2
   

Increasing federal deficit

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 12:23 pm
@High Seas,
I believe that's understood for most people; it's impossible to project any economy that far ahead.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 12:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If that were true there would be NO insurance business, NO trust funds, NO budget and NO debt - you've got to read the assumptions.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 12:36 pm
@High Seas,
I rely on no assumptions, I rely on the Sibyl, oracle at Cumae, for all my economic forescasts.,, Somethimes, when I'm in a hurry I just throw the I Ching coins. I remain an empiricist at heart.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 01:14 pm
@High Seas,
When I worked, we worked on five year budgets, and revised them every year as we gained more information. That's how budgets work.

All budgets are only estimates; there is no way they can be absolute.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 01:31 pm
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT wrote:
And, what will then happen to the private plans? They will disappear.

Only if they offer their clients better value for their money, inducing them to switch. And if this is the case, I would bide the private plans good riddance. Wouldn't you?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2009 01:42 pm
@Thomas,
Correction: Of course I meant: "only if Medicare offers a better deal than the private plans, inducing customers to switch to Medicare."
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone - there is a fundamental fallacy in what you gather from budgeting, whether for 5 years or for 50, and it relates to your erroneous concept of time. Do YOU know anybody who can accurately predict numerical events 30 seconds ahead of their occurence? If you do, I'll finance his/her trip to Vegas and a small pile of chips in exchange for splitting his winnings at the roulette table. You want to know how much we'll win with that certainty only 30 seconds ahead of the roulette ball settling into a number, I'll be happy to give you that calculation - remember that you can bet also on zeroes and Vegas casinos have roulette wheels with two of those. Of course we'll be escorted out by security before we bankrupt the casino - but that's a minor detail that has eluded the Medicare / Medicaid casino on Capitol Hill so far.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:44 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas, Having worked in management for most of my working career, we used the five-year plan, and most often than not, it worked just fine. I was responsible for setting budgets, and my budgets came in 2-3% from budget to actual. It was my responsibility to forecast total revenue and net profit for Florsheim Shoe Company which ranged from $10-million/month sales up to $30-million in December. I also worked on budgets close to $2-million for the whole year, and did pretty well with them.

You can poo-poo budgets all you want, but I have personal experience to back up what I say. Any business that wants to stay in business prepares budgets. I want you to prove me wrong.

Nobody can accurately predict numerical events 30-seconds ahead, but budgeting works out pretty well for businesses - even though it's an art and not science. My accuracy proved it in real life.

High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 12:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well, then we are agreed, since we're saying the exact same thing Smile
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:04 pm
@High Seas,
No, we are not agreed on anything.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 01:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe that's understood for most people; it's impossible to project any economy that far ahead.

So you have reverted to your previous position that forecasting is impossible, therefore budgeting, planning, actuarial calculations etc are completely useless? Fine, believe what you like - the true federal deficit stands as $60 trillion (that's $200,000 for each one of us) and that number isn't going to change because of your erroneous beliefs. You started the thread to find that out, so read the posts and the links in it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:01 pm
@High Seas,
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. It doesn't work that way. FACT 1: "it's impossible to project any economy that far ahead. FACT 2: Budgets work; it's worse not to have a budget. Budgets can be adjusted as new information is available. They are not fixed in stone.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 02:25 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I rely on no assumptions, I rely on the Sibyl, oracle at Cumae, for all my economic forescasts.,, Somethimes, when I'm in a hurry I just throw the I Ching coins. I remain an empiricist at heart.

The oracle at Delphi told Croesus "...when a mule becomes king a great empire will fall" - turned out to be his own. Oddly relevant to us now.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 05:36 pm
@High Seas,
yes, and while the empire did wobble during the Nixon reign It never quite fell.
MASSAGAT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 05:52 pm
@Thomas,
Better value? Can you think of ANY Governmentally controlled group which offers better value? If you look at the first year's cost of Medicare in 1960, it came out to about Three Billion Dollars. Do you know that it has grown by almost 900%? Courtesy of Governmental VALUE ADDED.

I am sure that you are aware that in almost every poll, the American people have said that they want no more than minimal changes to their Health Plans.

I can, of course, provide details on my last two paragraphs!
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 11:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Congress is now considering letting 55 to 64 year olds participate in Medicare, but I'm not sure how cost will be affected by this move since we still don't know what their premiums will be. It's estimated that each Medicare beneficiary costs the government $8,000/year.


The premium is estimated to be of the order of about $850/month. Not cheap.

If the average Medicare beneficiary costs the gov $8000/year and the average Medicare beneficiary dies at age 75, the total cost is $80,000. Not bad, all things considered.

Remember in the annuity business, the accountants know how many will die each year, but don't know who will actually die. The same is true for the Medicare beneficiary.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 11:49 pm
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT wrote:

And, what will then happen to the private plans? They will disappear.


No, they will not disappear. There will always be a need for Medicare Advantage plans and as you probably know these plans are private plans.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 01:13 am
@Miller,
They are private. They also receive government subsidy. I don't know the amount, but each type plan receives a certain amount per patient. I am fairly sure the couldn't survive without it. The Medicare benefits are assigned to the providers, as opposed to being paid to individual doctors, hospitals, etc. It is somewhat like an insurance hiring another insurance company, if you look at it the right way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 12:31 pm
@Miller,
I think those averages at $80,000 is not even close to reality. Most seniors begin to use more medical care after they reach 65 years old, and the incidence of major surgery and care increases with age. Even in my case, I had radiation treatment for prostate cancer two years ago, and the average cost for eight weeks of treatment costs the government about $42,000.

I understand this is anecdotal info only, and I have no information on "average" costs to the government; only that older people require more medical care.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I have no knowledge of how those Part C deals work. My assumption is that the insured pays a monthly premium, and they receive a monthly or yearly subsidy from Medicare. If that is the case, your cost to the government was zip, with the provider losing money on your treatment, and making it up elsewhere.

If my assumption is wrong, I would really appreciate better information. Also, I know that the Part D, prescription drug plans are somewhat subsidized, but again, I don't know by how much, or whether it is per time interval or by individual prescription. Oddly, I'm interested in how much I'm costing.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2019 at 11:36:53