Actual cost of House Health Care Bill... $1.055 trillion

[retro]

wow, just wow...

 

[Tim]

CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats.

:dunno

 

[retro]

:dunno

Yeah, but they're starting taxes and fees now, but not kicking benefits in until 2013. So we need 10 years of taxes in order to cover 6 years of benefits. Not to mention the fact that they're planning on paying for this with taxes and cutting Medicare even more, while they've claimed that seniors won't lose any coverages. I don't understand how anyone with a brain could possibly see this is fiscally responsible. We need to be spending less money, not creating more massive government agencies.

Once government does become involved in something, intellectual and institutional inertia tends to keep it there for good. People lose their political imagination. It becomes impossible to conceive of dealing with the matter in any other way. Repealing the new bureaucracy becomes unthinkable. Mythology about how terrible things were in the old days becomes the conventional wisdom. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy itself, with a vested interest in maintaining itself and increasing its funding, employs all the resources it can to ensuring that it gets a bigger budget next year, regardless of its performance. In fact, the worse it does, the more funding it is likely to get --- exactly the opposite of what happens in the private sector, in which those who successfully meet the needs of their fellow man are rewarded with profits, and those who poorly anticipate consumer demand are punished with losses.

Do you honestly think that the $1.055 trillion that the CBO is projecting, or the $900 billion that the Democrats are claiming are actually going to be the total cost of this bill? Not to mention the fact that it is going to effectively destroy the private insurance industry eventually. What about the jobs that industry provides? What about the taxes those companies pay? Where are we going to keep getting this money to pay for this program? Then if it does badly, do you think it's going to be shut down? Hell no. They're going to throw even more money at it, hoping that more money will fix the problems. Just like the stimulus... it was supposed to help the economy, bring back jobs, and lower unemployment. Well, it seems pretty obvious that it hasn't accomplished any of those goals. So what's the answer? They're talking about another stimulus, again throwing money at a problem rather than working to fix the inherent issues that caused it in the first place. On the other side of the coin, if this public insurance does well, does that mean they'll be satisfied with simply keeping the programs the way that they are? No way, they're going to point to their successes as a reason to spend even more money on the program.

In the end we're going to end up with another massive government program that we have no feasible way of paying for, like Medicare and Social Security. Is this fiscal responsibility? Shouldn't the federal government be holding itself to the standards that every other person in this country gets held to? Rather than going off and spending more money, shouldn't we be looking to cut costs and programs where we can, and begin to pay down the national debt, rather than to keep it at the status quo, or cut the budget deficit slightly?

You're pointing at the fact that the program wouldn't add anything to the deficit, but what about the national debt? We're still spending more than we bring in. How is that in any way, shape, or form responsible? Plus, that's only talking about the first decade past 2019, what about the decades afterward? We're simply back loading this now so we don't have to deal with it, and we can show off pretty numbers that show that we're not adding to the deficit. When in actuality, all we're doing is putting off paying for it all until years after a good chunk of these lawmakers are either dead or no longer in office.

 

[nova]

while they've claimed that seniors won't lose any coverages.

Which in an of itself is a massive lie by their own admission. They're foaming at the mouth to cut the Medicare Advantage program.

If you understand what MA is and how it works, you'll quickly see that cutting it cuts benefits to seniors.

MA is required to provide every coverage that regulate Medicare provides for the same premium that Medicare charges. 80% of any coverage savings over regular Medicare, must be returned to the individual in the form of increased or expanded coverage.

The whole reason so many people go with MA is that it does provide coverage for a whole laundry list of thinkgs that Medicare doesn't cover.

Now somebody explain to me how you can cut MA and not cut benefits to seniors? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Dakota Jim]

Which in an of itself is a massive lie by their own admission. They're foaming at the mouth to cut the Medicare Advantage program.

If you understand what MA is and how it works, you'll quickly see that cutting it cuts benefits to seniors.

MA is required to provide every coverage that regulate Medicare provides for the same premium that Medicare charges. 80% of any coverage savings over regular Medicare, must be returned to the individual in the form of increased or expanded coverage.

The whole reason so many people go with MA is that it does provide coverage for a whole laundry list of thinkgs that Medicare doesn't cover.

Now somebody explain to me how you can cut MA and not cut benefits to seniors? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

I've been on Medicare for years. The number of "Advantage" users is very small. Most of us just use Medicare and pay it's premiums along with supplemental policies. I pay around $300 per month in health coverage.

 

[nova]

I've been on Medicare for years. The number of "Advantage" users is very small. Most of us just use Medicare and pay it's premiums along with supplemental policies. I pay around $300 per month in health coverage.

Numbers I've seen are around ~10 million people, or about 25% of all people on Medicare. Not a trivial number.

And it still doesn't negate my point that killing MA kills benefits for seniors...

 

[Accountable]

We're simply back loading this now so we don't have to deal with it, and we can show off pretty numbers that show that we're not adding to the deficit. When in actuality, all we're doing is putting off paying for it all until years after a good chunk of these lawmakers are either dead or no longer in office.

That's exactly what our society in general have learned to do. Forget saving, budgeting, or being responsible. Buy what you want now because you don't know if you'll have the money tomorrow. If you don't have the money now, charge it. If you can't pay your credit card bill when it arrives, roll it over to a different credit card. Whatever you do, don't look reality in the eye or the whole game falls apart. :thumbdown

 

[Pabst]

That's exactly what our society in general have learned to do. Forget saving, budgeting, or being responsible. Buy what you want now because you don't know if you'll have the money tomorrow. If you don't have the money now, charge it. If you can't pay your credit card bill when it arrives, roll it over to a different credit card. Whatever you do, don't look reality in the eye or the whole game falls apart. :thumbdown

and people reward this kind of behavior be reelecting these people and praising them on high as though they did something wonderful.:thumbdown