CBO: Deficit would soar in coming decades despite Obama's health overhaul

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Make voter disenfranchisement a requirement for taking SS or medicare/welfare.

Tulane, that is only if they make forecast cuts right?

I read that that if they make the cuts the budget will get worse, i.e. "darken." Am I mistaken there.

It seems to be saying that if health care is left as is, it helps, but not enough. But that Congress is already trying to tweak it and offer income tax cuts that will make the budget look even worse. That's how I read it. :whoknows:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

We still don't have the NavyDave budget. What a shock.

[NewCliche21]

(I reduced the font size.)

Yes, but you could do it quietly w/o people noticing. If the NIH shifted their funding from research related to things that kill (old) people to things like autism, childhood cancers, traumatic injury recovery, infectious diseases, etc most people wouldn't really notice.

It certainly isn't something that would get the attention that a healthcare bill does, it isn't something that most people would vote base on (I don't think), and you would have an affective "answer" for those that did complain (think about the children (while running ads with bald kids from chemo treatment from cancer) and there is only so much research money).

The problem is over the last 30 years that we've gotten a lot better at keeping people alive (e.g heart disease and cancer are down and more treatable than ever) and not a lot better at keeping people producitve (e.g. autism and various infectious diseases are up).

The thing that medicine did early that I think really helped society (and I think helped lead to the post-war advancement of society) is that it really helped make people productive over a life time (e.g. antibiotics extended people's lives during their productive ages or allowed them to reach their productive ages), but didn't affect deaths of people in the non-productive times of their life so much (people still died of heart disease and cancer as they reached their less productive years).

This though caused a turn to attention to the diseases that killed (mostly) people that are (on the verge of becoming) nonproductive (e.g. many cancers and heart disease).

Now, we've done well with them, but we've lagged behind on worrying about the ones that extend productivity.

We need a shift back to predominanty to worrying about ones that will help people reach and through their most productive ages.

Not to steer off topic, but you don't want to use the autism example. Being diagnosed with more frequency does not mean that it's more prevalent; it means that tests are more accurate. Back in 792 (just making up a year), lots of people had heart disease and high cholesterol, but they weren't diagnosed. See what I mean?

[PeterMP]

Not to steer off topic, but you don't want to use the autism example. Being diagnosed with more frequency does not mean that it's more prevalent; it means that tests are more accurate. Back in 792 (just making up a year), lots of people had heart disease and high cholesterol, but they weren't diagnosed. See what I mean?

Nobody seriously believes the increase in autism is only related to better diagnosis. It might be playing a part, but there is now credibile way it is the whole story.