Let's Get To The Bottom Of This...

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
How much does it cost the government to count heads?

According to Jason Gauthier's 2002 study entitled "Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000," the cost to perform the census has risen over the decades at a rate staggeringly higher than the rate of the growth of the population itself. What does this mean? Simply put, that bureaucracy is obese, says Opelka.

For example:

The census cost was a little more than 60 cents per person in 1950 ($91.4 million).
It is projected to cost nearly $47 per person in 2010 ($14.5 billion), a whopping 7,822 percent increase in cost per person.
During the same time, the population rose by 100 percent (i.e., doubled) from 150 million to over 300 million. But the overall cost of counting it (the census) rose by 15,800 percent.
Runaway Census Cost Is Frightening Preview of True Obamacare Price Tag - Big Government


Now, let's move to healthcare...
Remember way back when President Obama assured that a) he wouldn't sign a bil that cost over $ trillion? and b) wouldn't pay for itself?

Since he is far from a fool, why did he claim these criteria, as he must have been aware of the bureaucratic bloat as exemplified in the article above?
He knew that neither were true.

So, do ya' think that the political right was...right?

A simple strategy to increase the size of government, and the 'easily-herded' just fell into lockstep.
Could be?
 
Perhaps you should draw a relevant comparison. Apples to apples and all that.

Is this a deflection?

Why can't we get an honest response...

Oops...forgot to welcome you to the board. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Of course, the example was designed to show that government programs never come in at or below projections. Therefore, it was 'apples to apples.'

Would you like to argue that point re: Obamacare?
Do you think it will come in as projected?
Do you think that the President thought it would?
Do you think the left used an honest approach, i.e. said all they wanted was control of another sixth of the economy?

Here, let me answer for you: the Left never tells the truth.
a. A constituent of the difficulty in dealing with the radicals, and the New Left value system, was the habitual lying. This antinomianism has resulted in the acceptance of lying by both omission and by commission, as in "it depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is."

b. Antinomianism (Greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament. So. Christian heretics thought themselves free by God’s grace from an obligation to the moral law.
Imbued with the political grace of the Left, they are freed of the restraints of morality, specifically honesty: one could lie in a noble cause.

c. We can see the same religious absolution in Sorel’s belief that it was not wrong to break heads as well as laws.

d. Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked, but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda. Thus they run as 'centrists,' or 'moderates.'
Or even as conservatives.
 
You might have thought technology would reduce the costs of collection.

Say, is it true Obama is going to kill everyone over 33 this year? It would make him the only one who could run in 2012.
 
Is this a deflection?

Coverage is expanded under the new law through two mechanisms, both of which will be administered at the state level: an expansion of state Medicaid programs and the construction of transparent marketplaces (health insurance exchanges) for individual private coverage.

State governments currently administer health insurance programs and markets, just as they will continue to do under the new law. So it stands to reason that if you wanted a picture of what the future holds under this law, you'd look at how things function presently. Which is why I provided you with that link ("Medicaid Administrative Costs (MACs) are among the lowest of any health care payer in the country. MACs are significantly less than private health insurance plans; typically in the range of four to six percent of claims paid").

Making irrelevant points about the census is the deflection.

Oops...forgot to welcome you to the board. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Thank you.

Of course, the example was designed to show that government programs never come in at or below projections. Therefore, it was 'apples to apples.'

Your example didn't offer any projections about census costs so I don't see how that could have been your intent. But the "apples" I referred to are state administrative costs for health programs.

Would you like to argue that point re: Obamacare?
Do you think it will come in as projected?
Do you think that the President thought it would?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.

However, if your focus is on administrative costs, no I don't think those will play much role in altering the forecast.

Do you think the left used an honest approach, i.e. said all they wanted was control of another sixth of the economy?

What a disingenuous question. No one has claimed to want "control of another sixth of the economy," nor has anything that wasn't already regulated become regulated. Health insurance markets are already regulated (at the state level), meaning if regulation itself constitutes "control" of that sector of the economy, it's been controlled for over 60 years; this law has changed nothing in that respect.
 
