Where is the US economy headed?

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

More importantly it would cost the insurance industry business and money. Thats the reason we wont have a public option, the big money people who own our legislators dont want it even though it it would be best for the common man.

Sadly true.

Nobody, after all this time, has been able to explain to me what added value for-profit Health insurance brings to the health-care table.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@rabel22,

Your observations are 20/20. Too many congress members already sold their souls to the health insurance industry. The media needs to list these bastards during the next election, so they'll get voted out!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your observations are 20/20. Too many congress members already sold their souls to the health insurance industry. The media needs to list these bastards during the next election, so they'll get voted out!

Starting with Max Baucus and ending with Joe Lieberman

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't understand how, after all this time, you guys don't realize that the Public Option is a cost saver, not something that adds cost to the bill. It saves money.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, be serious, have you ever seen the government do something more efficiently than a private company? Conservatives are realistic people, and some of us have been around long enough to have observed bloated and inefficient government for a very long time. You really have to rely upon skewed and hoped for projections of costing less, not the reality of past performance and the reality of just how things work. Also, you have the CBO or any other government estimate being subjected to political pressure to derive an answer that is preferred by the party that runs Congress and the administration right now, and if you trust that to be as unbiased as the wind driven snow, I would have to say you are a bit naive.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't understand how, after all this time, you guys don't realize that the Public Option is a cost saver, not something that adds cost to the bill. It saves money.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, be serious, have you ever seen the government do something more efficiently than a private company?

Sure! When you remove the Profit motive, you remove a huge amount of overhead.

Quote:

Conservatives are realistic people, and some of us have been around long enough to have observed bloated and inefficient government for a very long time. You really have to rely upon skewed and hoped for projections of costing less, not the reality of past performance and the reality of just how things work. Also, you have the CBO or any other government estimate being subjected to political pressure to derive an answer that is preferred by the party that runs Congress and the administration right now, and if you trust that to be as unbiased as the wind driven snow, I would have to say you are a bit naive.

The CBO is the only group who gives consistent projections of government costs of bills. NO other Liberal or Conservative group is LESS biased than they are, which I'm sure you will agree with; by your estimation, we can't trust ANYONE to tell us how much things will cost. This is unworkable and stupid, we have to have some sorts of projections of the future from a government agency.

Your argument MIGHT carry more weight, if the health insurance industry was not.. bloated, ineffective, and wasteful already. Costs are going up double-digits per year; it doesn't take much of an alternate to beat that.

You should also realize that the government is ALREADY paying much of the money that they would be paying for people in the Public Option, in the form of Medicaid and emergency room payments to keep hospitals going. Not having a public option doesn't save us money, and having one saves us money. It isn't a tough construction to understand.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It's not the public option that will save money; they save money by instituting cost saving by implementing efficiencies, reduction of waste and fraud. A public option will work only if the above list of cost savings are implemented.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not the public option that will save money; they save money by instituting cost saving by implementing efficiencies, reduction of waste and fraud. A public option will work only if the above list of cost savings are implemented.

Nah - the Public Option itself is a money saver, not only b.c it covers a lot of people at a relatively low cost, but because of the price pressure it puts on private insurers.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You're making generalized statements without any backup for them;

Quote:

he Public Option itself is a money saver,

. Not according to the cost of Medicare; history is on my side, not your's.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're making generalized statements without any backup for them;
Quote:
he Public Option itself is a money saver,
. Not according to the cost of Medicare; history is on my side, not your's.

You do realize that the PO will be funded primarily through payments by those in it, just like traditional insurance? It has a revenue stream coming in independent of government funding...

I would remind you that the CBO scored bills both with and without the Public option, and found that the bills WITH the PO save FAR more money than those without.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

You do realize that the PO will be funded primarily through payments by those in it, just like traditional insurance? It has a revenue stream coming in independent of government funding...

You're trying to tell us there will be no government subsidy on premiums? You want to buy a bridge in Montana?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that the PO will be funded primarily through payments by those in it, just like traditional insurance? It has a revenue stream coming in independent of government funding...

You're trying to tell us there will be no government subsidy on premiums? You want to buy a bridge in Montana?

There will be, but the majority of people who will be in the PO are already receiving subsidized Medicaid; it isn't an entirely new cost for the government.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter is correct. I fear that Cyclopitchorn( a young student with little real world experience either has not researched Medicare costs or has forgotten.

