This is bullshit. Social Security is a train wreck. We’ve borrowed on money in the SS system that doesn’t exist. We’ve hawked the future to pay for today. It’s typical Washington buy now, pay later crap that we can’t afford to do any longer. The same is try for Medicare/Medicaid. Sure, people are getting their checks, but it’s monopoly money at this point.
I don’t trust the government to run this much of our GDP. There is so many ways to screw the government with Medicare fraud. Can you even imagine the waste and fraud that is going to happen with a government run health care system?
This isn’t a Republican or Democrat thing either… if you’d pull your head out of your butt long enough to quit looking at short haircuts, you’d realize that the only thing both parties agree to is how to get elected in the next election. That drives their votes. Ideology sounds good, but very few are willing to vote their ideology when it’s going to cost them their seat in the next election.
Name one program that has been run by the government that has been able to break even. Hell, the post office can’t even make a profit, and they had the infrastructure in place well before fedex, ups, et al made it a point to make a profit. The post office still loses money hand over fist.
Amtrak- another government mess. I could go on, and so could each one of you.
I would have no problem with UHC if I thought it would work. But it can’t. Not in the states. Too many special interests, too much money, too much greed, too much corruption.
America is NOT LIKE every other country in the world.
When are you going to realize that being a koom-by-ya democrat doesn’t make you a better person?
Want to help? Adopt a child, and put them on your medical plan. Multiply that by every liberal who wants to feel good about themselves, and the problem is solved for children up to, what… 22?
But you wont do that. You’ll just bellyache about those crazy republicans who want to keep people from having health care.
Throwing money at a problem doesn’t always solve it. Look at cash for clunkers, a moronic program. pissing in the ocean. But it makes people *feel *better. The bailouts? A joke. AIG gives their execs bonuses to offset the ones they didn’t get last year, and everyone has a merry christmas.
Fuck that. The bailouts started with Repubicans, so don’t give me crap about one party or the other. There is money to be made in politics, and the only difference between the two parties is small. There are no poor people in our government.
I don’t care what kind of fuzzy math has been conjured up to “prove” this will save the government money in the long run. That’s just blowing smoke up our collective asses to get this thing passed. And since the average american has the attention span of a gnat, it usually works.
I didn’t know this. Is it a state by state basis, or is it available everywhere?
This would severly reduce the cost of an abortion, wouldn’t it? If true, the abortion part of the equation is really a financial non-factor. Unless, of course, the pill is $1000.
I don’t know the cost of the abortion pill (especially in the US) but I do know that it isn’t an option for all women. For example, it is not recommended if you are more than 8 weeks pregnant, are at risk of ectopic pregnancy, or have certain blood conditions.
If you’re able to borrow money from a program, then I think that makes it a success, not a train-wreck (at least, fiscally).
Again, the specific program you seem to be arguing against will lower the deficit, and national medical spending in general. I agree that the gov’t needs to end the current high rate of deficit spending, but this is, at worst, not related to that, and at best, a partial solution for it.
I don’t know what this means. I’m pretty sure Medicare/Medicaid is paid for with real money (and I don’t think the checks, generally, go to the recipients of the benefits).
The health care system will still be run largely through private insurers, and so have about the same amount of fraud as it does now.
Social Security has run at a profit for a couple decades. See above. I’m not familiar with the entire history of the program, but I don’t think its ever lost money, it has a dedicated tax that takes in more then the program costs.
Work in what sense? It won’t really extend healthcare coverage to more people? It won’t really end the various questionable practices used by insurance providers to deny claims? It won’t really cut future deficits? It won’t really ‘bend the curve’ and reduce the huge rate of growth in general healthspending?
Its a big bill, and I doubt it will be totally successful across the board in all its aims. But I think it will at least make a start with all of them, and good progress in most.
I don’t get why abortion coverage would hold the bill up either, at least from the pro-choice side. Abortion is cheap. Even the poorest people scrounge up the money when they have to.
But this is what interest group politics is. If the liberal Democrats let the Stupak amendment stand without a fight, pro-choice groups like NARAL, who aren’t really focused on health care as a whole, but on reproductive rights, would withhold money in 2010.
But I think the Stupak forces will win. They are actually willing to derail the health care bill over the issue. The pro-choice forces aren’t, and as pointed out in the OP, it’s not that big a deal for them except symbolically. So the pro-choicers will probably cave.
The problem comes in that Harry Reid, who fortunately will not be employed much longer, put pro-choice language in the bill so that it would take 60 votes to remove it. If those 60 votes don’t materialize and Ben Nelson says he won’t support the bill, then Reid has to go back and start over and submit a new bill. Which would delay things until election season. And since the bill is unpopular, they don’t want to vote on this in 2010.
