PDA

View Full Version : Question: How Will We Pay for Healthcare?


revefsreleets
03-30-2010, 01:42 PM
Answer: We will NOT pay for it. It does NOT pay for itself, and there is no money to pay for it.

"The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain."


"Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless."

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/89490687.html

Obama sows the seeds of a budget crisis By Robert J. Samuelson
Washington Post

Published on Tuesday, Mar 30, 2010
WASHINGTON: When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service the bond rating agency published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.
Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings. A further irony will not escape historians. For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis. The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain.
Let's be clear. A ''budget crisis'' is not some minor accounting exercise. It's a wrenching political, social and economic upheaval. Large deficits and rising debt the accumulation of past deficits spook investors, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. The higher rates expand the budget deficit and further unnerve investors. To reverse this calamitous cycle, the government has to cut spending deeply or raise taxes sharply. Lower spending and higher taxes in turn depress the economy and lead to higher unemployment. Not pretty.
Greece is experiencing such a crisis. Until recently, conventional wisdom held that only developing countries managed ineptly were candidates for true budget crises. No more. Most wealthy societies with aging populations, including the United States, face big gaps between their spending promises and their tax bases. No one in Congress could be unaware of this.
Two weeks before the House vote, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of Obama's budget, including its health-care program. From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak.
To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $143 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on ''comparative effectiveness research'') to control health spending.
These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing. Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $143 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless.
But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks. Benefits are phased in ''so that the first 10 years of [higher] revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending'' increases, a former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, wrote in the New York Times on March 20. Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later. Then there's the ''doc fix'' higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade.
Proposals to control health spending face restrictions that virtually ensure failure. Consider the ''Independent Payment Advisory Board'' aimed at Medicare. ''The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increased revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing,'' says a summary by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. What's left? Similarly, findings from ''comparative effectiveness research'' intended to identify ineffective care ''may not be construed as mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage or treatment.'' What's the point then?
So Obama is flirting with a future budget crisis. Moody's emphasizes two warning signs: rising debt and loss of confidence that government will deal with it. Obama fulfills both. The parallels with the recent financial crisis are striking. Bankers and rating agencies engaged in wishful thinking to rationalize self-interest. Obama does the same. No one can tell when or whether a crisis will come. There is no magic tipping point. But Obama is raising the chances.

Samuelson is a Washington Post columnist.

MasterOfPuppets
03-30-2010, 02:01 PM
there are now 6 threads with the word "healthcare" in the title on page 1.....:popcorn:

revefsreleets
03-30-2010, 03:26 PM
Yeah, well, whatever....

THIS thread is solely concerned about the lies and twisted math surrounding how this thing is supposed to pay for itself. I'm curious to see what, if any, liberal spin can be applied to this to make it appear better than it actually is....

43Hitman
03-30-2010, 04:46 PM
Yeah, well, whatever....

THIS thread is solely concerned about the lies and twisted math surrounding how this thing is supposed to pay for itself. I'm curious to see what, if any, liberal spin can be applied to this to make it appear better than it actually is....

Umm so are the other threads. There is plenty of good debate in those threads. Why do we need another one? While I agree that this bill is a giant P.O.S. this thread seems to be a "look at me thread".

revefsreleets
03-30-2010, 05:52 PM
Umm so are the other threads. There is plenty of good debate in those threads. Why do we need another one? While I agree that this bill is a giant P.O.S. this thread seems to be a "look at me thread".

I read that drivel....I'm trying to cut to the chase. Thanks to you and the bus driver, though, we are right back where we left off.

Thanks for that....

As for the "look at me", that's REAL cute....I haven't posted in a month, but, yeah, I'm all about "look at me".

Idiot.

Well, eff this thread....it's been hijacked by retards. Might as well delete it, mods, or dump it in with the rest of the retardation in the other hijacked threads that were spun WAY off topic.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 06:18 PM
I know how we (America) could pay for decent health care for all and lessen the budget crisis...but I don't think all the employees of the IRS would like it too much.

For starters, The government using its own power to print money would go a long, long way right now.

MACH1
03-30-2010, 06:26 PM
For starters, The government using its own power to print money would go a long, long way right now.

:doh:

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 06:35 PM
:doh:


What...you don't think the government printing it's own money instead of buying it with an interest rate wouldn't do anything to help the budget crisis? IMO, you gotta start where the root problem lies.

Use your words not emoticons lol.

43Hitman
03-30-2010, 07:27 PM
I read that drivel....I'm trying to cut to the chase. Thanks to you and the bus driver, though, we are right back where we left off.

Thanks for that....

As for the "look at me", that's REAL cute....I haven't posted in a month, but, yeah, I'm all about "look at me".

Idiot.

Well, eff this thread....it's been hijacked by retards. Might as well delete it, mods, or dump it in with the rest of the retardation in the other hijacked threads that were spun WAY off topic.

