True cost of the House healthcare bill is $2.5 Trillion

rds248 · 11-06-2009, 12:09 PM

The $1.5 Trillion Fraud by Michael F. Cannon on National Review Online

read this carefully. Nice trick by congress to try to hide the truth. The mandated premiums for individual coverage in the "public option" are federal revenues.
The House is pretending they aren't and they are not included in the spending totals.
Hey but what's an extra Trillion here and there?

Lergnom · 11-06-2009, 12:22 PM

1. A big chunk of the links, if you follow them through, do two things. First, they take the gross, not the net, which is like saying a sweater at Lands End cost $50 because the $13 discount just doesn't count. Second, they conflate 1994 and earlier healthcare bills (and CBO interpretations) with the current bill.

BTW, the article says $1.5T, not the $2.5T you have in your title.

2. The "game" is partly to say that a mandatory cost - meaning what you must pay - is then a federal revenue and that means the bill costs more. If that's the case, then all insurance premiums are federal revenue. It's not an economic argument, but more of a party trick.

rds248 · 11-06-2009, 12:35 PM

The Government will collect the money and then use it to pay for health care, which they were not previously paying for. That should be included in the costs of the bill.
It's like saying that I'm chipping in to buy a $100 sweater for you from Lands End. I collect $50 from you and I spend $50 of my own money. Do I tell everyone that the sweater only costs $50? I don't think so.

clearly you didn't read it carefully. The cost is $2.5 Trillion if you add the new Government premiums.

Quote:

So while the CBO estimates that the coverage expansions in the House Democrats’ legislation would trigger about $1 trillion of new federal spending over ten years, the actual cost of those coverage expansions is more like $2.5 trillion.

vicariousparent · 11-06-2009, 01:14 PM

The correct analogy: The government determines that everyone needs to buy a sweater. A "sweater exchange" is set up that allows people to shop for sweaters sold by Lands End and other companies. Some people who wouldn't have bought a sweater are forced to buy one. So they have to spend $50, which is the going rate for a sweater. In return, those people now OWN a sweater and can stay warm. In other words, those people are getting fair value back for what they pay. The government is NOT taking $50 away from these people.

So why does the government force these people to buy sweaters? Because when it gets cold, these people end up needing sweaters anyway and their neighbors (or the government) has to pay for them.

dstark · 11-06-2009, 01:22 PM

I really hate this @@@@. Just garbage. I can't believe educated people fall for this crap. It gets so old.

The cost to the government is $1 trillion. The newly insured have to come up with $1.5 trillion. But they get something for their money. They get health insurance.

And these numbers are over TEN YEARS. The GDP of the USA over those 10 years is going to be around ONE HUNDRED and FIFTY TRILLION DOLLARS.

The more I read this sh.. the more I want universal health care. And the more I want higher taxes too. Because those that have and don't want others to have are sickening.

People are paying for health insurance now. And we don't get universal health care. We still have per-conditions. You still have insurance premiums going up at doulble digits for years and years. And next year too. Insurance premiums are going up double digits again.

That's a great system. The worst in the first world. The worst. Yeah..but this is the greatest country. Yeah. Yeah. No matter what. lol

Now go back and scare people with more bullsh...

These right wing nut jobs had the chance to run the country and they fu@@@@ it up so bad.

We should lock them up for being so UnAmerican.

You rds248, the people you support... they screwed us over. And now you bit...

Mr Payne · 11-06-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

But they get something for their money. They get health insurance.

Are you seriously this dense? You just explained away the concept of taxes. Well, duh, we get something! The obvious qualifier is what are we giving up. I thought you were sharper than this.

dstark · 11-06-2009, 01:33 PM

Well, the day I worry about what you think of me.. is the day that doesn't exist.

Mr Payne · 11-06-2009, 01:40 PM

Probably the same day you put forth a well reasoned argument.

AUTransfer · 11-06-2009, 01:45 PM

1) Its the National Review -- please get a more unbiased source next time you want to put up that kind of headline.
2) I heard NOTHING the day that Congress passed a 680 Billion dollar military contracting (ie. nothing to do with the two wars we're in) bill a week or two ago. And thats just for this year, not over 10 years like the health care bill is.
3) The price tag would have been lower if the Conservatives/Republicans/Blue Dogs had conceded to a robust public option. But nooo.

Get back to me when you have a substantial arguement.

Mr Payne · 11-06-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

2) I heard NOTHING the day that Congress passed a 680 Billion dollar military contracting (ie. nothing to do with the two wars we're in) bill a week or two ago. And thats just for this year, not over 10 years like the health care bill is.

Isn't that just the defense budget? Defense, above all else, has shrunken as a portion of our economy and government over the last ~60 years. It will continue to shrink.

geeps20 · 11-06-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

the price tag would have been lower if the Conservatives/Republicans/Blue Dogs had conceded to a robust public option

yuck....hopefully that will never ever happen...government controlled health care when they can't run a damn thing efficiently....It amazes me that some people actually think it will be different this time.

garland · 11-06-2009, 05:18 PM

So I guess you'll shun Medicare when you qualify for it.

vicariousparent · 11-06-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

government controlled health care when they can't run a damn thing efficiently

The government actually does a great job of many, many functions. I like the government. The government built the roads I drive on, they maintained the roads, they built the tunnels, they made sure the last flight I took landed safely, they built the airport, they made sure the food in my grocery store had a valid expiration date, they funded the medical research that led to many discoveries that led to many cures. They keep me safe from criminals, they protected me from the commies...I could go on.

My government is of the people for the people by the people.

ETA: dstark#5: I agree with your post.

Mr Payne · 11-06-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

The government built the roads I drive on, they maintained the roads, they built the tunnels, they made sure the last flight I took landed safely, they built the airport, they made sure the food in my grocery store had a valid expiration date, they funded the medical research that led to many discoveries that led to many cures.

So, what should the government do and what should it not do? Serious question.

When do we have too much government and when do we have too little?

vicariousparent · 11-06-2009, 06:02 PM

^^ When the private sector messes something up so bad that it is destroying the economy, then the government should step in (gently). Serious answer.

Health care is in that state right now. Problem is, the Republicans would rather have the whole thing fail than work towards a good solution because if something good does get enacted, it will only help the Democrats. They need health care reform to fail.