 2010, but an increase from 17 percent in 2003. However, because premiums have grown, the actual amount that workers contribute toward premiums has climbed from $606 in 2003 to $1,021 in 2010 to $1,170 in 2013, or an increase of 93 percent over the decade.

And, because income growth has been slow throughout the decade, employees are paying more for their share of premiums. In 2013 and 2010, average premium contributions for single coverage in employer plans were 4 percent of median income, compared with 2 percent in 2003.

Deductibles More Than Doubled from 2003 to 2013, But Rate of Growth Moderated in Recent Years

Although workers are paying more for their health insurance, their premiums are buying less financial protection, partly because more plans include deductibles and the size of those deductibles has spiked dramatically. In 2013, 81 percent of workers were enrolled in a health plan with a deductible, up from 78 percent in 2010 and just over half (52%) in 2003.

emp_contrib_single_emp_spons_premiums_03_10_13.webp

National Trends in the Cost of Employer Health
Insurance Coverage, 2003–2013


Now it's true that the economy went into a tailspin as Dubya left office, so it can be argued that that has kept prices down. But I don't think you can claim that the ACA has driven costs up. Increases in 2014 weren't bad. We'll see how things go.
 
Oh really ?

Well if Greece isn't " Socialist " is it fair to say Venezuela IS ?

They're a good example of a working Socialist utopia, right ?

No, it isn't. Obviously, as i said before, your knowledge of socialism rivals that of a bag of rocks.

Socialism: the government owns the means of production.

That encompasses a huge spectrum of possible implementations. The notable effect of socialism is that people don't get paid to sit on their ass, doing nothing other than owning the means of production. Socialism is an engineered economy where people are paid only to their contribution. It is NOT some sort of "work-optional, free social services utopia" bull**** definition that the right wing made up because they need something to demonize.
 
Thats a LIE.

Premiums and out of pocket expenses have increased every year.

Have you purposely buried your head in the sand and ignored this fact because your'e more loyal to a Political party than you are to the truth ?

Because thats a little pathetic.

You're ignoring the substantial negative impact this law has on Millions of Americans because you vote Democrat.

I thought Lefties were supposed to be sympathetic to peoples struggles.

The rate of increase noticeably decreased as the ACA has taken hold.

If you continue to deny this, you only affirm your ignorance. Others have posted the facts, maybe you could post a reference or something? And, no, one whiney "small business owner" on fox news isn't going to be a legitimate source to counter the provided data...
 
Obama lied, saving $2500 per family died.

I think we can all agree on this.

What are you talking about?? Are you positive that he promised that the finalized version of the ACA would end up saving EVERY family $2500 (i assume per year?)?

Before the ACA solidified, there were lots of claims of what it could do, for example, provide a public option.

So, no, i do not yet agree that he lied.

People say "you can keep your doctor," was a lie, well, i don't agree with that. He never promised that every single person could blindly pick whatever plan they want and still have the exact same doctors. It's not his fault that people can also buy coverage that does not include their previous doctor.
 
What are you talking about?? Are you positive that he promised that the finalized version of the ACA would end up saving EVERY family $2500 (i assume per year?)?

Before the ACA solidified, there were lots of claims of what it could do, for example, provide a public option.

So, no, i do not yet agree that he lied.

People say "you can keep your doctor," was a lie, well, i don't agree with that. He never promised that every single person could blindly pick whatever plan they want and still have the exact same doctors. It's not his fault that people can also buy coverage that does not include their previous doctor.

Lets review.

So, you tell me, is this what a democrats word counts for?

I say yes. But you have the final say.
 
Lets review.

So, you tell me, is this what a democrats word counts for?

I say yes. But you have the final say.


You're running material from his first campaign...?

Have you ever seen a President who fulfilled every campaign promise?? Or are you unfairly criticizing Obama because you don't like him?
 
You're running material from his first campaign...?

Have you ever seen a President who fulfilled every campaign promise?? Or are you unfairly criticizing Obama because you don't like him?

The central premise of his campaign and first term was the ACA.

We are discussing the ACA.

And one of its architects says Obama knew Obama couldn't keep up with the lies.

When do lies stop counting, in your view?
 
The central premise of his campaign and first term was the ACA.

