I've seen this claim several time (no offense, cml750, but it's a common talking point). There are two things I don't understand about the argument: 1) The CBO also said that in the next ten years, when both the taxes and the benefits are in place, that the senate bill will reduce the deficit by quite a bit, maybe as much as a trillion dollars. So logically, if you looked at 2014-2024, you'd see even greater deficit reduction, right? 2) Would you prefer that the benefits start right away without money set aside to pay for them?
Both sides have talking points. Through 2024 I see 14 years of taxes and 10 years of benefits and I seriouly doubt if this bill pays for itself. When was the last government program that actually stayed within the foretasted costs? I believe that this bill needs to be redone in a truly bi-partisan way. The Rep. were shut out of the process. Heck the Dems. had to buy votes in their own party to get the bill through the senate. Any bill with this much controversy where a party with a super majority had to buy votes to pass it can't be good. Pelosi even said they need to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Besides the taxes that are added by this bill have a good chance of stalling the very slow recovering economy and causing even more people to lose their jobs. This country is pretty much evenly divided. Anything this major needs to be bi-partisan and kept near the center. When either party swings too far to the left or right, it alienates too many people because this countries even split. Something needs to be done I wholeheartedly agree but it needs to start and stay in the center so everyone is happy.
If our country can afford two wars, we can afford healthcare reform. It is going to be the law of the land very soon. You should support our president and get behind this legislation.
I don't understand this "can't afford." Of all good worrying and all points of argumentation, this one holds the least water. The reforms, light though they may be, show a net savings on healthcare. *Every* economic projection of the status quo shows complete spending oblivion. Hell, what's happening right now shows economic oblivion. If the global warming data were as unambiguous as this nation's healthcare spending clusterpoop, you wouldn't have a single dissenting opinion from the top floor of Chevron headquarters! The richest nation on the planet can afford to spend 40% of its entire budget on the ability to kill people but it can't afford healthcare for its citizens. Okay, read that sentence again and say "one nation under God," and you'll get probably just a whiff of why some people are so frustrated.
*sigh* another talking point that needs to die -- from Slate Of the 788 amendments filed [to the healthcare bill], 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.
I didn't attack anyone, and you can't honestly believe the original post was intended to spark honest debate they're just not following the rules of political correctness while addressing his questions what about posters who keep posting offensive cartoons
So true. Lack of health care kills about 15 times more Americans than 9/11 did. Lack of health care keeps killing 15 times more Americans than 9/11 attacks year after year. Yet we can't afford to do anything about it. What a pathetic statement.
I support the war on terror too. But I would rather cut that and have health care. Lack of health care kills more Americans each year than have died during the entire war on terror including 9/11. In almost ten years of the war on terror we haven't lost as many Americans as we lose each year to lack of health care. Let's get our priorities straight.
Those who are against it think it "works fine" for them. They're content with some social Darwinian cliche of "getting what you pay for". So if it's okay for them, then they think the bankruptcy claims are "fearmongering", or they are for delaying the process longer until they get a plan they like with a cherry on top.
Bad lifestyle habits kill more Americans than anything else. If you want healthcare reform, then fix the obesity problem in America. Americans continue to grow more unhealthy every year. Does the current HCR take in account for that? Obviously not, so its safe to assume prices for HC will continue to skyrocket.
Thanks for the response. You can look at the CBO analysis itself here: CBO scoring of the Senate bill (pdf) I did, and I noticed that there is still a net savings of 14 billion dollars from 2015 to 2019. So your assumption that just because taxes start early that the bill must not be getting paid for is wrong. Even removing the accounting gimmicks you complained about, the bill is still roughly deficit neutral according to their projection. (Although it should be noted that there are small costs outside of this projection that would be part of the regular budget, those costs are in total relatively small.) Then, note this statement: [rquoter]All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.[/rquoter]So the CBO has said there will be a significant savings, possibly around $1 trillion from 2020-2029. Logic should tell you that this accounting gimmick you speak of has no real effect. You said, "The CBO should score the bill from 2014 until 2024 to get the real numbers." Does this information about what the CBO says about those years change your mind about the real numbers? Actually, I read an article recently that pointed out that the last three changes to health care all turned out to be much cheaper than forecast. Let me know if you're interested in reading it, I'll try to find it for you. No offense, but this really is a recitation of the talking points put out by the Republican leadership. There's nothing wrong with talking points, but you have to understand the facts and reasoning behind them. For example, Pelosi said that they need to have a bill to find out what was in it. What she was referring to is that there are differences between the house bill, the senate bill, Obama's proposed changes to the senate bill, and the reconciliation bill of fixes that will eventually be voted on. She couldn't talk about certain specifics until those specifics are ironed out. That's true of any legislation, there's nothing incriminating about that statement in reality. Also, the Republicans had input on the core legislation when it was formed by the Gang of Six (which included three Republicans). That was done in the Finance committee, whose bill was the basis for the Senate bill that will be the basis for the final bill. And why do you mention your fear of the taxes stalling the economy, but not mention the potentially positive effects the new additions to the insurance market will have on the economy? And lastly, I wonder why you think the bill(s) being proposed are not near the center. What specific parts of the bill are far left? The far left wants single-payer, that's not there. The medium left wanted a public option or making medicare available to more people, neither of those are there. As I'm sure you've heard the President and other Democrats mention over and over, there are many Republican ideas that are in the bill, and it is likely that more will be included that come from the health care summit. These things are all implemented in a center-left fashion, but that's because the make up of the government as voted by the people is currently center-left. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that, do you?