First day back and you pick right up where you left off, with the personal attacks. Cute revs. :fingers:

43Hitman
03-30-2010, 07:29 PM
What...you don't think the government printing it's own money instead of buying it with an interest rate wouldn't do anything to help the budget crisis? IMO, you gotta start where the root problem lies.

Use your words not emoticons lol.

Umm printing more money is only going to cause inflation, and we are already at a risk for that now. The more money that is printed the less it's worth.

Exhibit A:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq312/43hitman/zimbabwe-cash-inflation.jpg

Exhibit B:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq312/43hitman/restauranttip_468x351.jpg

MACH1
03-30-2010, 07:51 PM
What...you don't think the government printing it's own money instead of buying it with an interest rate wouldn't do anything to help the budget crisis? IMO, you gotta start where the root problem lies.

Use your words not emoticons lol.

Do your homework first. If you want to see what happens look at Zimbabwe. Inflation rate is at only 11.2 million percent. You read it right, that's million.


This is from 2008
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/19/zimbabwe.inflation/index.html

This explains it better, as you see what happens when you go on a money printing spree and then, get this, declaring inflation illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

How's that for words.

Of course that's a worst case scenario, but that's what happens.

MACH1
03-30-2010, 08:09 PM
I read that drivel....I'm trying to cut to the chase. Thanks to you and the bus driver, though, we are right back where we left off.

Thanks for that....

As for the "look at me", that's REAL cute....I haven't posted in a month, but, yeah, I'm all about "look at me".

Idiot.

Well, eff this thread....it's been hijacked by retards. Might as well delete it, mods, or dump it in with the rest of the retardation in the other hijacked threads that were spun WAY off topic.

First day back and your ready for another ban already. You have what, 3 posts and 2 have personal attacks. Not to bright are ya.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 08:35 PM
Umm printing more money is only going to cause inflation, and we are already at a risk for that now. The more money that is printed the less it's worth.

Ummmm, yeah...obviously you have no clue where I'm coming from.

See, there's this little clause in the constitution that says the government has the right to print its own money.
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"
Article One, Section 8 Powers of Congress

But see, since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve Act was passed), the government has been buying money from the Federal Reserve and paying it back with interest added. Much of the money that us citizens pay in federal taxes to the IRS goes to pay off that interest. Therefore, if the government was doing what it is able to do (print its own money instead of buying it), there would be more money available to spend on things like...I don't know, health care and keeping a balanced budget. As of right now, the Federal Reserve and government accounts totals about 41% of national debt. If that isn't a red flag...I don't know what is.

For example...In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created with the duty of preserving the dollar, one 20-dollar bill could buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Today, fifty 20-dollar bills are needed to buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Under the Fed's custody, the U.S. dollar has lost 98 percent of its value. The dollar is the storehouse of our wealth. Has the Fed faithfully safeguarded that storehouse?


Thanks for the attempted simple economics lesson though. I'm well aware of the fact that just printing up more money only lessens the value of a dollar.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 08:37 PM
Do your homework first. If you want to see what happens look at Zimbabwe. Inflation rate is at only 11.2 million percent. You read it right, that's million.


This is from 2008
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/19/zimbabwe.inflation/index.html

This explains it better, as you see what happens when you go on a money printing spree and then, get this, declaring inflation illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

How's that for words.

Of course that's a worst case scenario, but that's what happens.


That's great for words. Too bad they have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 09:03 PM
And apologies for furthering the hijacking of the thread...my belief though is that if there was no federal reserve and the government controlled the printing and value of money, we probably wouldn't be having any discussions on the climbing of the national debt to 12 trillion dollars and wondering where the money for health care would come from.

The article is spot on, the government doesn't have the kind of money to make this a feasible venture, and it never will until the root problem is dealt with IMO.

MACH1
03-30-2010, 09:04 PM
Ummmm, yeah...obviously you have no clue where I'm coming from.

See, there's this little clause in the constitution that says the government has the right to print its own money.
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"
Article One, Section 8 Powers of Congress

But see, since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve Act was passed), the government has been buying money from the Federal Reserve and paying it back with interest added. Much of the money that us citizens pay in federal taxes to the IRS goes to pay off that interest. Therefore, if the government was doing what it is able to do (print its own money instead of buying it), there would be more money available to spend on things like...I don't know, health care and keeping a balanced budget. As of right now, the Federal Reserve and government accounts totals about 41% of national debt. If that isn't a red flag...I don't know what is.

For example...In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created with the duty of preserving the dollar, one 20-dollar bill could buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Today, fifty 20-dollar bills are needed to buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Under the Fed's custody, the U.S. dollar has lost 98 percent of its value. The dollar is the storehouse of our wealth. Has the Fed faithfully safeguarded that storehouse?


