<p>
True - you can make them equivalent only in a certain income region, above and below which the effects will diverge.</p>
<p>Here’s the link:
[US</a> wealth gap between young and old is widest ever - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/11/06/us_wealth_gap_between_young_and_old_is_widest_ever/?page=1]US”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/11/06/us_wealth_gap_between_young_and_old_is_widest_ever/?page=1)</p>
<p>I’m sure you can find thousands of articles saying the same thing. This article is two years old, I’m sure the gap is greater now. People who have invested in the stock market and kept it there are the ones getting wealthy now. The young generally have little to invest, low assets and plenty of debt. It will be hard for them to get ahead, but those who have money in the market, it just keeps rolling in. Nothing wrong with that, I just don’t think we have enough money to support everyone, all the time. Something has to give. And if we’re paying large premiums to the insurance companies for people, it ought to be for people who really cannot afford it otherwise.</p>
<p>We have enough money for ACA. We have actuaries that have worked on the numbers. </p>
<p>I looked at your link. I like the link. What is the present value of the elderly’s future income streams? What is the present value of young people’s future income streams?</p>
<p>When a couple gets divorced in California, if the couple has a dispute, the courts will look at
Each person’s potential income. Potential income is an asset. I never see that included in the wealth numbers. The wealth numbers that you posted are incomplete. I do agree that the numbers are bad.</p>
<p>Does living with 55 percent of your income coming from SS sound good to you? The median for the wealth of the elderly is 170,000 with most of that wealth in a house. That sounds good to you? </p>
<p>I think young people do have it bad. So, would you be in favor of providing more subsidized healthcare to young people?</p>
<p>Sorry, dstark, gotta go to work with no time to answer questions.
I’m sure someone else will.
Wish me luck…checkride. I guess if I blow it, you all can subsidize my health insurance policy.</p>
<p>Ok. Good luck. We already subsidize your insurance. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a hard time believing this. Unless I am misunderstanding your post. Do you have a link (or can you explain)?</p>
<p>We dont have enough money? </p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>How large is the economy? $16 or $17 trillion a year? I dont feel like looking it up. 
Healthcare’s share if the economy is now close to $2.9 trillion.
ACA costs a little over $130 billion a year? </p>
<p>Of course we can afford Obamacare. We may not want to pay for Obamacare but that is a different issue.</p>
<p>The CBO has reports that ACA is going to run a surplus during the first 10 years of 100 to 200 billion. The next 10 after that the surplus runs 1 trillion. These are projections. If the numbers fall far short we can still afford ACA if that is where we want to spend money. As of a couple of months ago, the surpluses are still projected near those numbers.
I have posted the CBO links before. You can probably find them by googling.</p>
<p>Here are the revenue generators.</p>
<p>[ObamaCare</a> Tax: Full List of ObamaCare Taxes](<a href=“http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php]ObamaCare”>http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So true. You’re welcome.</p>
<p>Ok, we can, but only if we stop spending somewhere else. I don’t care where - defense, farm subsidies are all up for grabs. I am fine with spending money on ACA only if it does not add to national debt. Otherwise, if we really care about young generation, we really cannot afford it.</p>
<p>[CBO</a> | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time](<a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176]CBO”>http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I understand this correctly, unless the net impact is zero (or negative), ACA adds to the deficit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand your post. No one over age 65 is eligible for subsidies – at that age they are supposed to be covered by Medicare/ So which “some” are you talking about for getting subsidies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the CBO, the net impact of the ACA on the federal budget deficit is negative–that is, it will reduce the federal budget deficit. The chart shown on the web page linked in #4870 shows the net budgetary impact of a portion of the ACA, the “coverage provisions.” But:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, you can’t just isolate the expenditure items in a complex and multi-faceted piece of legislation, and say those increase the deficit. If you look at the budget impact of the entire legislative package, it actually reduces the budget deficit, according to CBO.</p>
<p>Lerkin, you are misreading the headline. Otherwise, I have no clue what you are talking about. :)</p>
<p>Obamacare is projected to run a surplus. The CBO has been projecting surpluses from Obamacare over the years and when the CBO recently looked at the numbers, CBO still sees surpluses. The numbers havent changed much</p>
<p>There are revenue generators. There are new taxes to pay for Obamacare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am referring to the same chart that bclintok is referring in their post (4873), but I don’t see it in the same way. I read the following paragraph:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in a way that not the total deficit is going be reduced, but the deficit created by ACA (and outlined in the chart below that paragraph) will be reduced. Which in turn still adds to overall deficit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but I still don’t think these taxes will cover the created deficit based on my interpretation of CBO link.</p>
<p>I hope I am wrong, but my husband tells me that I am always right :).</p>
<p>Somewhere I recall learning that we only create money when the federal government borrows money from the Federal Reserve. So I understand we get concerned about the national debt but I am starting to believe it is a necessary evil.</p>
<p>I am very skeptical about the projected surpluses. I have nothing against the concept of the ACA just the poor history of our government creating a surplus in any of their programs except social security.</p>
<p>Lerkin, It must be fantastic to be married to a husband that always thinks you are right. My wife is right most of the time but not all of the time. </p>
<p>I am not married to you so I have no problem telling you that you are wrong. :)</p>
<p>Just go with this…</p>
<p>“Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, I understand that you are interpreting this as overall deficits, while I am interpreting this as deficit created by ACA. And yes, I hope you are right and I am wrong.</p>
<p>P.S.
</p>
<p>I didn’t say he thinks that, I said he tells me so. You know how they say: happy wife, happy life.</p>
<p>lerkin,
You got me on the second part of your post. </p>
<p>Not the first…</p>
<p>[Patient</a> Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act]Patient”>Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>You may have to click on the word "impact"and then scroll down to federal deficit.</p>
<p>"The 2011 comprehensive CBO estimate projected a net deficit reduction of more than $200 billion during the 2012–2021 period:[238][239] it calculated the law would result in $604 billion in total outlays offset by $813 billion in total receipts, resulting in a $210 billion net reduction in the deficit.[238] The CBO separately noted that while most of the spending provisions do not begin until 2014,[240][241] revenue will still exceed spending in those subsequent years.[242] CBO also stated that the bill would “substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services; impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs”[210]—ultimately extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years.[243]</p>
<p>However, this estimate was made prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling that enabled states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, thereby forgoing the federal funding. The CBO and JCT subsequently updated the budget projection, estimating the impact of the ruling would reduce the cost estimate of the insurance coverage provisions by $84 billion."</p>
<p>“Ok. Good luck. We already subsidize your insurance.”
“So true. You’re welcome.”</p>
<p>Actually…if what is on my W2 is accurate, the part that my company pays for insurance is only about 7.2K, deducting what I pay (and don’t write off), so I suppose you can consider the tax break they get on that is taxpayer subsidized.</p>
<p>But if I remember correctly, dstark is on his wife’s company insurance, and cartera is on her company insurance (??) and if so, I’ll bet your companies write off a lot more than 7.2K. And if that is the case, I do believe that I would be subsidizing you.</p>
<p>As Stephen Colbert would say, “I accept your apology”.</p>