And you know these figures are still low....by about 75%. There is now way in Hell we can pay for this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate sources say the latest cost estimates for health care legislation are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

A third staffer, a Finance Committee Democratic aide, indicated committee members are working to lower the cost to less than $1 trillion over 10 years, a level preferred by the Obama administration.
The staffers spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the legislation.

Cost problems have slowed work on the sweeping legislation.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090616/D98S05IO1.html

(06-16-2009 06:17 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:   And you know these figures are still low....by about 75%. There is now way in Hell we can pay for this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate sources say the latest cost estimates for health care legislation are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

A third staffer, a Finance Committee Democratic aide, indicated committee members are working to lower the cost to less than $1 trillion over 10 years, a level preferred by the Obama administration.
The staffers spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the legislation.

Cost problems have slowed work on the sweeping legislation.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090616/D98S05IO1.html

Not sure why the lower cost estimate is said to only cover about 25% of the uninsured. President Hussein no longer reports numbers from the Congressional Budget Office since they tend to give a more realistic view of the cost.

(06-16-2009 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Not sure why the lower cost estimate is said to only cover about 25% of the uninsured. President Hussein no longer reports numbers from the Congressional Budget Office since they tend to give a more realistic view of the cost.

I think because they increased the scope of coverage to include dental, psych, susbtance abuse rehab (which includes stop smoking treatments) etc.

They expanded it so much they couldn't cover all the uninsured.

This doesn't surprise anyone with a remote understanding of economics or logic.

Obama essentially has 3 choices for this.

1. Don't do it - This will never happen. He's made promises to do it.

2. Raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it - This is what I believe he will do, but it still won't be enough to pay for it.

3. Print more money to pay for it - Will probably do a combination of this and option 2.

The media is in the tank for Obama, this is a fact that cannot be disputed by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. And because they are they will NEVER report the reality of this program. We cannot afford it, period.

Does something need to be done, absolutely. But not Obamacare. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rudy had one of the better articulated plans during the campaign, and its alot cheaper than this. All that needs to be done is to truely Liberate healthcare and make it truly free.




fwd to 2:40 for a laymans lesson on how market economics works. He has a history of figuring out how to actually implement economically sound programs while being surrounded by liberals.

(06-16-2009 07:22 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Not sure why the lower cost estimate is said to only cover about 25% of the uninsured. President Hussein no longer reports numbers from the Congressional Budget Office since they tend to give a more realistic view of the cost.

I think because they increased the scope of coverage to include dental, psych, susbtance abuse rehab (which includes stop smoking treatments) etc.

They expanded it so much they couldn't cover all the uninsured.

What about ED?....Some limpdick is sure to sue!

(06-17-2009 07:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 07:22 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 06:26 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Not sure why the lower cost estimate is said to only cover about 25% of the uninsured. President Hussein no longer reports numbers from the Congressional Budget Office since they tend to give a more realistic view of the cost.

I think because they increased the scope of coverage to include dental, psych, susbtance abuse rehab (which includes stop smoking treatments) etc.

They expanded it so much they couldn't cover all the uninsured.

What about ED?....Some limpdick is sure to sue!

I think Viagra is covered under the Medicare Rx Drug Program.

Why? When beer's so much cheaper?

Where are the defenders of Obamacare on this? I know they're around. Granted Robert is too stupid to make an intelligent argument in support of it, but surely there are other Obama supporters on here that can defend it?

Current health care spending in the US is 15% of GDP of $14T = $2.1T so even the $1.6T estimate of health care reform would actually save us money.

(06-20-2009 10:21 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Granted Robert is too stupid to make an intelligent argument in support of it. . .

Unnecessary. . . You can disagree, but no need to insult someone so directly.

(06-20-2009 05:45 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  Current health care spending in the US is 15% of GDP of $14T = $2.1T so even the $1.6T estimate of health care reform would actually save us money.

Um, ok.

First, 1.6T is just to cover 1/3 of the uninsured in this country. To cover all uninsured you're looking at 4.8 trillion. 4.8>2.1. Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

The fact is the us government cannot afford, and does not have the ability to run, nationalized healthcare. We can't afford what Obama wants to do. And if it's done anyway, prepare for healtcare rationing, prepare for waiting 3 years for crucial procedures, prepare for deficits to the point the dollar tanks even more.

Quote:Unnecessary. . . You can disagree, but no need to insult someone so directly.

Preach it to Robert bub. Then I might take you seriously.

(06-16-2009 06:17 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:   And you know these figures are still low....by about 75%. There is now way in Hell we can pay for this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate sources say the latest cost estimates for health care legislation are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

A third staffer, a Finance Committee Democratic aide, indicated committee members are working to lower the cost to less than $1 trillion over 10 years, a level preferred by the Obama administration.
The staffers spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the legislation.

Cost problems have slowed work on the sweeping legislation.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090616/D98S05IO1.html

Nowhere does it say anything about about "1/3" of the uninsured. Using the CBO estimate spread over 10 years, the annualized cost would be $160B. Since for-profit insurance carries ~30% overhead, that amount could be gained just by converting $533B of for-profit insurance to non-profit. Which would have the pleasant side effect of eliminating the perverse incentives of denying coverage to increase personal wealth.

(06-20-2009 10:16 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  Nowhere does it say anything about about "1/3" of the uninsured. Using the CBO estimate spread over 10 years, the annualized cost would be $160B. Since for-profit insurance carries ~30% overhead, that amount could be gained just by converting $533B of for-profit insurance to non-profit. Which would have the pleasant side effect of eliminating the perverse incentives of denying coverage to increase personal wealth.

Quote:The initial estimate -- for parts of a comprehensive reform plan drafted by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- would spend $1 trillion over 10 years but end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance

CBO on ObamaCare

Next.

(06-21-2009 07:25 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 10:16 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  Nowhere does it say anything about about "1/3" of the uninsured. Using the CBO estimate spread over 10 years, the annualized cost would be $160B. Since for-profit insurance carries ~30% overhead, that amount could be gained just by converting $533B of for-profit insurance to non-profit. Which would have the pleasant side effect of eliminating the perverse incentives of denying coverage to increase personal wealth.

Quote:The initial estimate -- for parts of a comprehensive reform plan drafted by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- would spend $1 trillion over 10 years but end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance

CBO on ObamaCare

Leave it to Fox News to come up with a lowball estimate...

Still, the analysis, released Monday evening, gives the White House and Congress a starting point for debating how to pay for reform and how far to extend it. The Administration acknowledges reform will cost about $1 trillion, but it is counting on that amount to cover more people -- as many as all of the 46 million people currently without health coverage.

The administration has the lowball estimate at 1 trillion. And at this time that only covers 16 million.

(06-21-2009 11:45 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 07:25 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 10:16 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  Nowhere does it say anything about about "1/3" of the uninsured. Using the CBO estimate spread over 10 years, the annualized cost would be $160B. Since for-profit insurance carries ~30% overhead, that amount could be gained just by converting $533B of for-profit insurance to non-profit. Which would have the pleasant side effect of eliminating the perverse incentives of denying coverage to increase personal wealth.

Quote:The initial estimate -- for parts of a comprehensive reform plan drafted by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- would spend $1 trillion over 10 years but end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance

CBO on ObamaCare

Leave it to Fox News to come up with a lowball estimate...

Still, the analysis, released Monday evening, gives the White House and Congress a starting point for debating how to pay for reform and how far to extend it. The Administration acknowledges reform will cost about $1 trillion, but it is counting on that amount to cover more people -- as many as all of the 46 million people currently without health coverage.

Foxnews didn't come up with 16 million fella, the CBO did. The White House is who's counting on it covering 46.

But since you don't like Fox business reporting what the CBO said, here's a link to CNN reporting what the CBO said. That way we can get past the Foxnews made it up cop out.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/15/news/eco.../index.htm

Quote:The agency estimated that the exchange and subsidies could reduce the number of uninsured people by roughly 16 million by 2015. It is estimated there would otherwise be 51 million uninsured that year.

Non-partisan CBO says 16, not so non-partisan White House hopes for 46. Let's see, who to believe??

And of course let's keep in mind these estimates don't include the costs for people who will drop their employer healthcare benefits to go on the government tit cause it's cheaper.

(06-20-2009 07:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc1031...Letter.htm

Modify the Tax Treatment of Employment-Based Health Insurance

Nearly all analysts agree that the current tax treatment of employment-based health insurance—which exempts most payments for such insurance from both income and payroll taxes—dampens incentives for cost control because it is open-ended. Those incentives could be changed by restructuring the tax exclusion to encourage workers to join health plans with lower premiums; those lower premiums would arise through a combination of higher cost-sharing requirements and tighter management of benefits.

CBO’s Budget Options volume discusses a number of such changes. One option would replace the current tax exclusion with a refundable but more limited tax credit. Another option would limit the amount of health insurance premiums that could be excluded from income and payroll taxes to specific dollar amounts that represented the 75th percentile of premiums paid by or through employers. These approaches would change workers’ incentives about how much insurance to purchase and how much care to demand, and they would increase federal revenues by several hundred billion dollars over 10 years.

(06-21-2009 04:06 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 07:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc1031...Letter.htm

Modify the Tax Treatment of Employment-Based Health Insurance

Nearly all analysts agree that the current tax treatment of employment-based health insurance—which exempts most payments for such insurance from both income and payroll taxes—dampens incentives for cost control because it is open-ended. Those incentives could be changed by restructuring the tax exclusion to encourage workers to join health plans with lower premiums; those lower premiums would arise through a combination of higher cost-sharing requirements and tighter management of benefits.

CBO’s Budget Options volume discusses a number of such changes. One option would replace the current tax exclusion with a refundable but more limited tax credit. Another option would limit the amount of health insurance premiums that could be excluded from income and payroll taxes to specific dollar amounts that represented the 75th percentile of premiums paid by or through employers. These approaches would change workers’ incentives about how much insurance to purchase and how much care to demand, and they would increase federal revenues by several hundred billion dollars over 10 years.

So then...your answer is yes. You support taxing healthcare benefits. Something McCain talked about in his campaign and was ravaged by Obama for?

So out of curiosity what do you think those employees are going to do rather than be taxed on those benefits? I'll tell you what they're going to do...they're going to opt not to purchase healthcare at all and instead go on the government plan. Thus increasing the cost to government while decreasing the tax revenues that are supposed to support it. The result...higher deficits for care we can't afford, rationing of healthcare to keep costs under control, resulting in months and even years delay for critical care.

This is why government is incompetent and the electorate let it keep happening. Everyone stops after hearing the "A" government tells them and never bothers to think about what B, C and D occurs as a result.

(06-21-2009 04:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 04:06 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(06-20-2009 07:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Are you saying you support raising taxes on the middle class, taxing employer healtcare benefits to pay for it?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc1031...Letter.htm

Modify the Tax Treatment of Employment-Based Health Insurance

Nearly all analysts agree that the current tax treatment of employment-based health insurance—which exempts most payments for such insurance from both income and payroll taxes—dampens incentives for cost control because it is open-ended. Those incentives could be changed by restructuring the tax exclusion to encourage workers to join health plans with lower premiums; those lower premiums would arise through a combination of higher cost-sharing requirements and tighter management of benefits.

CBO’s Budget Options volume discusses a number of such changes. One option would replace the current tax exclusion with a refundable but more limited tax credit. Another option would limit the amount of health insurance premiums that could be excluded from income and payroll taxes to specific dollar amounts that represented the 75th percentile of premiums paid by or through employers. These approaches would change workers’ incentives about how much insurance to purchase and how much care to demand, and they would increase federal revenues by several hundred billion dollars over 10 years.

So then...your answer is yes. You support taxing healthcare benefits. Something McCain talked about in his campaign and was ravaged by Obama for?

So out of curiosity what do you think those employees are going to do rather than be taxed on those benefits? I'll tell you what they're going to do...they're going to opt not to purchase healthcare at all and instead go on the government plan. Thus increasing the cost to government while decreasing the tax revenues that are supposed to support it. The result...higher deficits for care we can't afford, rationing of healthcare to keep costs under control, resulting in months and even years delay for critical care.

This is why government is incompetent and the electorate let it keep happening. Everyone stops after hearing the "A" government tells them and never bothers to think about what B, C and D occurs as a result.

We could have supported it if we didn't invade a country that didn't attack us. Instead of helping Americans get health care, we give the Iraqi's healthcare.