Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Sorry. I was referencing "firstdown" when I said that. I was using the hypothetical that if you DID falsely insinuate stuff multiple times, expect a "nice try".

I see what you mean now. Cool.

edit: I'm not saying firstdown has falsely insinuated anything, just that I understand NC_Skins comment and it's cool.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

A more accurate picture is spending as % of GDP, as is mentioned in my link:

from the link:
Yes, it is true that in fiscal year 2012, under Obama, the anticipated federal spending of 24.3 percent of GDP is 3.6 percent less than the 25.2 percent the federal government spent in fiscal 2009, when Obama voted for President Bush’s $700 billion TARP and signed his own $831 billion stimulus.
But it is also true that the 24.3 percent of GDP that Obama’s OMB says the federal government will spend this year is 16.8 percent higher than the 20.8 percent it stood at in fiscal 2008--and a full three times as great as what federal spending was when Herbert Hoover left office.

What I will say does not invalidate your argument, Sammy, because it is just a side remark. But who would want to use Hoover as any kind of economic benchmark? That's like comparing the success (or not) of some boat with the Titanic.

One would hope that we are doing things differently than Hoover.

[12thMan]

SS33, you sources about the costs are off, my man. The CBO this Spring projected the law would cut the deficit by $50 Billion more than they originally thought. I would suggest you take a gander at the real numbers.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

Ezra Klein gives a good breakdown of the numbers here.

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

You make no mention of these benefits, some of which have kicked in now. Some later when the law fully kicks in 2014.

No mention of $800 billion tax credits for lower income families.
Insurance companies can't drop you because of pre-existing condition.
No mention of closing the Medicare doughnut hole for seniors

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I've been following this one:
RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

but as you said, this will be close.

From the looks of it Romney has to win 65% of the toss up state electoral votes. For your sake you better hope people don't hold the fact that he is a Mormon against him and he manages pull in 89 of the 136 toss electoral votes.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

What did I falsely insinuate about the new health care bill?

Do you think costs to people are going down as a result of this bill? I've seen the opposite.

The full law doesn't go into effect until 2014, when the exchanges are up and running. What analysis could possibly capture it's effect on healthcare inflation and spending? We still don't know the number of people that will join the pool.

[firstdown]

[quote=NC_Skins;923234]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Can you use any non-biased sources please? First Romney's main web page, now Fox business news? See the Presidential thread to see my breakdown on the "independent of each other" agencies of Fox.


http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...tml#post923029

The link you provided using the non-bias Media Matters.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Premium Trends 2011


Here is 2010 data, and I imagine it'll be the same for 2011. I can do this all day long.



Nice try again. (no seriously not really)



How about you provide proof instead of me doing all your work for you. You want to paint that Mass is paying the highest rates, but fail to see they have the highest income AND that they actually pay less than most states as a percentage of income.

So if I make $100,000 and buy a car for $20,000 I paid less if a guy making $50,000 paid $18,000 for the same car?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if I make $100,000 and buy a car for $20,000 I paid less if a guy making $50,000 paid $18,000 for the same car?

It's hard to explain and you probably won't get it but lets just say you and that guy probably won't be eating at the same restaurant and drinking $9 Belgium beer.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's hard to explain and you probably won't get it but lets just say you and that guy probably won't be eating at the same restaurant and drinking $9 Belgium beer.

That's because he spent more money on his car!!!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That's because he spent more money on his car!!!

Don't forget to include the cost of insuring the car and putting gas in it.

I agree, it's their choice to buy a car for that much instead of walking and ride the bus.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if I make $100,000 and buy a car for $20,000 I paid less if a guy making $50,000 paid $18,000 for the same car?

You paid less as a percentage of income. His car cost him 36% of his income. It only cost you 20% of your income.


Obviously you haven't grasped the fact of "cost of living". Guess what? McDonalds food cost more in New York than it does North Carolina. So does housing and many other things.

Massachusetts average cost of home: $520,179

North Carolina average cost of home: $280,913


Almost double.


They have the second highest income (per person) average in the United States.
State-by-state: Average income per person - USATODAY.com



So would you rather buy something that takes up 20% of your income or 36% of your income? Basic math.

[NC_Skins]

This sums up American politics very well.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You paid less as a percentage of income. His car cost him 36% of his income. It only cost you 20% of your income.


Obviously you haven't grasped the fact of "cost of living". Guess what? McDonalds food cost more in New York than it does North Carolina. So does housing and many other things.

Massachusetts average cost of home: $520,179

North Carolina average cost of home: $280,913


More than double.


They have the second highest income (per person) average in the United States.
State-by-state: Average income per person - USATODAY.com



So would you rather buy something that takes up 20% of your income or 36% of your income? Basic math.

520,179 is not more than double of 280,913. But your point remains.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

520,179 is not more than double of 280,913. But your point remains.

Herp. Derp.

My mistake. Was thinking "almost" double.

[Giantone]

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;923225]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

"
- Doctors will leave medicine, new doctors will not make investment and will choose other careers leading to an increased shortage of doctors and reduced quality of care.
- Government determines treatment options, particularly important for seniors. "Death Panels", probably not but "rationing of limited resources" absolutely: End-of-Life Medical Advice: Devaluing Patients in Name of Greater Good? - Forbes

.

Sorry Sammy but this ,this is the bullshit that the GOP throws out there to scare everybody over the arge of 70..and it just ain't true.