« An answer for your right-wing friends on tax cuts | Kenneth Thomas's Blog | Not all public options are created equal »
Why Hasn't Anyone Pointed out the Obvious on Health Care Reform??
Today we get more news that some Democrats are freaking out about the cost of health care reform. CBO has scored the Finance Committee's bill at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and it will only cover 2/3 of the uninsured.
I have a simple question: Why are we looking at the 10-year cost rather than the annual cost? $160 billion a year is only a little over 5% of the FY 2008 budget per Wikipedia. Relatively speaking, it's peanuts. And why doesn't someone score what individuals are going to save as a result of the spending by the federal government? $160 billion out of a $14 trillion economy is no reason to get scared, especially when the net of government plus private costs will be even lower.
I have a simple question: Why are we looking at the 10-year cost rather than the annual cost? $160 billion a year is only a little over 5% of the FY 2008 budget per Wikipedia. Relatively speaking, it's peanuts. And why doesn't someone score what individuals are going to save as a result of the spending by the federal government? $160 billion out of a $14 trillion economy is no reason to get scared, especially when the net of government plus private costs will be even lower.
Advertisement
















If it doesn't cost money, I guarantee you the bill is worthless. Why aren't they freaking out over defense spending? I don't want to pay for two wars and an imperial presence all of the world while we're a total joke around the world because we can't even provide our own people healthcare. And haven't they ever heard of the progressive income tax? Why are the wealthy being totally excluded from any participation in paying for this?
June 18, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody remember what the Iraq war cost/is still costing? I'd pull that one out as a comparison at every possible opportunity.
Wasn't there an "even if we only save one person from terrorism" meme floating around for awhile? I'd haul that one out as well.
June 18, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because all major parties to the debate don't care about quantitative accuracy, numbers are merely rhetorical tools.
June 18, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
June 18, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just think if we had ended the war in 2005 we could have payed for SP UHC. Just think about who got that money instead with that fat government contract going to the company they hold 10% share of, who's driving that Lamborghini down the 280 at 90 mph.... Better hope a deer doesn't jump in front of them. No, No new taxes for him he's keeping the "economy" going. Ain't it funny how that works?
June 19, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Questions about "costs" are easily distorted.
The fact of the matter is that we should take care of people who are sick or injured, and we should take steps to keep people healthy. The present system fulfills those goals very badly, and in a very inefficient and half-assed kind of way.
And if you start with the assumption that we should have a system that is not going to let people die in the gutter, and the present system fulfills that goal, then there are really only two questions:
1. If our present system provides a satisfactory level of health care, and those costs are relatively fixed, then who is going to pay for those costs? Are we going to continue to insist that the costs of the poor should bankrupt the middle class? Or are we going to ask the wealthy to assume some of the costs?
2. Are the costs of medical care really fixed, or are there steps that we can take to minimize societal health care costs through preventive care and better allocation of health care resources?
Notice that neither of those questions results in a 10-year or even a 1-year dollar figure.
June 19, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the other obvious thing about health care spending? The money that is spent goes right back into the economy, paying for....wait for it....HEALTH CARE! It will pay salaries and for services and equipment, medications, etc.
Without it, all health care money goes straight to insurance companies, which then begrudgingly dole it out, saving as much as possible to pay high salaries of the people who simply receive the money and then dole it out! Oh, and stockholders and Congresspeople.
When these people talk about the trillion dollars, it is as though all the money goes down a rat-hole (like it does now).
June 19, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
All that money the insurance companies rack up, besides going to exorbitant CEO salaries, is one of the major sources of cash in our financial system. I think therein lies a lot of the power they wield in the healthcare debate. When we speak of the financial sector and our current paradigm of the healthcare sector, the two are well and truly entwined, and hold the ears of our highest elected officials in DC. More's the pity.
June 19, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh ... Dear Pigster . . .
Your help is needed. See request above.
Tanx . . .
~OGD~
June 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops . . .
The request is below...
QUACK~
~OGD~
June 19, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out here . . .
Could you please go over to this comment and do the math for me?
Thanks in advance ... *wink wink*
~OGD~
June 19, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never had the idea that no one would pay a monthly fee for health care; my idea is simply that we would all pay the exact same thing (except for those who can't pay at all, and they should get subsidized health care). Because if every human in our country paid the exact same thing for a non-profit system of health care it would be completely affordable for the large majority of people.
Considering all the tax cheats that there are, I don't think that this should be completely tax-funded. Why shouldn't we pay into the system, without anyone being able to have a "deduction?"
As long as there are ways to get out of something, the system will not work, and as long as there are ways to get out of something, politicians will figure out a way to do it. It has to be universal with no exceptions.
Oh. I forgot. No one is listening. Good night.
June 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamas plan would actually cap health care costs in the long run. You have to examine the growth in cost for the last twenty years and the regulated and forseeable or planned growth for the next twenty. The percentile cost growth which has far exceeded inflation has to be stopped.
June 19, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say the dems are whining about costs to deflate the repug argument they see steamrolling down the hallway like an obese bee stung elephant.
If they kiss the rock, so to speak, before the Rebpugs cry all over sunday morning TV, then hopefully the issue will disappear a little and the Repugs will actually have to debate the bill on its substantive content.
Which is a loser argument.
so let 'em whine.
June 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this?
Oh ... It's just Obama's primary care doctor for 21 years. What's he saying?
The 71 year old doctor says it all!
~OGD~
June 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have thought about this. They're doing it precisely because it's scarier to use *trillion* than to break it down into managable billions. This is from people who are being paid by the insurance companies to make real change as scary as possible.
June 19, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Daschle - what a rascal! I am so glad he didn't get the appointment!
June 19, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting mighty worried that they've talked themselves into slashing Medicare and Medicaid and talked themselves out of providing assitance to anyone else. This bill may be the Republicans dream come true.
June 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink