Ok. I’ve been swayed by Frisian’s response. I don’t have voting rights in the US, but put me down as a Yes (or whatever it is that supports the bill)
accountant23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CBO didn’t exist in 1965 You’re absolutely right. I meant its government equivalent estimated it would cost $60 billion in 2010.
frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheBigBean Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I know nothing about this, but am interested > why > > so many people oppose something so accepted > across > > most of the developed world. Is it: > > - that universal health care is considered a > good > > thing, but that the current proposal is not > liked? > > In which case isn’t it better to have something > > now and refine later? > > - that compulsory insurance infringes some > civil > > liberty? But what about any taxation, such as > > paying for the military? > > > > Any quick answers would be appreciated. > > > The Republican party is no longer “conservative” > in the usual sense of the word. I’m not even sure > how to describe them any more, and unfortunately, > I’ve got some family members who lean very > strongly that way. I would like to point out to > them that what is good for the News Corporation > and Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily good for the > United States, but I don’t think they’d pay > attention. > > I’m a firm believer that a centrist government > that combines the best parts of the left and the > right, while doing away with the stupidities, is > the best kind of government. I don’t know much > about the minutiate of this bill, but I understand > it to be pretty centrist. So I support the bill. > > And as an American, I find it appalling that a > bill that would largely pay for itself and provide > health insurance to millions of Americans is a > tougher political challenge than clearing the way > for a $1 trillion-plus war against a two-bit > dictator based on the flimsiest of evidence. And > as a financial analyst, it’s apparent which one > has the highest NPV. > > But those are the times we live in… Here is the issue–you just stated that you don’t know the “minutiae” of this bill, but that, as you understand it, it largely pays for itself. That’s where understanding–or at least attempting–to understand the minutiae will help you see that the bill does not pay for itself.
Haven’t studied the bill closely enough to have an opinion on whether I’m for it or against it. But does anyone else find it insanely hypocritical that there are anti-abortion people that oppose this bill? So let me get this right, they are concerned about the well-being of an unborn fetus, but not the ~30 million living and breathing Americans who don’t have health insurance?
whatever you may think of him, barney frank always said that to pro-lifers life begins at conception and ends at birth and that seems to capture that hypocrisy nicely.
@ kkent, what government organization did a cost estimate on Medicare? Politicians don’t count. Please don’t just respond quickly, put some effort into it. If the CBO didn’t exist during the time of Medicare how can you assert knowledge about their future performance one way or the other? Also, the CBO has performed in some cases as good as and in other cases better in macro-economic forecasting when compared to market consensus. Please reference this: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6812/10-25-EconomicForecastingRecord.pdf My point is, forecasts are above or below; you’re intelligent, you know the nature of a normally distributed data set, some are above the mean some are below. Some cost estimates are above the mean some are below; on what basis do you assert that this data set is not normally distributed? Who knows if this will be over or under estimate, my point is you can’t assert definitively one way or the other without sufficient data; I’m not sure why you’re arguing with this point?
Just a quick google search shows you how badly the US healthcare system is failing. This link gives a quick overview of the US healthcare’s ranking compared to other countries: http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2610 And this link gives some nice graphs showing that the US spends vastly more on healthcare than any other nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States Interestingly, in 1970 the US and Canada both spent 10% of GDP on healthcare. Now Canada spends 10% and the US 16%. By many measures, the Canadian system is superior. In other words, if the US was to adopt the Canadian healthcare model, Americans could all go to the beach for 3 extra weeks in the summer and have see no drop in your standard of living. Think about that before you query the necessity of this reform. A lot of people here seem to be opposed to this reform on cost grounds, but the fact is that the current system is massively expensive and terrible value for money. Surely any serious attempt at reform is to be celebrated. Instead it seems that people attack the bill purely on idealogical grounds. Statements suggesting this is a first step on a slippery slope towards nationalization of healthcare with no other reasoning given are extremely unhelpful in my opinion. The fact is that many OECD countries have nationalized or quasi-nationalized healthcare systems that provide superior service to the US system at a far smaller cost. Rejecting that as an option based on outdated cold war era sentiments will not advance this debate in my opinion.
No
Yes - anything is better than the current system. The current system is a joke. $1700 for allergy shots - WTF is that.
A lot of people are opposed to this purely on political lines. If BO were to walk on water or start another war they would still claim that he is a communist or socialist.
cookthebooks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > whatever you may think of him, barney frank always > said that to pro-lifers life begins at conception > and ends at birth and that seems to capture that > hypocrisy nicely. It is not hypocritical; you are not really trying to see it from the pro-life view. I am pro-choice, but understand where a pro-lifer is coming from. Including any abortion coverage in the HC bill is akin to saying “we are going to send hurricane relief to New Orleans, but in the same vote we need to expand the death penalty to save money on prisons”. That is why it is such an emotional issue. I am fine with them not including it, good compromise in my opinion.
Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ kkent, what government organization did a cost > estimate on Medicare? > Politicians don’t count. Please don’t just respond > quickly, put some effort into it. > > If the CBO didn’t exist during the time of > Medicare how can you assert knowledge about their > future performance one way or the other? > > Also, the CBO has performed in some cases as good > as and in other cases better in macro-economic > forecasting when compared to market consensus. > Please reference this: > http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6812/10-25-Econ > omicForecastingRecord.pdf > > My point is, forecasts are above or below; you’re > intelligent, you know the nature of a normally > distributed data set, some are above the mean some > are below. Some cost estimates are above the mean > some are below; on what basis do you assert that > this data set is not normally distributed? > > Who knows if this will be over or under estimate, > my point is you can’t assert definitively one way > or the other without sufficient data; I’m not sure > why you’re arguing with this point? God, I hate your arrogant attitude–“Please don’t just respond quickly, put some effort into it.” I’ve put more thought and effort into this conversation than anyone here! I’ve shown factually and mathematically that this bill DOES NOT FUND ITSELF. I’ve shown factually that this bill WILL increase the cost of health insurance and I’ve shown how, mathematically, taxes will rise on everyone at the state level because the federal government is passing off the true expense of this bill onto state Medicaid programs. Nevertheless, the House Ways and Means Committee actuary conducted the estimates in 1965. The CBO is wrong this time and it’s not their fault–they are forced to accept the assumptions of the bill, including $500 billion in double counting of Medicare, the $150 billion double counting of Social Security revenue, the $200 billion in “savings” from cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” and they MUST assume that future Congresses will not repeal the tax increases or spending cuts. And we all know how Congress operates–Congress WILL repeal both the Medicare cuts and tax increases because when they are implemented, they will create a firestorm, which is why much of this bill doesn’t kick-in until much later down the road. In addition, the CBO can’t even comment on state Medicaid programs. Nor can the CBO include in their estimate the $208 billion “fix” to Medicare cuts that is going to be introduced. And, as a rule, the CBO almost always clarifies that any estimate after 10 years is a shot-in-the-dark and has no real meaning.
Sorry. My previous post had a typo. US and Canada both spent 7% of GDP on health in 1970. Now it’s 10% and 16% respectively. I’ll also add a caveat that I am an outsider in this debate and I will admit that I do not know the finer points of the bill.
@ kkent, I’m finally to a point where I’m comfortable with your argument; I like the numbers you included above, and the contingencies you pointed out which may not come through helps bolsters your argument. I wasn’t trying to be a jerk, I just wanted you to present a logically constructed argument and not say it will over-run because government sucks. Look, I think this will most likely come in over estimate due to medicare cuts and other contingencies that may not come through as you stated. But like I said previously, this should not be asserted with 100% certainty. Good luck at law school 
Double post…
Will there be any way to know 5 or 10 years from now if this bill sucks or works? edit: ie if it sucks - - what does that mean? if it works - - what does that mean?
"And we all know how Congress operates–Congress WILL repeal both the Medicare cuts and tax increases because when they are implemented, they will create a firestorm, which is why much of this bill doesn’t kick-in until much later down the road. In addition, the CBO can’t even comment on state Medicaid programs. Nor can the CBO include in their estimate the $208 billion “fix” to Medicare cuts that is going to be introduced. " Kkent - is that not a failing of the system more than this particular bill? Could this reform not be the first of many necessary steps needed to improve US healthcare while simultaneously making it more affordable?
You could try but it would be hard because you wouldn’t have a baseline, i.e. what health-care expenditures would have been without the bill.
http://www.facebook.com/EvaLongoria#!/EvaLongoria?v=wall eva even posted some video about the healthcare bill on her wall yesterday. i wonder what eva’s opinion is on all of this. I think we should just get some hot health care government official that is really good at marketing and PR to hype up the health care system and solution.
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "And we all know how Congress operates–Congress > WILL repeal both the Medicare cuts and tax > increases because when they are implemented, they > will create a firestorm, which is why much of this > bill doesn’t kick-in until much later down the > road. In addition, the CBO can’t even comment on > state Medicaid programs. Nor can the CBO include > in their estimate the $208 billion “fix” to > Medicare cuts that is going to be introduced. " > > Kkent - is that not a failing of the system more > than this particular bill? Could this reform not > be the first of many necessary steps needed to > improve US healthcare while simultaneously making > it more affordable? There’s nothing in this bill that maks health care more affordable for people who currently have it. It makes health insurance more expensive for people who currently have it and more affordable for the “31 million” people without it, but with the expansion of a bankrupt state Medicaid system coupled with drastic cuts to Medicare, the logical conclusion is that many or most of the 31 million will have coverage in-name only because so few doctors will accept Medicare/Medicaid insurance programs because it will cost them money to take on those patients. Also, the tens of millions of people who currently use Medicaid and Medicare will suffer as they will find it more and more difficult to find doctors.