« Who will play the lead in THIS movie? | Daddy-O's Blog | Like nothing so much as when Nixon resigned »
$60 billion a year to cover most uninsured Americans? Hard to believe
If this is true--this latest re-estimate of the cost of Obama's health care initiative--I simply find it incredible to believe. Back of the envelope math tells me this: 60 billion divided by 40 million equals one thousand five hundred. As in dollars per year. To insure someone medically.
That ain't much more than chump change, folks. $1500 a year to insure someone? How much do YOU spend on health care?
I already know that we spend too much on health care apiece in this country--something close to six thousand dollars a year. And that $1500 works in most countries, if not a bit more than that. But I remember the Medicare Drug Benefit debate only too well, and it turns out THAT was a pack of lies, too.
And if this IS true, it begs yet another question: Why the flying fuck did it take so long? What is WRONG with this country?
Besides FOX News and Republicans in general, of course. Purely a rhetorical question.
That ain't much more than chump change, folks. $1500 a year to insure someone? How much do YOU spend on health care?
I already know that we spend too much on health care apiece in this country--something close to six thousand dollars a year. And that $1500 works in most countries, if not a bit more than that. But I remember the Medicare Drug Benefit debate only too well, and it turns out THAT was a pack of lies, too.
And if this IS true, it begs yet another question: Why the flying fuck did it take so long? What is WRONG with this country?
Besides FOX News and Republicans in general, of course. Purely a rhetorical question.
Advertisement
Well, the Medicare fee is currently $97/month which is less than $1200.
July 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. I don't understand your comment. The $97 doesn't, of course, pay the entire bill for someone on Medicare. The government spends hundreds of billions a year--and takes in a hefty chunk, if not most of that, in a separate tax--on the rest of the bill.
July 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you explain where this number comes from, the $60 billion?
July 2, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha. My chief aim in this post is my own understanding--and if you can help me do that, I'd appreciate it. Here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/tnr-full-help-bill-covers_n_224509.html
It was all over the news for the last two days, but I can't find much about it today. It IS a holiday today...
July 3, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more note: It said the cost was $600 billion over ten years--so I've divided the costs. Who knows? Maybe the plan calls for $300 billion in the first year, with the costs going down over ten years.
Like that's really going to happen...?
July 3, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/01/new-cbo-score-health-care/
July 3, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. Do you know how much they spend?
July 2, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why would we want to save thousands of lives by providing people with healthcare when we can waste $700 billion on the military?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=1
"This short-circuitry in our brains explains many of our policy priorities. We Americans spend nearly $700 billion a year on the military and less than $3 billion on the F.D.A., even though food-poisoning kills more Americans than foreign armies and terrorists. We’re just lucky we don’t have a cabinet-level Department of Snake Extermination."
July 2, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could say that our defense system IS the reason food poisoning kills more Americans than foreign armies, so I find it one of the more stupid arguments NY Times made.
But it's Obama's budget now not Bush's, whether or not he felt the need to pander to the military.
Personally I find it completely ridiculous, but what do you do, elect yet another smooth-talking politician who's so generous with promises he has no intention to keep?
July 2, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give more credit to the oceans than the armies. Though I guess that doesn't explain the peaceable Canadians. Maybe their good health makes them happy and keeps them from wanting to form armies.
I do not know what we do. Promises aren't going to help Obama if we keep losing over 500,000 jobs a month. Both parties appear to be equally clueless. Not a good era for leadership in any institution these days - government, corporate, press, church -- I don't see it anywhere.
July 2, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're just up here, waiting. It's like lurking, but with more violent intentions.
By the way, where does Lalo live? When we invade, we wanna kick that state's ass.
Sincerely,
Canada
July 2, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q whether you like it or not:
I hereby award you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site for this line:
It's like lurking but with more violent intentions.
I mean I do not even know what the hell you are talking about. hahhahahahaha
My first boss, or the first guy I worked for in the Law (actually the only one since I ended up on my own for 25 years) used to talk about
lurking with intent to loiter.
That was when a cop would just arrest someone for anything
THE END
But Quinn, this is more than precious. hahaahahahahahhaahahahahahh
July 2, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to love those militant Canadians.
July 3, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama's budget has barely left the drawing board let a alone been enacted by congress. The new fiscal year starts October 1st, same as every year.
July 3, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink