deejaydana Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 File this under the "be careful what you wish for category." At least we can hold out hope that if it does pass the Senate it can be aggressively pared back before it's a reality. Dissenting voices to this piece? I'm all ears.... Link: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/11/07/obamacare_will_balloon_future_budget_deficits_97494.html According to the congressional forecasters, Democrats have succeeded in turning water into wine, proposing health care legislation that will simultaneously expand the welfare state with new entitlements while also reducing budget deficits. This is big news, at least from a political perspective, since proponents hope so-called deficit hawks will have an excuse to support bigger government. The federal government's ability to predict healthcare spending leaves much to be desired. When Medicare was created in 1965, the long-run forecasts estimated that the program would cost about $12 billion by 1990. In reality, it cost more than $100 billion that year. And it now costs $500 billion. Medicaid was also created in 1965 and was supposed to be a very small program with annual expenditures of about $1 billion. It has now become a huge $250 billion entitlement. Medicaid's disproportionate share hospital (DSH) program is a sobering example. Created in 1987, the program was supposed to cost less than $1 billion in 1992, but the actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. To cite another example, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage legislation was adopted in 1988 and repealed less than two years later, in part because some provisions were already projected to cost six times more than originally forecast. Finally, a bigger public sector has negative implications for public finances. Higher levels of government spending will drain resources from the productive sector of the economy, undermining economic vitality. Additionally, the plans result in large implicit marginal tax rates of nearly 70 percent because of the phase-out of insurance subsidies. So even taxpayers with modest incomes will face a staggering penalty on upward mobility that will hinder overall economic performance. Fiscal responsibility is achieved by limiting the size of government. The President and his congressional allies, however, claim that big increases in government spending are prudent so long as there are equally large increases in the tax burden. But that's like a doctor trying to fix a broken left leg by breaking the right leg as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Crazyness.... Obama is paying for this bill. It's deficite neutral. He's saught and recieved 400 billion dollars woth of concessions from the healthcare industry ( drugs, hospitals, and doctros) and he's increasing taxes to pay for another 400 billion. This bill is paid for, and it it curbes the rate of growth by 2% it's paid for itself twice by saving us 2 billion dollars. If it actually eliminates growth we will have saved 15 Trillion dollars over the next decade. Obama's spending 1 trillion dollors over ten years to reform an economic niche wich if left alone would cost 35 trillion dollars over the same period and bankrupt the nation is economicly a poor descion? I just don't get your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Crazyness....Obama is paying for this bill. It's deficite neutral. He's saught and recieved 400 billion dollars woth of concessions from the healthcare industry ( drugs, hospitals, and doctros) and he's increasing taxes to pay for another 400 billion. This bill is paid for, and it it curbes the rate of growth by 2% it's paid for itself twice by saving us 2 billion dollars. If it actually eliminates growth we will have saved 15 Trillion dollars over the next decade. Obama's spending 1 trillion dollors over ten years to reform an economic niche wich if left alone would cost 35 trillion dollars over the same period and bankrupt the nation is economicly a poor descion? I just don't get your reasoning. Have you seen any of those concessions?? Did they ever explain where it was coming from? That was just a political smoke screen. In the end we will be paying for all of this. Last I checked we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan so the money is not coming from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Where is some proof of this deficit neutral business? Sure as hell ain't in no CBO projection I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Have you seen any of those concessions?? Did they ever explain where it was coming from? Yep, they are signed and agreed too. They are in the can. They come directly from reversing Bush's give away to drug, insurance, hospitals and doctors. They are part of this house bill. The drug, hostitals and doctors ageed with Obama on those cuts and to support this bill in exchange for Obama not seaking larger cuts. Only the insurance industry didn't get on the buss. That was just a political smoke screen. In the end we will be paying for all of this. Last I checked we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan so the money is not coming from there. ?? Obama was always asking for a revenue neutral bill. That's what he got. Which is why this bill is so controversial. Cause he's taking money back from the industries to the tune of 400 billion dollars... It's also controversial with liberals cause most believe those industries were out of control in 2006 when Bush gave them that wet sloppy kiss of a reform bill and Obama's left believes those industries must be asked to actually cut rather than just give back what they pilfered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Yep, they are signed and agreed too. They are in the can. They come directly from reversing Bush's give away to drug, insurance, hospitals and doctors. They are part of this house bill. The drug, hostitals and doctors ageed with Obama on those cuts and to support this bill in exchange for Obama not seaking larger cuts. Only the insurance industry didn't get on the buss. What is signed and agreed too???? Can you name one way they are providing any concessions??? What exactly are they doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Where