Coverage is the wrong term. The number insured will be reduced through premium rate hikes.
 
Is this a deflection?

Coverage is expanded under the new law through two mechanisms, both of which will be administered at the state level: an expansion of state Medicaid programs and the construction of transparent marketplaces (health insurance exchanges) for individual private coverage.

State governments currently administer health insurance programs and markets, just as they will continue to do under the new law. So it stands to reason that if you wanted a picture of what the future holds under this law, you'd look at how things function presently. Which is why I provided you with that link ("Medicaid Administrative Costs (MACs) are among the lowest of any health care payer in the country. MACs are significantly less than private health insurance plans; typically in the range of four to six percent of claims paid").

Making irrelevant points about the census is the deflection.

Oops...forgot to welcome you to the board. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Thank you.



Your example didn't offer any projections about census costs so I don't see how that could have been your intent. But the "apples" I referred to are state administrative costs for health programs.

Would you like to argue that point re: Obamacare?
Do you think it will come in as projected?
Do you think that the President thought it would?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.

However, if your focus is on administrative costs, no I don't think those will play much role in altering the forecast.

Do you think the left used an honest approach, i.e. said all they wanted was control of another sixth of the economy?

What a disingenuous question. No one has claimed to want "control of another sixth of the economy," nor has anything that wasn't already regulated become regulated. Health insurance markets are already regulated (at the state level), meaning if regulation itself constitutes "control" of that sector of the economy, it's been controlled for over 60 years; this law has changed nothing in that respect.

I love fantasies...can I play too?

The direct question is: will Obamacare come in as projected, or will it break the bank?

If you'd rather not answer, just name three or four other government programs that came in as projected.

Now, I read your link, and have an answer to it:

"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online


"First, consider the original projections for the 1965 Medicare Bill, and the actual costs were nine times the estimates.

Next, "The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). "
Defend Your Health Care

Our own history should offer caveats about increasing government involvement in health care. As Michael Tanner of the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute has pointed out, when Medicare began in 1965 it was estimated that the annual cost of Medicare Part A would be $9 billion by 1990. It turned out to be $67 billion. "In 1987," Tanner writes, "Medicaid's special hospitals subsidy was projected to cost $100 million annually just five years later; it actually cost $11 billion, more than 100 times as much. And in 1988, when Medicare's home care benefit was established, the projected cost for 1993 was $4 billion, but the actual cost was $10 billion."
Economic theory and practice suggest that improving access to health care and moderating the costs can best be achieved not through centralized control but through competition. But how do we get there from here? It depends on how far you want to go.
Alan Bock: Getting untangled | insurance, health, people - Opinion - The Orange County Register



And my fav, the 'Big Dig' in Boston...
"The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S.[2] Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]),[3] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars)[3] had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006[update].[4] A July 17, 2008 article in The Boston Globe stated, "In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038."
Big Dig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, it seems that policrats either have kick-backs in mind, or some other reason.
What, pray tell, was the real reason for Obamacare if not to save money?

Not control of healthcare, to socialize medicine...

Spill it....what do you know that no one else does, Greenie?
 
The direct question is: will Obamacare come in as projected, or will it break the bank?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.

If you'd rather not answer, just name three or four other government programs that came in as projected.

All projections are imperfect. But the suggestion that all health care projections err in the direction of underestimating costs is simply false:

In the early eighties, Congress adjusted the way in which Medicare would pay hospitals-under the new law paying a fixed amount per admission based upon primary medical condition. “CBO predicted that by 1986 total spending would be $60 billion. Actual spending in 1986 was $49 billion.”

That’s $11 billion on 60. That’s wrong by more than 18%,” Ricciardelli observes.

In the second case, Gabel “found that savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which changed the way skilled nursing facilities and home health services were reimbursed under Medicare, turned out to be 50 percent greater in 1998 and 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast.”

“Wrong by 50% and by 113%.”

In the third instance, the Commonwealth Fund reports that “CBO predicted that drug prices would rise following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, estimating that spending on the drug benefit would be $206 billion." Actual spending was nearly 40 percent less than that, Gabel found.

