Obama address to Congress

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And this post should answer the repeatedly asked question of why American's don't trust the government to run health care. We can't afford to trust them.

Agreed. If US pays higher taxes than Canada, why's their healthcare so bad?

[Pastiche]

High taxes pay for important things like cruise missiles and air craft carriers.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except we're not even talking about a true single-payer system here.

We don't even know if the public option will on the table for SURE. And all my costs are associated with what Obama is proposing, and not with the single-payer system.

I'm not disputing that a true single payer system, perhaps even like the one we have here in Canada, albeit managed a lot better than what we have, could save money.

But that would require that the US burn everything down and build it all from scratch. Something they're not willing to do.

My problem from the START has been a 'federal' government run program. And the costs associated with THAT.

I agree that what will actually be implemented by the States will be public subsidies of private insurance - which is the worst solution of all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Well, I was just pulling a number out of thin air, but the actual CBO projections on the bill coming out of the ways and means committee shows a net increase of 65 billion to the national deficit over a ten year period

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

[/b][/font][/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]



Using the actual numbers presented by the CBO (65 Billion) and the actual number of people helped, as estimated by the CBO (37 Million) it appears that it would cost $175 dollars per yer per person helped, which is about $14.63 a month.

Do you actually have CBO numbers that show 1.6 trillion as the net cost and 20 million as the number of uninsured that would receive assistance? Here is their website if you want to actually cite it http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm[/left]
[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

The CBO estimates that Obamacare would add more than another trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years.

But the 'actual' cost would be much higher.

And that doesn't even account for the $300 billion of interest that would be spent to loan another trillion dollars. Not too mention a slew of other problems that I don't even understand.

From what I've read, Obamcare could cost anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over ten years.

Lets take the $1.6 trillion I used in my last post, which IIRC was the best estimate the CBO had.

Most of the devastation was wreaked by the Congressional Budget Office, which on Tuesday reported that draft legislation from the Senate Finance Committee would increase the federal deficit by more than $1.6 trillion over the next decade while only partly denting the population of the uninsured. The details haven't been made public, but the short version seems to be that President Obama's health boondoggle prescribes vast new spending without a coherent plan to pay for it even while failing to meet its own standards for social equity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536826475329427.html

In the Finance Committee, Senate aides learned late Monday of the $1.6 trillion cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. That version would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by some 40 million, leaving about 15 million still lacking coverage after 10 years, according to Senate aides briefed on the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124517215994419603.html

You can go scan through the official CBO releases, but I just did and I'm not about to calculate all the costs and savings that they list and come up with the $1.6 trillion.

Google 'CBO healthcare $1.6 trillion' and you'll come up with numerous sources who all reported the same thing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Well, that explains why we appear to be talking past each other -- we're not debating the same topic.

I'm arguing in favour of the the cost benefits of a universal, government-run single-payer system as implemented in most OECD countries. You're arguing specifically against Obama's plan.

Wasn't the thread about Obama's plan?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

High taxes pay for important things like cruise missiles and air craft carriers.

Nobody is going to argue that spending close to $500 billion per year on the military is way too much.

But who is going to cut THOSE costs?

EDIT: And HOW do you cut those costs in the middle of a war?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

High taxes pay for important things like cruise missiles and air craft carriers.

That keep you safe as well as us.

It also pays for social security so I can have some sort of income when I retire.....oh...wait.....that's bankrupt.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

High taxes pay for important things like cruise missiles and air craft carriers.

I wish it were that easy but we could never actually say that our taxes are being used to pay for those things with as complex as our tax code is.

[Pastiche]

I'm just making the point that high taxes in the U.S. are a result of the defense budget.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I'm just making the point that high taxes in the U.S. are a result of the defense budget.

Which isn't a bad thing.

So wouldn't the US need higher taxes to support a public option? Or would they just shuffle funds around?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Azure

The CBO estimates that Obamacare would add more than another trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years.

But the 'actual' cost would be much higher.

And that doesn't even account for the $300 billion of interest that would be spent to loan another trillion dollars. Not too mention a slew of other problems that I don't even understand.

From what I've read, Obamcare could cost anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over ten years.

Lets take the $1.6 trillion I used in my last post, which IIRC was the best estimate the CBO had.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536826475329427.html



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124517215994419603.html

You can go scan through the official CBO releases, but I just did and I'm not about to calculate all the costs and savings that they list and come up with the $1.6 trillion.

