BF2S Forums Pick your Poison - Dems to Decide how to pay for Obamacare

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How much does it contribute to the GDP?

How much does it REDUCE GDP. The money that is currently wasted on the private system could be invested economically useful things like an extra trillion dollars in R&D for example, or just used to save US firms collectively a trillion dollars, allowing them to better compete with foreign firms, exporting more and imprting less thusly improving the GDP.

Those companies all CONTRIBUTE to the GDP and to the tax base. It's CONTRIBUTE, not REDUCE.

It the reduces the potential GDP in comparison to what you could get if you spent the money on something useful.
If you switch to UHC and spend the rest of the money saved to pay a company to employ all the people you just made unemployed to count the grains of sand in New Mexico it would contribute exactly the same amount to the GDP. The point is that currently there are an absolute crap load of people being employed to do somthing that could be done by far fewer people and resources, so by getting the massive waste of time money and effort and redirecting it to do something that's actually useful for the economy it would be of huge benefit.

Your argument is basically that inefficiency is good because it employs people to do pointless work.

There are far more economically useful ways to spend a trillion dollars.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Those companies all CONTRIBUTE to the GDP and to the tax base. It's CONTRIBUTE, not REDUCE.

It the reduces the potential GDP in comparison to what you could get if you spent the money on something useful.
If you switch to UHC and spend the rest of the money saved to pay a company to employ all the people you just made unemployed to count the grains of sand in New Mexico it would contribute exactly the same amount to the GDP. The point is that currently there are an absolute crap load of people being employed to do somthing that could be done by far fewer people and resources, so by getting the massive waste of time money and effort and redirecting it to do something that's actually useful for the economy it would be of huge benefit.

Your argument is basically that inefficiency is good because it employs people to do pointless work.

There are far more economically useful ways to spend a trillion dollars.

No, it wouldn't. Because those people would not be producing a good or service for consumption by the US or other countries, which the people employed (who would be out of work under UHC) provide.

You are entirely focused on the insurer side of things, without taking into account the cascading effects of UHC on the other industries involved and their contributions to the GDP.

So, you institute UHC. Government spending increases to cover it. At the same time, the tax revenue from those insurance and related companies goes down. Government spending will only increase, and there will not be a requisite increase in tax revenue from the companies involved because they have folded...resulting in a net negative for the GDP. Government spending kills the GDP. Private spending/investment increases it. Pretty basic, really.

So it boils down to if the employees in the health insurance companies pays more tax than the profits from the same business ...

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Those companies all CONTRIBUTE to the GDP and to the tax base. It's CONTRIBUTE, not REDUCE.

It the reduces the potential GDP in comparison to what you could get if you spent the money on something useful.
If you switch to UHC and spend the rest of the money saved to pay a company to employ all the people you just made unemployed to count the grains of sand in New Mexico it would contribute exactly the same amount to the GDP. The point is that currently there are an absolute crap load of people being employed to do somthing that could be done by far fewer people and resources, so by getting the massive waste of time money and effort and redirecting it to do something that's actually useful for the economy it would be of huge benefit.

Your argument is basically that inefficiency is good because it employs people to do pointless work.

There are far more economically useful ways to spend a trillion dollars.

No, it wouldn't. Because those people would not be producing a good or service for consumption by the US or other countries, which the people employed (who would be out of work under UHC) provide.

If you employ 2 people to do some admin, then change the system so that one person can do all that admin and the other gets paid to count sand all day, you haven't changed the GDP. In fact GDP is a fairly pointless measure as in this case, wasting money on inefficiencies adds to GDP despite being a waste of money.

FEOS wrote:

You are entirely focused on the insurer side of things, without taking into account the cascading effects of UHC on the other industries involved and their contributions to the GDP.

Most of the practical and useful aspects will still be paid for such as hospitals doctors and all the stuff they consume, the rest of the money saved increses the profits of everyone else in the economy as they no longer have to spend as much on healthcare for themselves and their employees. This will lead to a cascading effect of increased exports, reduced imports and increased employment in other sectors, all very good for the GDP.

FEOS wrote:

So, you institute UHC. Government spending increases to cover it. At the same time, the tax revenue from those insurance and related companies goes down. Government spending will only increase, and there will not be a requisite increase in tax revenue from the companies involved because they have folded...resulting in a net negative for the GDP. Government spending kills the GDP. Private spending/investment increases it. Pretty basic, really.

Again, the profits of everyone else in the economy will improve allowing them to expand and employ those made redundant from their economically pointless jobs.

Remember, inefficiency increases GDP. If the government decides to build a tower to the moon it will increase the GDP but also be a colossal waste of money. If you go out and crash your car it increased the GDP. The GDP is just a relatively bad way of assessing the economy because is makes no distinction about whether the things you spend money on are useful or not.