Putting out more health education can hopefully fix the unhealthy lifestyles of Americans. That shouldn't stop us from spending money on something that we know would save 45,000 Americans each year. We know that many Americans die because they don't have healthcare. Let's fix that problem. It can and should be done. Trying to address the unhealthy lifestyles is also great.
As always, uolj makes excellent counterpoints. And, as always, I don't expect a meaningful response other than some verbose equivalent to "you lie!".
Why? Why should health care be partisan at all? Costs and services are empirical. You can change the way things are done to influence both for the better. You can emphasize preventative care and see a huge savings. That's a fact. Here's another fact: any bipartisan effort is only going to be called bipartisan if Repubs get their way on everything and even then they probably wouldn't vote for it. Here's another fact: if Repubs got their way, we would empirically end up with a worse system. Oh please. The Dems have bent over backwards for Repubs. The Repubs are not going to vote for any bill that anyone can say is "Health Care Reform." It does not matter if they get everything they want put in/taken out, they will not vote for it. Several Republicans have said just this very thing. Don't whine about bipartisanship and Repubs being shut out when it is their stated policy to oppose everything. And really, of course this is controversial... but only in the sense that a lot of people making a lot of money under the current system want to protect their cash cow and are willing to exert enormous pressure to make sure no significant changes take place, even if it is to the detriment of the country. There's absolutely no need to start over. Everyone knows what is necessary to fix our system... hell, we've only studied it for decades. Everyone knows what is possible to get through the Congress without any Republican support. Everyone knows what is possible with a little Republican support. This whole debate puts the lie to the Republican rhetoric. They don't care about small businesses or entrepreneurs or freedom or economic growth. If they did, they would support the effort and work to make it a much better bill. Instead, they are happy with people sitting in their corporate cubes and not acting on their business idea because they can't take the health care risk or perhaps have a pre-existing condition that precludes them from taking an economic risk that might pay off big for themselves and society. Repubs are happy that people have to choose jobs based on what health care is provided by a company rather than being able to pursue the job they are most qualified for or most happy doing. It really is a sad commentary on the current state of the Republican Party that they would be so beholden to the big money interests behind our current system that they would forfeit the freedom of countless Americans and the prospects for a stronger middle class and more vibrant economy. It's even sadder that the people these positions end up hurting the most are some of the most vocal supporters of the Republican ruling class.
This bill has elements from Romneycare and also Republican plans presented during Clinton. I guess they suddenly turned socialist or whatever warped reality Rush and Glen Beck can paint.
Well over 40 million Americans don't have healthcare today. Many, many middle class Americans ae going bankrupt, having to sell their homes, emptying their savings, having to tell their kids that the help they had promised for college just won't be there. Why? Because they are being bankrupted by attempting to pay for the care of an ill family member. For a country that likes to crow that we are "the best in the world," and manage to be the only major industrialized country that doesn't provide healthcare to all of its citizens, that is simply unacceptable. These aren't the poor that you have so much contempt for... these are middle class Americans who have been laid off from the job that provided healthcare and, when getting another job, told they can't be covered because they have "pre-existing conditions." These are middle class Americans who had a child born with a health condition that can live, but only if they are given very expensive treatment. They believe they don't have to worry, and are then told that their coverage has reached its "lifetime limit" and that there is no more money coming from their "insurance." As someone who claims to be "pro-life" (as if we all aren't "pro-life"), what do you do when a doctor tells you that the premature baby just born, barely clinging to life, the one that weighs only a couple of ounces over a pound, is going to be have long-term health problems. That those health problems will be very, very expensive to deal with. A doctor that asks if you are ready to deal with that? What do you do when you've spent unfathomable amounts of money and spirit to bring that child up, despite everything, and find that you simply do not have the money to give the child the care that might make a difference? Care not covered by that "great" private insurance policy you've been paying premiums on for years? What do you do? What do you do? Don't you care about life?
Okay, so are all of the following countries bankrupt? Andorra Argentina Austrailia Austria Belgium Bhutan Bosnia Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Canada Chile China Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kuwait Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Malta Mexico Monaco Netherlands New Zealand North Korea Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia San Marino Saudi Arabia Serbia Seychelles Slovakia Slovenia South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Trinidad and Tobago Venezuela Going by Wikipedia on Universal Healthcare. Let me reiterate something also on that page: I suppose all these countries are socialist and we just know better than them all, right?