Google 'CBO healthcare $1.6 trillion' and you'll come up with numerous sources who all reported the same thing.

Even if the Wall Street Journals numbers are correct, the number is $333 a month based on the Wall Street journals estimate of 40 million people being added to the rolls. In any event, those numbers are from June of 2009, the CBO official numbers are from July 2009, the July numbers seem to me to be slightly more accurate. In the July numbers, they have the gross cost at around 1 trillion, the net cost at 65 billion. It would be interesting if there was a number that was less than 3 months old that showed a 1.6 trillion dollar price tag.

[Pastiche]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's bad logic to say because there are high taxes in the U.S. and low social service levels then government must be bad at running social programs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And this post should answer the repeatedly asked question of why American's don't trust the government to run health care. We can't afford to trust them.

As a Canadian, I read this and think it can't be any worse than what the 'free market' is already doing.

If they are going to go broke, wouldn't you rather have healthcare along the way?

Very recent history suggests to me that any change from the current system would be a welcome, cheaper solution. Private healthcare in the states looks exactly like you would expect an unregulated large segment of the economy might look.

If you're going to hell, you might as well bring snacks.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Which isn't a bad thing.

So wouldn't the US need higher taxes to support a public option? Or would they just shuffle funds around?

Obama apparently does not believe tax payers have to pay for the public health insurance option. He says it will be 100% funded on its own. The cost savings come in when you dont have to pay for executive salaries and the rest of the massively inflated overhead Americans already pay for.

Didnt they say that Americans pay 30 cents on the dollar for overhead where we pay 1 cent?

[starseed]

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/..._icQQD9AKAF200

Here is that excerpt I was talking about.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

High taxes pay for important things like cruise missiles and air craft carriers.

Actually a lot of them already pay for healthcare. Last year over 20% of federal expenditures went to healthcare, beating out education, law enforcement etc...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

As a Canadian, I read this and think it can't be any worse than what the 'free market' is already doing.

If they are going to go broke, wouldn't you rather have healthcare along the way?

Very recent history suggests to me that any change from the current system would be a welcome, cheaper solution. Private healthcare in the states looks exactly like you would expect an unregulated large segment of the economy might look.

If you're going to hell, you might as well bring snacks.

US healthcare is over-regulated all to hell. The free market would actually help consumers by making costs real and forcing doctors to provide cheaper alternatives.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by peter12

US healthcare is over-regulated all to hell. The free market would actually help consumers by making costs real and forcing doctors to provide cheaper alternatives.

Hasnt someone mentioned here a while ago that Germany has heavily regulated private health insurance companies? Do they not have a decent system?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

What a speech by Obama, an absolute homerun. And the Republicans looked good on their rebuttal afterwards as well. I loved how sick Boehner looked during the speech, it was like he was down to his last bottle of fake suntan lotion. Joe Wilson fired off a desperate salvo as the Republican caucus sat their in awe at the political greatness of this man, and watched their dreams of protecting the health insurance lobby likely go up in smoke.

Azure, I ran the numbers, it costs $232 a person. I would love to see your independent site that said it is $666, that seems like an awfully convenient number that likely came directly from the K Street Project.

I disagree....it was great speech but its intention to unify things will backfire enormously i am afraid.

He essentially called the Republicans a bunch of lying liars....and actually admitted that about the Dems recently as well when he used the 30 million number.

So much for his platform of bipartisanship....as that speech threw it all out the window and ratcheted up the "politics" going forward.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except we're not even talking about a true single-payer system here.

We don't even know if the public option will on the table for SURE. And all my costs are associated with what Obama is proposing, and not with the single-payer system.

Just to add to that--even the so-called "public option" is just medicare-style public health insurance--not a single-payer system. One of the biggest problems with this health care bill is that it addresses only one of the two major challenges U.S. health care faces: access. It doesn't address the issue that will in the end bring the whole system down: rising costs.

A true single-payer system would help. But that was never even discussed, and probably would have been even less likely to make it out of committee.

Obama's mistake (if we can call it that--his hands are a little bit tied) is in trying to untangle the Gordian knot here. It's time to cut the thing in half and start over, but no-one seems able to do that. Failing that, reforms that improve access are nice, but they'll result in escalating costs over time, which in the long run is a major problem.