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

It the reduces the potential GDP in comparison to what you could get if you spent the money on something useful.
If you switch to UHC and spend the rest of the money saved to pay a company to employ all the people you just made unemployed to count the grains of sand in New Mexico it would contribute exactly the same amount to the GDP. The point is that currently there are an absolute crap load of people being employed to do somthing that could be done by far fewer people and resources, so by getting the massive waste of time money and effort and redirecting it to do something that's actually useful for the economy it would be of huge benefit.

Your argument is basically that inefficiency is good because it employs people to do pointless work.

There are far more economically useful ways to spend a trillion dollars.

No, it wouldn't. Because those people would not be producing a good or service for consumption by the US or other countries, which the people employed (who would be out of work under UHC) provide.

You are entirely focused on the insurer side of things, without taking into account the cascading effects of UHC on the other industries involved and their contributions to the GDP.

So, you institute UHC. Government spending increases to cover it. At the same time, the tax revenue from those insurance and related companies goes down. Government spending will only increase, and there will not be a requisite increase in tax revenue from the companies involved because they have folded...resulting in a net negative for the GDP. Government spending kills the GDP. Private spending/investment increases it. Pretty basic, really.

So it boils down to if the employees in the health insurance companies pays more tax than the profits from the same business ...

No. It boils down to the fact that it makes zero sense to spend trillions of dollars to ensure less than 10% of the population that needs, wants, but can't afford health coverage gets something other than the system for people like that right now. Even if all 46 million of those that the left cites as their target audience actually fell into the "need, want, but can't afford" category (less than 1/3 of them actually do), the amount of money being spent to ensure that small subset of the population gets coverage is ludicrous. Enforcing a system like that on the entire population to cover a small subset is asinine.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So it boils down to if the employees in the health insurance companies pays more tax than the profits from the same business ...

No. It boils down to the fact that it makes zero sense to spend trillions of dollars to ensure less than 10% of the population that needs, wants, but can't afford health coverage gets something other than the system for people like that right now. Even if all 46 million of those that the left cites as their target audience actually fell into the "need, want, but can't afford" category (less than 1/3 of them actually do), the amount of money being spent to ensure that small subset of the population gets coverage is ludicrous. Enforcing a system like that on the entire population to cover a small subset is asinine.

If you cover those ten percent and save a trillion dollars at the same time is it asinine?

You won't, because the trillion dollars they are spending (right now) is just to cover that small percentage...which is just as asinine as forcing a system on the majority when they don't want it to provide services that are already available for a small percentage who do want it.

They are spending $18,000,000.00 to redo the recovery.gov website... The Site Bozo Biden is running...but he isn't sure what the number is...?
The number...?  How about the URL or IP address at least....
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/25/bo … coverygov/
Does anyone think for the first time in history that the govt will cut any costs by running healthcare...?

Healthcare is broken... Let's fix it...not make it 10 times worse... Medicare is bankrupt... Why will UHC be different?

imortal wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Here's a whole bunch of studies into the question of which is more expensive.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_ … p?page=all
But don't let facts get in your way....

I took a look at that website.  It is an obviously biased organization presenting only a single side of the issue.  Many of the 'statistics' they quote have no source, leading me to doubt the accuracy.  Also, it is called "Physicians for National Healthcare Plan," but the only physician I could find in association with it was the guy on the quote of the day.

Pretty well all of the studies were run by the CBO spanning both democrat and republican administrations.

imortal wrote:

I am not saying that our healthcare system is good.  But to base it on a system that is already showing signs of failure is not something I agree with.

The current US one is showing signs of complete collapse, the British system is not showing signs of failure, similarly with most other rich nations who run a variety of UHC systems

imortal wrote:

Even if Canada and the UK were model systems, the makeup of the US would make a similar program here dubious at best.

It's an overly used argument that has no rational basis other than not knowing, you could also argue that in the US it may be much easier and cheaper to run a UHC system, it's an equally valid argument.

imortal wrote:

A national healthcare program here in the US is the best way to both bankrupt the nation and destroy quality healthcare in the US inside 15 years.

Go look ant any projections for the US system and all the other rich nations. The US system is both the most expensive and has the fastest rising costs. Switzerland has the second highest reliance on private healthcare companies, is the second most expensive and has the second fastest rising costs.

imortal wrote:

A lot of Americans support a national healthcare plan because A) they get their information from "Sicko" and B) they think 'national healthcare' will be free.

Compare the amount of money spent making and exposing sicko with the amount of money than private insurance companies have thrown into advertising and lobbying their side. If people had access to a sensible unbiased debate about the topic support for single payer healthcare would probably top 90%.

imortal wrote:

...and, just because I can never resist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqD-nMpsYAY

Oh, and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFV5Tx4LxBM

Website based on CBO reports is biased, yet bloke on youtube spouting random crap and making movies with lego is a highly legitimate source?