Wrong by nearly 40%.​

So, it seems that policrats either have kick-backs in mind, or some other reason.
What, pray tell, was the real reason for Obamacare if not to save money?

Roughly speaking, you can split the law into two parts with two different aims:

  • Insurance market reforms and tax code changes aimed at increasing coverage and health insurance uptake
  • Delivery system reform pilots aimed at demonstrating strategies for lowering costs and improving quality. Since these are demonstration projects, they will still need to be implemented on a wider scale if they show cost control and quality improvement potential
 
Is this a deflection?

Coverage is expanded under the new law through two mechanisms, both of which will be administered at the state level: an expansion of state Medicaid programs and the construction of transparent marketplaces (health insurance exchanges) for individual private coverage.

State governments currently administer health insurance programs and markets, just as they will continue to do under the new law. So it stands to reason that if you wanted a picture of what the future holds under this law, you'd look at how things function presently. Which is why I provided you with that link ("Medicaid Administrative Costs (MACs) are among the lowest of any health care payer in the country. MACs are significantly less than private health insurance plans; typically in the range of four to six percent of claims paid").

Making irrelevant points about the census is the deflection.

Oops...forgot to welcome you to the board. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Thank you.



Your example didn't offer any projections about census costs so I don't see how that could have been your intent. But the "apples" I referred to are state administrative costs for health programs.

Would you like to argue that point re: Obamacare?
Do you think it will come in as projected?
Do you think that the President thought it would?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.

However, if your focus is on administrative costs, no I don't think those will play much role in altering the forecast.

Do you think the left used an honest approach, i.e. said all they wanted was control of another sixth of the economy?

What a disingenuous question. No one has claimed to want "control of another sixth of the economy," nor has anything that wasn't already regulated become regulated. Health insurance markets are already regulated (at the state level), meaning if regulation itself constitutes "control" of that sector of the economy, it's been controlled for over 60 years; this law has changed nothing in that respect.

Greenie...what have I done?

You've left me already?
Story of my life...

Here, maybe this one is easier:
Remember when you said this:
"No one has claimed to want "control of another sixth of the economy,"

See...that't the point.
The Left won't tell you what they really have in mind, 'cause folks probably won't hop on if they know what the statists really want.

Didn't you see that in my earlier post?
 
The Left won't tell you what they really have in mind, 'cause folks probably won't hop on if they know what the statists really want.

Unfortunately, you've accidentally posted this in the "Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare" forum. "Conspiracy theories" is a little lower down.
 
The direct question is: will Obamacare come in as projected, or will it break the bank?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.
You're off your rocker.

Projections for that joke went up 100 billion within a month of it being passed.

Medicare now costs in excess of 10X what it was projected to back when they got that scam rolling.

Care to name any others?
 
The direct question is: will Obamacare come in as projected, or will it break the bank?

I can't say. It's the best projection we have, which is why it's used in the first place. The last entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) was less expensive than forecast; others, I'm sure, have run high.

If you'd rather not answer, just name three or four other government programs that came in as projected.

All projections are imperfect. But the suggestion that all health care projections err in the direction of underestimating costs is simply false:

In the early eighties, Congress adjusted the way in which Medicare would pay hospitals-under the new law paying a fixed amount per admission based upon primary medical condition. “CBO predicted that by 1986 total spending would be $60 billion. Actual spending in 1986 was $49 billion.”

That’s $11 billion on 60. That’s wrong by more than 18%,” Ricciardelli observes.

In the second case, Gabel “found that savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which changed the way skilled nursing facilities and home health services were reimbursed under Medicare, turned out to be 50 percent greater in 1998 and 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast.”

“Wrong by 50% and by 113%.”

In the third instance, the Commonwealth Fund reports that “CBO predicted that drug prices would rise following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, estimating that spending on the drug benefit would be $206 billion." Actual spending was nearly 40 percent less than that, Gabel found.

Wrong by nearly 40%.​

So, it seems that policrats either have kick-backs in mind, or some other reason.
What, pray tell, was the real reason for Obamacare if not to save money?

