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

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by PoliticalChic, Jun 27, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,887
    Thanks Received:
    15,686
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,029
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    this census was the biggest bunch of bullmal i have ever seen....as a census worker it was embarressing to see the waste of money
     
  3. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
  4. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    No could be's about it. The census and the so called health care reform are both atrocities.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,887
    Thanks Received:
    15,686
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,029
    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.
     
  6. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,169
    Thanks Received:
    6,134
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,106
    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.
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  8. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,169
    Thanks Received:
    6,134
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,106
    Coverage is the wrong term. The number insured will be reduced through premium rate hikes.
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,887
    Thanks Received:
    15,686
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,029
    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?
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Ummmmm.....Uhhhhhhhhh......Errrrrrrr......
     

Share This Page