PelosiCare breaks the one trillion dollar mark over a decade

[30A Skunkape]

You are shutting up and paying for wars and bailouts, no? So what's the difference? Which is better for the country, medical insurance and health care for all citizens, or the other stuff? A trillion bucks over ten years is a pittance compared to what we have risked to keep Wall Street fat.

I'm shutting up? Actually, no, I vote and write elected officials frequently. I am not debating the import of health care, only pointing out that it is foolhardy to accept a health care package (or any other expenditure for that matter) at any cost with the rationale that another expenditure is expensive. You don't think cost matters? Don't you wish, for example, that the architects of medicare and social security would have taken measures at their conception to keep them solvent in reality instead of on paper?

 

[idlewind]

We cannot afford the war or the healthcare. I would end both and get started on paying down. But the cold hard truth is that war is an allowed action of the Federal governement under the Constitution and forcing healthcare on us is not. So one strike on the war, two on healthcare.

 

[Lynnie]

Welcome to TennCare's Website

TennCare is a government-operated medical assistance program designed for people who are eligible for Medicaid, as well as for some children who do not have insurance. TennCare is a Medicaid waiver, or demonstration, program. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the use of managed-care principles can generate sufficient savings to enable the state to cover more than Medicaid eligible people.

TennCare provides health coverage for 1.2 million low-income children, pregnant women and disabled Tennesseans with an annual budget of $7 billion.

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/data_pubs/rates-costs/cap-rates/pcc-0911.pdf
estimated population of Oregon is just under 4MM = approx. $1B/yr.



Reform has to have costs under control as well as provide sufficient coverage for those who choose to insure their health. This should start at the State Ins. Comm. and Physician Offices, Laboratories and Pharmaceutical Cos.

Tort Reform should be a part of this, but highly dubious that will pass any time soon.

Just do the math on these three states. Oregon has had their plan in place for over a decade; however, has always actively denied procedures based upon ones health and age, family history, etc. Really, it's no different than the Canadian Plan.

These types of plans take away your rights as opposed to enhancing and protecting.

I am hearing more Dems are not for ObamaCare because they are recognizing these facts alone.

If I had to choose between war vs. insuring America, of course, I choose insuring America.....however, comparing the two is apples and oranges.

We really just can't afford anything right now. Is this why President Obama isn't proposing an implementation until 2013? And, that date is ironically after the 2012 election.......why the delay? How many Americans will die between now and 2013 because they have a pre-ex and can't get coverage, thus seeking medical care??

If TN's budget is $7B, you can't bet the National Budget for a public option will far surpass that and that equates to higher, much higher taxes.

 

[Kayak Fish]

I'm shutting up? Actually, no, I vote and write elected officials frequently. I am not debating the import of health care, only pointing out that it is foolhardy to accept a health care package (or any other expenditure for that matter) at any cost with the rationale that another expenditure is expensive. You don't think cost matters? Don't you wish, for example, that the architects of medicare and social security would have taken measures at their conception to keep them solvent in reality instead of on paper?

I never said I am willing to accept any cost. However, 100 billion a year out of a 3.5 trillion dollars plus annual budget I am willing to accept.

 

[30ashopper]

I never said I am willing to accept any cost. However, 100 billion a year out of a 3.5 trillion dollars plus annual budget I am willing to accept.

I would only be willing to accept this if Congress and Obama first detail cuts in the annual 2010 budget equal to the 850 billion we're projected to spend that isn't there. (I'll go ahead and forgive Obama for the 1.2 trillion he spent this year he didn't have.)

Spending 100 billion you borrow (obviously) costs a lot more than the base amount of the loan long term.

 

[Winnie]

You are shutting up and paying for wars and bailouts, no? So what's the difference? Which is better for the country, medical insurance and health care for all citizens, or the other stuff? A trillion bucks over ten years is a pittance compared to what we have risked to keep Wall Street fat.

There won't be any tax revenue if nobody is rich.

 

[Kayak Fish]

There won't be any tax revenue if nobody is rich.

That's irrelevant, but I'll play along. Are you saying that adding an amount equal to 1/35th of the U.S. budget, or simply re-prioritizing spending to absorb that amount into our existing budget is going to rid the country of rich people?

 

[Winnie]

That's irrelevant, but I'll play along. Are you saying that adding an amount equal to 1/35th of the U.S. budget, or simply re-prioritizing spending to absorb that amount into our existing budget is going to rid the country of rich people?

Nope. I'm saying we could not afford to let the financial markets collapse.



30A Skunkape is right:

I get your point, but you have to admit that in forty years we will not be paying for wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, but our taxpayers, many of them yet unborn, will be paying for whatever health plan becomes law.

And particularly:

The price tag of the plan is a legitimate concern ans ultimately has nothing to do with how much any military program costs.

 

[scooterbug44]

I think it certainly has something to do with it - there's always money for war and killing, but domestic spending is somehow money down a rathole. :roll:

How exactly do you think we WON'T be paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 40 years?

Is the over 900 BILLION we have spent on them (and counting) somehow not part of our deficit?

 

[Winnie]

I disagree. Military spending has nothing to do with healthcare reform spending. We already spend more money domestically than we do on "war and killing."

In 40 years our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will be over.
In 40 years any government programs we enact now in the name of reform will be growing from their initial underestimated costs to an ever higher cost level with no end in sight.