We are discussing the ACA.

And one of its architects says Obama knew Obama couldn't keep up with the lies.

When do lies stop counting, in your view?

So you exempt Reagan from his failed promise that supply-side economics would be so good for the economy that it would increase revenue, but condemn Obama because he couldn't pass all the measures in the ACA that he wanted to, due largely to hyperpartisan obstruction?
 
So you exempt Reagan from his failed promise that supply-side economics would be so good for the economy that it would increase revenue, but condemn Obama because he couldn't pass all the measures in the ACA that he wanted to, due largely to hyperpartisan obstruction?

Obfuscation. Who saw that coming?
 
Obfuscation. Who saw that coming?

So you're going to continue to ignore my comment about Reagan?

I agree that Obama did not make good on every wishlist item he listed during his first campaign. I just don't hold it against him because i'm not a petty hyperpartisan who is oriented against him.
 
So you exempt Reagan from his failed promise that supply-side economics would be so good for the economy that it would increase revenue, ion?

It didn't?
 
No, it isn't. Obviously, as i said before, your knowledge of socialism rivals that of a bag of rocks.

Socialism: the government owns the means of production.

That encompasses a huge spectrum of possible implementations. The notable effect of socialism is that people don't get paid to sit on their ass, doing nothing other than owning the means of production. Socialism is an engineered economy where people are paid only to their contribution. It is NOT some sort of "work-optional, free social services utopia" bull**** definition that the right wing made up because they need something to demonize.

Lol !

Its the old " that's not real Socialism " excuse

Its ridiculous mitigation. Chavez started Nationalizing Venezuela's manor industries almost immediately after being elected.

Greece's borrowed under false pretenses and spent other people's money on building onto an already bloated and mismanaged public sector.

Socialism fails because Central planning mismanages A Nations wealth creating industries.

In Venezuela it was Oil and even coffee.( among other things )

In Greece the Government wasted Billions on building a public sector that produced nothing of value.

We're seeing the failure of Left wing ideology on a international scale right now.

Someone needs to call attention to it, so if ypu people won't then we will
 
The rate of increase noticeably decreased as the ACA has taken hold.

If you continue to deny this, you only affirm your ignorance. Others have posted the facts, maybe you could post a reference or something? And, no, one whiney "small business owner" on fox news isn't going to be a legitimate source to counter the provided data...

You said cost increases stagnated. Do I need to post the the definition of " Stagnation " for you ?

That was a ridiculous LIE. Now, your'e saying that cost have increased but at a slower pace ?

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/0...ek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?referrer=

You people are having to LIE more and more to defend your political party.
 
I'd say that's the most convincing counterargument I've seen from you. I'd like to think I'm raising yer game.

Here's some more evidence to keep you laughing:

Employer Health Insurance Premiums at a 10-Year High, with Slower Growth After 2010

Because the Affordable Care Act, which went into effect in 2010, included provisions that applied to employer plans beginning that year, we looked at trends in premiums before and after 2010. All nongrandfathered plans (i.e., health plans that were not in existence when the ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010) are required to allow young adults to remain on or enroll in a parent’s plan to age 26 and include recommended preventive services without cost-sharing. Both these provisions were expected to modestly increase premiums. In addition, health insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent or 85 percent of premiums on medical costs for small and large employer health plans, or pay rebates to employers and covered employees. This provision has been found to have a mild decreasing effect on premiums.

The analysis shows that the rate of growth in premiums after the passage of health reform slowed, compared with the average annual growth rate in the seven years prior to the law. From 2003 to 2010, premiums for employee-only plans grew at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent. In the three years since the ACA was enacted (2010–2013), growth in premiums slowed to 4.1 percent per year.

The reduced rate of premium growth was more pronounced in large employer plans than in small employer plans, primarily because premiums in large employer plans grew at a faster rate in 2003–2010 than did those in small employer plans. Premium growth after the passage of the Affordable Care Act was about the same for both large and small employers.​

View attachment 67187024

Annual Employee Premium Contributions Have Grown, But Rate of Growth Has Slowed in Recent Years

In an effort to reduce their costs of providing health insurance, employers over the past decade have increased the amount that workers contribute to their premiums and to their health care, through higher deductibles and copayments. As a result, employees are paying more for plans that provide less financial protection.