The average cost for a first trimester abortion is about $470, but it becomes more expensive as the pregnancy progresses. Meaning those who have to scrape up the money and figure out how to take time off of work, if they’re employed (including women who are too embarrassed to tell friends and family about their situation), may end up working themselves into a catch-22 situation where the longer the wait the more expensive it comes, up to the thousands. You’ve also got to add transportation costs and a possible hotel stay for those states that require a consultation and waiting period.
RU-486 is actually, and perhaps counter-intuitively, more expensive on average than a first-trimester surgical abortion.
But you’re right. As is the case now, most of the women who’ll end up having children they would have rather aborted are the ones who are so poor they can’t even afford an abortion. Or maybe they’ll try DIY and everyone will end up paying more for their medical complications.
No it doesn’t. All the cuts to Medicare are plunged back into they system to pay for other things. The best they can claim is that it would be deficit neutral, and even that is rather specious.
Your objections to UHC would be better received if they were based on facts. Nothing you have said about SS is true, so why would we listen to your opinion on UHC. It seems like you really hate your government, so I suggest that maybe you find another country to cleave to. Alas, I think you will find that they are all more liberal than the United States. So I guess the question is, if the US sucks so much, and he US is more conservative than any other industrialized country, isn’t the answer to adopt more liberal policies? Certainly you will find that campaign finance reform, the fairness doctrine, and other policies that could reduce the effect of money in politics are promoted largely by liberals.
No, according to the CBO the porgram will provide more funding through cuts/taxes and general healthcare costs then it will cost, so it will reduce the deficit. The latest amount of deficit reduction was in excess of 100 billion over ten years, IIRC
Missed the edit window, but the CBO estimate as of late November for the Senate bill was 132 billion in reduced deficits over ten years as of Nov 20th. The House Bill has smaller reductions (72 billiion maybe?).
That’s an accounting trick. Taxes will start almost immediately and coverage won’t start for 4 to 5 years down the line. So of course it will profit during the first decade. I also find it amusing that coverage won’t start until the next presidential election is over…at least Obama won’t have to run on the success or failure of the actual program.
Really? Nothing you’ve said about SS is true. You think it’s paid for? Based on what? The numbers don’t support your theory. When the baby boomers start moving through the system in massive numbers, there won’t be enough people paying into the system to offset the projected outlay. Where does the extra money come from?
It is also incredibly optimistic to believe that the government could manage and hold costs in line for UHC. Projecting 10 years out is a waste of time.
FTR, I am not against UHC in theory. However, I don’t believe this is something we should jump into without some serious discussion and cost controls in place. Because once we go, there is no turning back. That is a scary financial proposition for a country racking up debt at a record rate.
I don’t get your point about campaign finance reform, the fairness doctrine, or any of the other nonsense you babbled about. How do you connect those dots to what this discussion is about?
It’s projected to decrease deficits by an increasing amount after the first decade, so it isn’t purely an effect of front loading the taxes.
I hardly think that was a tactical decision. Obama has basically frontloaded the parts of the reform people won’t like (taxes) before his election, but the parts that people will like (increased coverage, subsidies, etc) don’t kick in till after the election. I’m sure if he had the choice, it wouldn’t be like that.
The idea that SS is fully funded is the politically smart thing to say. And admitting that you are dipping into the SS fund to pay for other programs is not prudent. But we are running a huge deficit. So, yes… the SS checks being paid out aren’t bouncing. But when you are spending more than you take in, you have to borrow. The US govt is borrowing to pay for everything. The only way we can know if the SS fund is truly sound is if we have a balanced budget and run a surplus. Then we can truly see where the money is, and how solvent these government programs actually are.
I hardly think that was a tactical decision. Obama has basically frontloaded the parts of the reform people won’t like (taxes) before his election, but the parts that people will like (increased coverage, subsidies, etc) don’t kick in till after the election. I’m sure if he had the choice, it wouldn’t be like that.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t imagine why they would wait if it would actually lower the deficit. Why not start the savings immediately? Because they know the costs will explode when the benefits become available.
Congress passed legislation to do so in 1990, 1992, 1997 and 2005. There was some mild back-tracking in the '97 legislation (but four fifths of the cuts still went into effect), but in general, the cuts stuck, which is why we briefly had a balanced budget at the end of the 90’s. The savings thus realized have been in the trillions. Here’s a breakdown.
I disagree with whats in that post, but in anycase, we’re discussing deficits. That link doesn’t address deficits (even if the thing gost 100 trillion dollars, it can still cut deficits if it raises more).