Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jeffrey Anderson of the Pacific Research Institute, who has been writing scintillating criticisms of the Democrats proposed health care bills, has prepared a chart showing the true 10-year cost of the bill currently before the Senate.
As the chart makes clear, the costs of this legislation do not kick in in any significant way until 2014, and so the real 10-year costas opposed to the 10-year cost that the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to its legislative charter, estimatedis $1.8 trillion for the 10-year period for 2014 to 2023. Let me spell that out: $1,800,000,000,000.
Seems that we have all kinds of gimmicks a la Global Warming data manipulation going on.
A picture can be worth 2,000 pages | Washington Examiner
Jeffrey Anderson of the Pacific Research Institute, who has been writing scintillating criticisms of the Democrats proposed health care bills, has prepared a chart showing the true 10-year cost of the bill currently before the Senate.
As the chart makes clear, the costs of this legislation do not kick in in any significant way until 2014, and so the real 10-year costas opposed to the 10-year cost that the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to its legislative charter, estimatedis $1.8 trillion for the 10-year period for 2014 to 2023. Let me spell that out: $1,800,000,000,000.
Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill. The long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) also concluded that subsidies provided by the legislation would make coverage cheaper for those who qualify. …
Though Republicans will seize on the projections that insurance premiums for individuals would increase, Democrats will highlight the conclusion that the legislation would lower premiums by 56 to 59 percent for those individuals who would receive subsidies to buy insurance on the exchange created by the legislation. Of those who participate in the exchange, 57 percent would be eligible for subsidies. The subsidy would cover about two-thirds of their premiums, the report says.
This exchange, open to individuals and small-business employees, would provide coverage to just 17 percent of the marketplace, the report notes.
But this may be the most significant part of the report, and it comes at the end of The Hill’s report:
The analysis does not measure the effects on premiums of a proposed excise tax on the most expensive insurance plans. Consistent with their previous reports, the CBO and the JCT predict that most people who currently have so-called Cadillac insurance plans would opt for less expensive insurance to avoid the tax.
Seems that we have all kinds of gimmicks a la Global Warming data manipulation going on.
A picture can be worth 2,000 pages | Washington Examiner
Jeffrey Anderson of the Pacific Research Institute, who has been writing scintillating criticisms of the Democrats proposed health care bills, has prepared a chart showing the true 10-year cost of the bill currently before the Senate.
As the chart makes clear, the costs of this legislation do not kick in in any significant way until 2014, and so the real 10-year costas opposed to the 10-year cost that the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to its legislative charter, estimatedis $1.8 trillion for the 10-year period for 2014 to 2023. Let me spell that out: $1,800,000,000,000.
It's always fun to play with numbers. Both sides do it. The fact is that by 2023, healthcare spending is projected to consume close to 25% of GDP. GDP in 2023 will likely be $19 to $20 trillion, based on a 3% rate of growth between now and then. This will make overall healthcare spending in 2023 approximately $5 trillion or double what we are now spending. So, in 2023 the governement will spend a little over $250 billion towards healthcare out of a total of $5 trillion.
Now, this does not include spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which will involve much greater spending. The $250 billion will be a spit in the bucket compared to overall spending on healthcare. The bottom line is the way things look now, it doesn't matter whether or not it's going through the government or not, we're going to be spending way too much on healthcare in the future, and it is going to make us less competitive globally.
Seems that we have all kinds of gimmicks a la Global Warming data manipulation going on.
A picture can be worth 2,000 pages | Washington Examiner
It's always fun to play with numbers. Both sides do it. The fact is that by 2023, healthcare spending is projected to consume close to 25% of GDP. GDP in 2023 will likely be $19 to $20 trillion, based on a 3% rate of growth between now and then. This will make overall healthcare spending in 2023 approximately $5 trillion or double what we are now spending. So, in 2023 the governement will spend a little over $250 billion towards healthcare out of a total of $5 trillion.
Now, this does not include spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which will involve much greater spending. The $250 billion will be a spit in the bucket compared to overall spending on healthcare. The bottom line is the way things look now, it doesn't matter whether or not it's going through the government or not, we're going to be spending way too much on healthcare in the future, and it is going to make us less competitive globally.
What is this fixation on health acre spending as a percentage of GDP?
So what if health care spending is 25% of GDP?
That means medicine is a growth industry and more research dollars will be spent on advanced technology and treatments which means more jobs for engineers, technicians, doctors and nurses etc.
Would you be so concerned if the auto or steel or computer industry spending was 25% of GDP?
And if health care spending of 16% of GDP as it is now is bad, what is your take on government spending being 45% of GDP and rising as it is now?
Seems to me that government spending is making us globally less competitive.
They don't give the American people much credit. Using years of paying into something, without withdrawing anything, towards any kind of cost prediction is dishonest at best, fucking criminal at worst.
Is the population of America really that fuckin' stupid, or naive, to be buying this type of bullshit from these guys? The fact that they are resorting to this type of tactic to weasel this through is very telling of what the true cost is going to be.
But the bottom line is that we are spending nearly double what most other countries are spending on healthcare. And what is our overall benefit? It certainly is not a longer life expectancy. Countries that spend half of what we do on healthcare, get the same end benefits as we do, yet they can spend all the extra money in other areas, and this is why we are falling behind, or at minimum, losing our advantage as the global leader. In the end, it will cost us, or should I say, our children and grandchildren, with a lower standard of living than we have enjoyed, and that is a real shame.
But the bottom line is that we are spending nearly double what most other countries are spending on healthcare. And what is our overall benefit? It certainly is not a longer life expectancy. Countries that spend half of what we do on healthcare, get the same end benefits as we do, yet they can spend all the extra money in other areas, and this is why we are falling behind, or at minimum, losing our advantage as the global leader. In the end, it will cost us, or should I say, our children and grandchildren, with a lower standard of living than we have enjoyed, and that is a real shame.
Life expectancy in the United States is the greatest on the globe.
You must get beyond the spin, and inquire as to how the numbers are determined.
Remove deaths from auto accidents, and homicides and we are number one!
So, how are auto accidents, and homicides a failure of healthcare?
One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine
They don't give the American people much credit. Using years of paying into something, without withdrawing anything, towards any kind of cost prediction is dishonest at best, fucking criminal at worst.
Is the population of America really that fuckin' stupid, or naive, to be buying this type of bullshit from these guys? The fact that they are resorting to this type of tactic to weasel this through is very telling of what the true cost is going to be.