In 2013, U.S. employees contributed 21 percent of the total premium for employee-only coverage. This is unchanged from 2010, but an increase from 17 percent in 2003. However, because premiums have grown, the actual amount that workers contribute toward premiums has climbed from $606 in 2003 to $1,021 in 2010 to $1,170 in 2013, or an increase of 93 percent over the decade.

And, because income growth has been slow throughout the decade, employees are paying more for their share of premiums. In 2013 and 2010, average premium contributions for single coverage in employer plans were 4 percent of median income, compared with 2 percent in 2003.

Deductibles More Than Doubled from 2003 to 2013, But Rate of Growth Moderated in Recent Years

Although workers are paying more for their health insurance, their premiums are buying less financial protection, partly because more plans include deductibles and the size of those deductibles has spiked dramatically. In 2013, 81 percent of workers were enrolled in a health plan with a deductible, up from 78 percent in 2010 and just over half (52%) in 2003.

View attachment 67187025

National Trends in the Cost of Employer Health
Insurance Coverage, 2003–2013


Now it's true that the economy went into a tailspin as Dubya left office, so it can be argued that that has kept prices down. But I don't think you can claim that the ACA has driven costs up. Increases in 2014 weren't bad. We'll see how things go.

You're getting desperate.

Health Insurance companies Seek Big Rate Increases.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/0...ek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?referrer=
 
GDP per capita in Greece versus GDP per capita in USA???

greece GDPPC ~ 20,000

America GDPPC >50,000

numbers in dollars

Why you leave that out? We have more debt per person, but each person makes more than 2X the average Greek. And our debt per person isn't even two times that of our Greek counterparts.

Out of all the people I expected dishonesty from, you were close to the last. Wow.

I believe someone else already brought that up.

So, the US has a greater GDP, which explains why we haven't gone the way of Greece.

Yet.
 
It didn't?

No, it didn't.

clinton-taxes.webp

You said cost increases stagnated. Do I need to post the the definition of "Stagnation" for you?

I agree. "Stagnation" was a poor word choice there. Kinda like this one:

Its ridiculous mitigation.

You're getting desperate.

Yer funny, as you usually are.

>>Health Insurance companies Seek Big Rate Increases.

"Do I need to post the the definition of 'seek' for you?"
 
sure it did. The only decreased one year. '82 to 83.

Those figures aren't adjusted for inflation. "Real" tax revenues fell sharply in 1982 and 1983. In 1984, they went up, but were still well short of the 1981 level. In 1985, they got back to the 1981 level.

Real dollars are what counts. They have constant purchasing power. Revenues were up 22% between 1981 and 1985, but they had the same amount of purchasing power. There was no real gain.

Taxes were raised significantly in 1984 ($50 billion over three years), and a lot of loopholes were closed in 1986. Real revenues climbed.

Tax cuts can, in theory, lead to revenue increases. The taxes would have to be way too high to begin with to cause this to happen. This was not the case in 1981 or in 2001. So we got what we got — BIG structural deficits.

Clinton and Obama raised taxes. Revenues increased and the economy improved significantly.

I'm a liberal. I DON'T CARE if taxes go up or down. I don't want deficits, especially REALLY BIG ONES. The 1981 and 2001 tax cuts led to just that.

If dancing 'round the Maypole led to adequate revenues and economic expansion, that's the policy I'd support. It's not ideology, it's not "punish success," it's "pay the freakin' bills."

HE should. It isn't true.

He shouldn't. It is true. But even if he doesn't ignore it, he'll try to excuse it.
 
You said cost increases stagnated. Do I need to post the the definition of " Stagnation " for you ?

That was a ridiculous LIE. Now, your'e saying that cost have increased but at a slower pace ?

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/0...ek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?referrer=

You people are having to LIE more and more to defend your political party.

So your so-called "proof" that the growth of health care costs under the ACA (2013-2015) is that insurance CEOs want bigger profits in 2016?! Is this a serious claim?!

I'm not a democrat. Democratic politicians are spineless and often duplicitous. It is the downside of the fact that they are the intelligent political party. And many of them are hypocrites, though admittedly they are not as bad as republicans.
 
Back
Top Bottom