Roughly speaking, you can split the law into two parts with two different aims:

  • Insurance market reforms and tax code changes aimed at increasing coverage and health insurance uptake
  • Delivery system reform pilots aimed at demonstrating strategies for lowering costs and improving quality. Since these are demonstration projects, they will still need to be implemented on a wider scale if they show cost control and quality improvement potential

Nicely done!

Good work.

But outside the verbiage...which is usually my strong suit, I'll stick to the simpler format: Obamacare is a fraud, will come in at far more than projected, and has an ulterior purpose.

I told you what I believe it to be...this is politics, not healthcare.

See if you like Samuelson, Wa Po...

"Ever since Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health politics has followed a simple logic: Expand benefits and talk about controlling costs. That's the status quo, and Obama faithfully adheres to it. While denouncing skyrocketing health spending, he would increase it by extending government health insurance to millions more Americans.

Meanwhile, open-ended reimbursement by government and private insurance has ballooned health spending despite repeated pledges to "contain" costs. For example, health payments for individuals rose from less than 1 percent of federal spending in 1965 to 23 percent in 2008.
Obama would perpetuate this system. No president has spoken more forcefully about the need to control costs. Failure, he's argued, would expand federal budget deficits, raise out-of-pocket health costs and squeeze take-home pay (more compensation would go to insurance). All true. But Obama's program would do little to reduce costs and would increase spending by expanding subsidized insurance."
Robert J. Samuelson - Obama's Health Care Plan Just Expands Status Quo - washingtonpost.com

And how about this tidbit: in the UK, they promised the same kind of commitment to reduce costs....
UK NHS is the world’s 3rd largest employer after the Red Army, and the Indian Rail System!

And you may want to consider this in your calculations: Obamacare promised that the plan would reduce the burden on emergency rooms. Did you hear about the result in Mass with a similar socialized medicine scam?

"More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. Visits to Massachusetts emergency rooms grew 7 percent between 2005 and 2007, to 2,469,295 visits."
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe


You've been hoodwinked. How do you like them 'apples'?
 
How much does it cost the government to count heads?

According to Jason Gauthier's 2002 study entitled "Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000," the cost to perform the census has risen over the decades at a rate staggeringly higher than the rate of the growth of the population itself. What does this mean? Simply put, that bureaucracy is obese, says Opelka.

For example:

The census cost was a little more than 60 cents per person in 1950 ($91.4 million).
It is projected to cost nearly $47 per person in 2010 ($14.5 billion), a whopping 7,822 percent increase in cost per person.
During the same time, the population rose by 100 percent (i.e., doubled) from 150 million to over 300 million. But the overall cost of counting it (the census) rose by 15,800 percent.
Runaway Census Cost Is Frightening Preview of True Obamacare Price Tag - Big Government


Now, let's move to healthcare...
Remember way back when President Obama assured that a) he wouldn't sign a bil that cost over $ trillion? and b) wouldn't pay for itself?

Since he is far from a fool, why did he claim these criteria, as he must have been aware of the bureaucratic bloat as exemplified in the article above?
He knew that neither were true.

So, do ya' think that the political right was...right?

A simple strategy to increase the size of government, and the 'easily-herded' just fell into lockstep.
Could be?
Since no government bureaucracy is designed to run at a profit, it's fiscally impossible for the DHHS to not swell to an uncontrollable size.
I see it eating away at the budgets of other entitlement programs, if only to bring them in under it's umbrella, thus bloating it even more.


For me to answer the closing questions would, merely, be patting myself on the back! :D
 
How much does it cost the government to count heads?

According to Jason Gauthier's 2002 study entitled "Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000," the cost to perform the census has risen over the decades at a rate staggeringly higher than the rate of the growth of the population itself. What does this mean? Simply put, that bureaucracy is obese, says Opelka.

For example:

The census cost was a little more than 60 cents per person in 1950 ($91.4 million).
It is projected to cost nearly $47 per person in 2010 ($14.5 billion), a whopping 7,822 percent increase in cost per person.
During the same time, the population rose by 100 percent (i.e., doubled) from 150 million to over 300 million. But the overall cost of counting it (the census) rose by 15,800 percent.
Runaway Census Cost Is Frightening Preview of True Obamacare Price Tag - Big Government


Now, let's move to healthcare...
Remember way back when President Obama assured that a) he wouldn't sign a bil that cost over $ trillion? and b) wouldn't pay for itself?