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If you cover those ten percent and save a trillion dollars at the same time is it asinine?

You won't, because the trillion dollars they are spending (right now) is just to cover that small percentage...which is just as asinine as forcing a system on the majority when they don't want it to provide services that are already available for a small percentage who do want it.

The spending right now is inefficient due to the hugely inefficient current system and focus on high treatment groups like the elderly who tend to use more healthcare services.
Here's a whole bunch of studies into the question of which is more expensive.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_ … p?page=all
But don't let facts get in your way....

The US populace is predominantly in favour of getting the government directly into the healthcare system as a direct competitor with private insurers (which incidentally believe that government competition will put most of them out of business, which goes to show how much they really believe that the government is inefficient and rubbish) or a system like we have in the UK.

Yes. The American public is in favor of competition. The Obama Administration isn't.

• 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals.
• Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses
• Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan
• The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million
• the government would provide subsidies to make coverage more affordable for households with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four and $43,000 for an individual
• Medicaid — the federal-state health program for the poor — would be expanded to individuals and families up to 133 percent of the poverty line
• About 17 million people would remain uninsured — about 6 percent of the population — and half of them would be illegal immigrants

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes. The American public is in favor of competition. The Obama Administration isn't.

The Obama administration are going with letting the government compete with private insurers.

And that's fine. Why the $1trillion+ bill?

More than 85% of the population has adequate coverage without raising our taxes or increasing our debt by one penny.

So we're going to increase our debt by 25% just to give the remaining 15% a different option? Keeping in mind that a not insignificant portion of that group will not choose coverage, regardless of the source...so increasing the debt by 25% to give less than 15% (probably less than 10% in actuality) a different option? It makes no sense.

The plan is nonsensical.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The Obama administration are going with letting the government compete with private insurers.

And that's fine. Why the $1trillion+ bill?

More than 85% of the population has adequate coverage without raising our taxes or increasing our debt by one penny.

So we're going to increase our debt by 25% just to give the remaining 15% a different option? Keeping in mind that a not insignificant portion of that group will not choose coverage, regardless of the source...so increasing the debt by 25% to give less than 15% (probably less than 10% in actuality) a different option? It makes no sense.

The plan is nonsensical.

Where did you get 85% from? 1 in 4 Americans report someone in their family put off getting healthcare treatment this year due to costs.

The trillion dollars is also over a 10 year period and is to cover the setup costs of the program (therefore only adding 2.5% to the debt) and will increase competition, thereby driving down the spiraling medical costs of the US which will cripple the economy at it's current rate, thusly saving everyone lots of money, probably more that it's own costs.

I agree that the plan isn't very sensible when moving to a single payer system, taking the best bits from all the programs across the world, would be so much better.

The CBO estimate is $1.5T over 10 years. Historically, programs run roughly quadruple the estimates for actual cost. To ensure coverage for roughly 15% of the population (some of whom CAN get insurance, but CHOOSE not to).

I heard a stat today that puts the cost (and unnecessary nature) of this "plan" into perspective: for 1/30 (yes, that's one-thirtieth) of the estimated cost of this program, every uninsured person in the US could get a "gold standard" insurance policy.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe CNN or the Washington Post or any number of other sources...some of which you would dismiss out of hand simply because you disagree with their political leanings (regardless of the veracity of their information).

And as for the bankruptcy argument? Debunked.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And that's fine. Why the $1trillion+ bill?

More than 85% of the population has adequate coverage without raising our taxes or increasing our debt by one penny.

So we're going to increase our debt by 25% just to give the remaining 15% a different option? Keeping in mind that a not insignificant portion of that group will not choose coverage, regardless of the source...so increasing the debt by 25% to give less than 15% (probably less than 10% in actuality) a different option? It makes no sense.

The plan is nonsensical.

Where did you get 85% from? 1 in 4 Americans report someone in their family put off getting healthcare treatment this year due to costs.

The trillion dollars is also over a 10 year period and is to cover the setup costs of the program (therefore only adding 2.5% to the debt) and will increase competition, thereby driving down the spiraling medical costs of the US which will cripple the economy at it's current rate, thusly saving everyone lots of money, probably more that it's own costs.

I agree that the plan isn't very sensible when moving to a single payer system, taking the best bits from all the programs across the world, would be so much better.

The CBO estimate is $1.5T over 10 years. Historically, programs run roughly quadruple the estimates for actual cost. To ensure coverage for roughly 15% of the population (some of whom CAN get insurance, but CHOOSE not to).

I heard a stat today that puts the cost (and unnecessary nature) of this "plan" into perspective: for 1/30 (yes, that's one-thirtieth) of the estimated cost of this program, every uninsured person in the US could get a "gold standard" insurance policy.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe CNN or the Washington Post or any number of other sources...some of which you would dismiss out of hand simply because you disagree with their political leanings (regardless of the veracity of their information).