The estimate of future costs for Medicare were far far lower than the real costs.

Note:

Congress has a long history of dramatically underestimating Medicare costs. "At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion," wrote Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson in a 1993 Reason article. "The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."

This fiscal year, a recent Cato Institute report notes, Medicare is expected to cost $244 billion ($172 billion in 1990 dollars). Not only are the real costs of Medicare constantly rising; the ratio between the workers who pay for the program and the retirees who benefit from it is falling. "The number of elderly will soar 116 percent by 2040," says the Cato study, "while the number of workers supporting them will grow just 22 percent."

Economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters estimate that the long-term imbalance between Medicare costs and revenues under existing law is something like $36 trillion, more than five times the current national debt. Given a problem of this magnitude, the gestures toward reform in the Medicare bill"limited medical savings accounts, higher premiums for beneficiaries making more than $80,000 a year, and a six-city experiment with private competition that's supposed to begin in 2010"are pretty pathetic.
*********************************************************************

Medicare cost THREE BILLION in 1966 and ONE HUNDRED SEVEN BILLION in 1990. If Cyclopitchorn is not mathematically challenged, or is not an unreasoning partisan, he will admit that those are runaway costs which may ruin the US economy.

2 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

From MASSAGAT'S post:

Quote:

This fiscal year, a recent Cato Institute report notes, Medicare is expected to cost $244 billion ($172 billion in 1990 dollars). Not only are the real costs of Medicare constantly rising; the ratio between the workers who pay for the program and the retirees who benefit from it is falling. "The number of elderly will soar 116 percent by 2040," says the Cato study, "while the number of workers supporting them will grow just 22 percent."

This is another very important issue not being addressed by congress as they plan to add 30-million more health care beneficiaries. The numbers of those getting benefits continues to increase while the tax base decreases.

How does OMB run numbers that are positive under this scenario?

0 Replies

Exactly-----When one views the balance sheets of the governments in Europe which lean towards Socialism, it is clear that their economies cannot continue to fund longer living citizens from the outputs of an ever decreasing number of workers. A look at the Economy of Italy is instructive--OVER HALF OF ITS BUDGET GOES TO ENTITLEMENTS.

0 Replies

Nice to know that the House has their priorities straight in this time of crisis...

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-congress&prov=ap&type=lgns

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

Congress has a long history of dramatically underestimating Medicare costs. "At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion," wrote Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson in a 1993 Reason article. "The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."

Hey, 107 billion instead of 12 billion, that is only about a 900 % increase, what in the world are you worried about??????? And 3 billion to 107 billion, another trivial amount. A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon it might amount to real money!!!!! After all, the "rich" can pay for it all, what are you worried about?

1 Reply

@okie,

Jesus christ. Do you guys even know what 'inflation' is?

Inflation is responsible for at least half the growth in Medicare costs; additionally, Medicare has been expanded to cover more people and more medical procedures. Any time you expand service, you expand costs.

Not to mention the fact that the population has grown considerably, you add more users in, you add costs. This stuff isn't hard to figure out fellas.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Really? Please detail for us the rise in costs since 1960. Okie has given us a 900% figure in medical costs for Medicare from 1960 to 1990.

Do you, Cycloptichorn, know what Inflation is? Your charts not useful. Give some real data.

Note:

Money and Inflation 1960's
To provide an estimate of inflation we have given a guide to the value of $100 US Dollars for the first year in the decade to the equivalent in todays money
If you have $100 Converted from 1960 to 2005 it would be equivalent to $679.09 today
______________________________

First, this calculation goes all the way to 2005--not 1990 as in the example provided.

Therefore, the original cost in 1960 should be multiplied by 6.79( we will say seven).

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

Really? Please detail for us the rise in costs since 1960. Okie has given us a 900% figure in medical costs for Medicare from 1960 to 1990.

Do you, Cycloptichorn, know what Inflation is. Your charts not useful. Give some real data.

Since you've come back with yet another moniker, Troll, you get another free reminder that you are a worthless piece of **** who doesn't enjoy the right of conversation with me. So, don't bother addressing posts to me, as you won't get a response - though from time to time I will make fun of your posts for the enjoyment of doing so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am so sorry that you are afraid of me and do not have the requisite Intelligence to be able to respond to my logic. Has your wife divorced you yet?

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know