Since he is far from a fool, why did he claim these criteria, as he must have been aware of the bureaucratic bloat as exemplified in the article above?
He knew that neither were true.

So, do ya' think that the political right was...right?

A simple strategy to increase the size of government, and the 'easily-herded' just fell into lockstep.
Could be?
Since no government bureaucracy is designed to run at a profit, it's fiscally impossible for the DHHS to not swell to an uncontrollable size.
I see it eating away at the budgets of other entitlement programs, if only to bring them in under it's umbrella, thus bloating it even more.


For me to answer the closing questions would, merely, be patting myself on the back! :D

Too bad we don't run the show, huh?
 
Obama would perpetuate this system. No president has spoken more forcefully about the need to control costs. Failure, he's argued, would expand federal budget deficits, raise out-of-pocket health costs and squeeze take-home pay (more compensation would go to insurance). All true. But Obama's program would do little to reduce costs and would increase spending by expanding subsidized insurance."

The long-term strategy for cost control in the reform law hinges on re-shaping the way health care is delivered and paid for, with special emphasis on improving quality and reducing the vast amount of waste that results from the inefficiency of our current delivery system. If you want more information on how that works, I'd recommend two pieces in NEJM, The Cost Implications of Health Care Reform and Health Reform and Cost Control. If you want a very quick overview of the delivery system concepts incorporated in the law, you can just read this.

And how about this tidbit: in the UK, they promised the same kind of commitment to reduce costs....

The NHS is a much different system than the one we have. So I'm not sure what your point is.

And you may want to consider this in your calculations: Obamacare promised that the plan would reduce the burden on emergency rooms. Did you hear about the result in Mass with a similar socialized medicine scam?

The Massachusetts reforms contained no resources for workforce development or incentives for primary care, nor did it offer any sorts of delivery system reforms. According to your article:

What is needed, they said, are more primary care doctors and nurses, and a new payment system that encourages intense monitoring of patients with diabetes, asthma, and other chronic illnesses.​

The national reform law does address primary care workforce development, as well as care coordination through ACOs and medical homes, reimbursement rates affected by re-admissions, etc.

In short, the Massachusetts law was only insurance market reform. The national reform law is significantly more than that.
 
Obama would perpetuate this system. No president has spoken more forcefully about the need to control costs. Failure, he's argued, would expand federal budget deficits, raise out-of-pocket health costs and squeeze take-home pay (more compensation would go to insurance). All true. But Obama's program would do little to reduce costs and would increase spending by expanding subsidized insurance."

The long-term strategy for cost control in the reform law hinges on re-shaping the way health care is delivered and paid for, with special emphasis on improving quality and reducing the vast amount of waste that results from the inefficiency of our current delivery system. If you want more information on how that works, I'd recommend two pieces in NEJM, The Cost Implications of Health Care Reform and Health Reform and Cost Control. If you want a very quick overview of the delivery system concepts incorporated in the law, you can just read this.

And how about this tidbit: in the UK, they promised the same kind of commitment to reduce costs....

The NHS is a much different system than the one we have. So I'm not sure what your point is.

And you may want to consider this in your calculations: Obamacare promised that the plan would reduce the burden on emergency rooms. Did you hear about the result in Mass with a similar socialized medicine scam?

The Massachusetts reforms contained no resources for workforce development or incentives for primary care, nor did it offer any sorts of delivery system reforms. According to your article:

What is needed, they said, are more primary care doctors and nurses, and a new payment system that encourages intense monitoring of patients with diabetes, asthma, and other chronic illnesses.​

The national reform law does address primary care workforce development, as well as care coordination through ACOs and medical homes, reimbursement rates affected by re-admissions, etc.

In short, the Massachusetts law was only insurance market reform. The national reform law is significantly more than that.

Well...we shall see... you certainly are free to refuse to accept experience.

It's been a nice joust.

Keep up the good work!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top