So the argument is that lots of Americans are currently getting crap, cheap insurance that doesn't cover lots of very important things and actually providing them with decent health insurance is bad? Remember that I agree that this is a bad idea, moving straight to a complete UHC system makes vastly more sense as those articles plainly point out. The Obama proposal neatly sidesteps most of the advantageous saving that a government run system can achieve.

You accuse me of dismissing information out of hand (which I didn't) without caring about the veracity, yet you dismiss the CBO estimate out of hand claiming that the costs will be 4 times larger than this. You think that you know better than the CBO? You also seem to be failing to get a whole great big aspect of this program, it will cover a whole bunch of those who are currently insured as well. Lots of people who have insurance will swap to the government system, thusly the costs of this program are going to be offset by the reduction of money being wasted in the current private system. Hopefully it'll put a load of crappier insurance companies out of business.

FEOS wrote:

And as for the bankruptcy argument? Debunked.

I haven't seen anyone make that argument, so why feel the need to try and debunk it?

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So the argument is that lots of Americans are currently getting crap, cheap insurance that doesn't cover lots of very important things and actually providing them with decent health insurance is bad?

That's not the argument at all.

It's a big part of the CNN article's argument

FEOS wrote:

PF wrote:

Remember that I agree that this is a bad idea, moving straight to a complete UHC system makes vastly more sense as those articles plainly point out. The Obama proposal neatly sidesteps most of the advantageous saving that a government run system can achieve.

And thus you see the problem with our government trying to do something like UHC. They can't even get something this small even close to workable...why the hell would anyone think they can do it on the scale of a UHC?

The problem is that it is still hanging on to the collosally wasteful and completely unsustainable private health sector. If they want it to work they would be well advised to ditch the private part.

FEOS wrote:

PF wrote:

You accuse me of dismissing information out of hand (which I didn't) without caring about the veracity,

Based solely on previous behavior, mind you.

So far just within this thread you've wrongly argued that UHC would damage the GDP of the nation, implied that the costs of the Obama plan will all occur in one year (there's no other way that it could increase debt by 25%), wrongly stated that it will increase national debt (it's being covered by taxes and reduction in other programs), claimed the program will only cover a small number of the currently uninsured when it is actually going to be an option for pretty well all Americans, then claimed that few people will be interested, and given that when Medicare when up against private insurers and now almost dominates the market the complete reverse of this assumption is more likely. You also claim to have a bettter knowledge of the future costs of the program than the CBO. That's a whole lot if information you've been dismissing just in this thread so far.

FEOS wrote:

PF wrote:

yet you dismiss the CBO estimate out of hand claiming that the costs will be 4 times larger than this. You think that you know better than the CBO?

It's not just me...that's the historic trend, pointed out by many. A pretty thorough breakdown of CBO scoring and the issues with it can be found here. Note the example of the Medicare Prescription Drug program.

It depends on how you look at the number. If you look at it as evenly divided over the 10-year span, it seems reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Then you look beyond the 10-year window, with annual spending of the nature we historically see (take Medicare example)...and the total cost literally skyrockets beyond the 10-year point. It is certainly not a linear relationship.

Heritage foundation, an organisation that is openly bised agains government programs believes that this will have higher than expected costs? Big shock there.
The 10-year cost of the drug subsidy program, originally estimated at $634 billion, has been revised to about $395 million
The rise in the medicare drug costs stem from a combination of a wildy inefficient pharmecuticals industry and lobbyists that forced through a law preventing Medicare from bargining with drugs companies to drive down prices. Again the problem here is the private sector and it's influence.

FEOS wrote:

PF wrote:

You also seem to be failing to get a whole great big aspect of this program, it will cover a whole bunch of those who are currently insured as well. Lots of people who have insurance will swap to the government system, thusly the costs of this program are going to be offset by the reduction of money being wasted in the current private system. Hopefully it'll put a load of crappier insurance companies out of business.

It will present an OPTION. That certainly doesn't mean people will flock to it. Now, that may happen initially...until they realize how crappy it is and go back to their old insurance. And yes, I speak from experience, as I am required to use govt-provided health insurance for myself (HMO-style). It is a night and day difference between the level of "care" I receive and the level of care my family receives (using a PPO style insurance). My entire family used to be under the HMO/UHC-style govt insurance. They will never go back. I wouldn't if I had the option...but I don't.

PF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And as for the bankruptcy argument? Debunked.

I haven't seen anyone make that argument, so why feel the need to try and debunk it?

Not in this thread, but it was just a matter of time, since it always comes up when someone from somewhere else tries to tell us how badly we need a UHC.

Again, go see how well Medicare did vs. Medicare plus or whatever the private system was called before it all but folded due to not being able to compete with the public sector.