Me: How could having the government pay for the healthcare of several millions of people reduce the federal budget?
How could adding lots of new bureaucrats to work with the new 2,000 pages of rules reduce the federal budget?
phebes Believe it or not, there's more to it than that. Do some homework.
Me: According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471)
"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year
2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and
revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase
in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by
$890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022,
thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."
Political Theatre I think elTim went with "or not". ;-)
Me: Isn't it nice to all get together and insult me?
I thought that those of you on the left were supposed to be the nicer kinder half of the country.
hazmatlang Yes the more to it is smoke and mirrors.
phebes (In response to hazmatlang) Is that what rush told you?
Me: The left often accuses the right of using "talking points." Someone on
the left saying that someone on the right only heard something because
of el Rushbo, sounds an awful lot like a democratic "talking point."
furby8 In short, economy of size.
Me: Even if an economy of size reduces the healthcare costs for individuals
it will cost the government (that means taxpayers) more, because the
government (taxpayers) is doing something for citizens that it was not
If ACA works to plan it will mean that some taxpayers will be forced to pay for the healthcare of others.
wewin Because we already pay in so many ways which are inefficient. When a
hospital charges $200 for a tetanus shot and a cash only clinic charges
$25. It is not costing the hospital that much, they are just spreading
the cost of all their free services and unpaid bills.
Me: It might not cost the hospital that much but when we add Medicare and
Medicaid the hospitals only get reimbursed something like 65% of costs.
One of the big reasons that hospitals do things inefficiently is to
protect themselves from liability. Many unnecessary tests are done
because the hospitals are likely to get sued if they don't do everything
possible, even if it is totally unnecessary.
I hear that a doctor needs to pay something like $100k per year for malpractice insurance.
The way our healthcare system worked was far from perfect, but giving
the government 2,000 more pages of rules and regulations will not
improve your healthcare.
getsit You can thank the Republican input for the 2700 pages. You can thank
the Republicans and Obama's need for "bipartisanship" also since single
payer was NEVER put on the table to be considered if only to please us
Other countries pay for healthcare, GOOD HEALTHCARE, and spend a
fraction of what it costs this country. Their health is better, they
live longer, and the mortality of their babies is much, much better.
They are also doing well economically. Look at Canada and especially
Sweden who is really much more socialistic. AND YET, they are doing
extremely well. PEOPLE ARE WORKING IN SWEDEN. And yes their taxes are
higher but they get more in return for what they pay because their money
isn't going to tax breaks for the rich or wars. They value education
too. GET A CLUE.
Me: The two things that the republicans asked to include were: tort reform
and the ability to by insurance across state lines. Neither of those
made it into the bill.
And not a single republican voted to turn ACA into law.
If you are going to blame republicans for things that they had no input in or votes for, then you are setting quite a precedent.
Health care so good, in fact, that there are many private hospitals
opening in Canada because the public hospitals cannot help everyone. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=all
You say that they live longer, but when counting longevity stats we count stillborns into the equation and most others do not.
Unemployment in Sweden: 8.8% http://www.scb.se/Pages/Product____23276.aspx
Unemployment here: 8.3% (11% if we had the same labor participation rate that we had when Obama was elected.)
ElTopo1 it's not the same as balancing your checkbook.
Me: Maybe not. But the revenues must be more than the expenditures if we want to continue to do the things we do.