is some proof of this deficit neutral business?Sure as hell ain't in no CBO projection I've seen. Well let me help you with that then. CBO: House healthcare bill is deficit neutral http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/65463-cbo-house-healthcare-bill-is-deficit-neutral House Democrats' newly unveiled healthcare reform bill will cost about $894 billion over the next 10 years -- but a combination of tax increases and spending cuts keep the bill deficit neutral, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Thursday. That means the bill, unveiled earlier today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), satisfies the two cost criteria President Barack Obama established for healthcare reform earlier this year. The CBO back in June never considered the entire bill. They only were considering pieces of packeges which were being debated. Obama has always been talking about deficit neutral reform. Always said he wouldn't sign or support a bill which wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Crazyness....Obama is paying for this bill. It's deficite neutral. He's saught and recieved 400 billion dollars woth of concessions from the healthcare industry ( drugs, hospitals, and doctros) and he's increasing taxes to pay for another 400 billion. This bill is paid for, and it it curbes the rate of growth by 2% it's paid for itself twice by saving us 2 billion dollars. If it actually eliminates growth we will have saved 15 Trillion dollars over the next decade. Obama's spending 1 trillion dollors over ten years to reform an economic niche wich if left alone would cost 35 trillion dollars over the same period and bankrupt the nation is economicly a poor descion? I just don't get your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Well let me help you with that then.The CBO back in June never considered the entire bill. They only were considering pieces of packeges which were being debated. Obama has always been talking about deficit neutral reform. Always said he wouldn't sign or support a bill which wasn't. JMS the bill can say it is deficit neutral but we won't see to it is in action if that is the case. Moss instituted healthcare and they thought it would reduce costs and it turns out it has done the opposite. Only time will tell of this bill does what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 What is signed and agreed too???? Can you name one way they are providing any concessions??? What exactly are they doing? They are cutting most of the money left from bush's 2006 healthcare reform which cost about 890 billion or so and took the form of huge subsidies to the private sector. That's who Obama is collecting 400 billion dollars of the houses 800 billion price tag. Obama is also introducing 400 billion worth of taxes to make up the difference. And remember this bill is designed to curb healthcare growth of the next ten years when we are projected to see yearly healthcare costs go from today's 2.5 trillion a year to average 3.5 over the entire 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Crazyness....Obama is paying for this bill. It's deficite neutral. He's saught and recieved 400 billion dollars woth of concessions from the healthcare industry ( drugs, hospitals, and doctros) and he's increasing taxes to pay for another 400 billion. This bill is paid for, and it it curbes the rate of growth by 2% it's paid for itself twice by saving us 2 billion dollars. If it actually eliminates growth we will have saved 15 Trillion dollars over the next decade. Obama's spending 1 trillion dollors over ten years to reform an economic niche wich if left alone would cost 35 trillion dollars over the same period and bankrupt the nation is economicly a poor descion? I just don't get your reasoning. WELCOME TO LaLa Land :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 If true (it isn't) then I would just say to you, simply, so what? There are some things worth going into debt over. Health care for everyone is one of them. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 JMS the bill can say it is deficit neutral but we won't see to it is in action if that is the case. Moss instituted healthcare and they thought it would reduce costs and it turns out it has done the opposite. Only time will tell of this bill does what it says. Well The non partisan CBO's office says this bill is deficite neutral as it was passed by the House last night. That's independent of any future savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 WELCOME TO LaLa Land :doh: HELLO MCFLY..... It's the Congressional Budget Office's statement of fact. Not mine. However I think they have understated the reality of the bill. They didn't address any savings in this bill or calulate any reduction of growth of healthcare costs. They didn't even try to do that, because they couldn't come up with an exact number they said that wasn't part of their job. This is the complaint of healthcare economists on the right and left of the CBO's projections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 If true (it isn't) then I would just say to you, simply, so what. And yet we aren't, and that's what folks are vocally complaining about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 If true (it isn't) then I would just say to you, simply, so what?There are some things worth going into debt over. Health care for everyone is one of them. Deal with it. Only if done correctly though, why go in debt for something that has proven doesnt't work, look at medicare, this is going to be 10x worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 HELLO MCFLY..... It's the Congressional Budget Office's statement of fact.Not mine. Substantial uncertainty means what? Somehow that don't translate into fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 If true (it isn't) then I would just say to you, simply, so what?There are some things worth going into debt over. Health care for everyone is one of them. Deal with it. So tell me TJ, how is it not true? Can you back that up? I know the Cato Institute is certainly more right than left leaning but those historical numbers they throw out are indisputable. What will be different this go round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.