Thanks for the attempted simple economics lesson though. I'm well aware of the fact that just printing up more money only lessens the value of a dollar.

All this does is take money out of the right pocket and moves it to the left pocket. Still doesn't 'fix' anything.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 09:10 PM
All this does is take money out of the right pocket and moves it to the left pocket. Still doesn't 'fix' anything.

Not over night...but do you not understand that the government is in the kind of debt that you or I are with credit card companies, when they don't HAVE to be? They have the constitutional power to print and regulate money and pay no one back (with high interest rates) for it....and they don't! WE pay the interest on something that is outright unconstitutional, and we shouldn't even have to. Of course it wouldn't fix itself immediately, but that doesn't mean we should be ok with the furthering of the basic problem.

I mean, if you're ok with it, that's your choice. Fact of the matter though is that the US dollar didn't start losing value until the Federal Reserve was put in place and the national debt didn't start skyrocketing until after 1913 either. I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that.

MACH1
03-30-2010, 09:29 PM
The spending has to stop, I agree.

But the $$$ has to come from some where and printing more isn't going to solve anything. It has to be backed with something like Gold, you know the stuff that the fed reserve has. And not paying your debt is bad business, next time you get in a bad situation who's going to borrow you money if you don't pay your debts in the first place. And yes we're paying interest, figure out how much is owed and how much is interest being paid. At the current rate it is unsustainable.

http://www.mbablogs.businessweek.com/pub/www/YoungFemaleEntrepreneur/Money_tree.jpg

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 09:45 PM
The spending has to stop, I agree.

But the $$$ has to come from some where and printing more isn't going to solve anything. It has to be backed with something like Gold, you know the stuff that the fed reserve has. And not paying your debt is bad business, next time you get in a bad situation who's going to borrow you money if you don't pay your debts in the first place. And yes we're paying interest, figure out how much is owed and how much is interest being paid. At the current rate it is unsustainable.



The Federal Reserve only has the gold because the government handed it over willingly...and then started charging the American people to borrow on it by creating the first permanent income tax. Quite the messed up situation.

And I do know that just printing more isn't going to work. If anything they should be printing less right now. And of course you have to pay your debts, but the Congress paying the Federal Reserve to print money is like me paying you more than the cost of toilet paper (and still buying the toilet paper) to wipe my ass for me...if you get my meaning. (disclaimer: I DO NOT want Mach1 to wipe my ass!)

And honestly...I'm pretty sure that Congress could basically give the middle finger to the Federal Reserve (and its bankers) by having the Federal Reserve Act repealed. What are they gonna do...sue for trillions of dollars? I'm sure that would go real well.

All I know is though is that the present system is a failure. It (the Revenue Act) was an emergency measure, adopted under the pressure of war necessity and not to be counted upon as a permanent part of our revenue structure. The high rates put pressure on taxpayers to reduce their taxable income, tend to destroy individual initiative and enterprise, and seriously impede the development of productive business.

GoSlash27
03-30-2010, 09:52 PM
SCM,
Actually, the Federal government *doesn't* have the power (never a right) to print money. It has the power to coin money and regulate it's value. Crucial difference in the wording.
A dollar bill is merely a bill of credit; something expressly forbidden to the States due to the problems it causes (which we're seeing today).
Coining money means literally that; stamping and regulating coins. "Money" has intrinsic value, whereas a bill is merely a piece of paper.

Scope the antifederalist papers #44 to see the concern
11. Though I believe it is not generally so understood, yet certain it is, that Congress may emit paper money, and even make it a legal tender throughout the United States; and, what is still worse, may, after it shall have depreciated in the hands of the people, call it in by taxes, at any rate of depreciation (compared with gold and silver) which they may think proper. For though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no constitutional restraints on these points.

And the Federalist response #44
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

As you can see, both sides were agreed on this point.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 09:58 PM
SCM,
Actually, the Federal government *doesn't* have the power (never a right) to print money. It has the power to coin money and regulate it's value. Crucial difference in the wording.
A dollar bill is merely a bill of credit; something expressly forbidden to the States due to the problems it causes (which we're seeing today).
Coining money means literally that; stamping and regulating coins. "Money" has intrinsic value, whereas a bill is merely a piece of paper.

Scope the antifederalist papers #44 to see the concern


And the Federalist response #44


As you can see, both sides were agreed on this point.

Ok, I get that part of it, but when they created the Federal Reserve and started buying paper money from it...didn't they basically hand over the right to regulate the value of it as well?

Again, all I know is, real debt in this country didn't start until the Federal Reserve and the IRS were created, and that most of our tax money is going towards paying back interest to the Reserve.


Also, I have to ask after reading that again...it seems to be stating that the states do not have the power to create their own currency, I don't see anything about Congress not being able to supply it's own paper bills. i.e. "For though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no constitutional restraints on these points." Maybe I'm misunderstanding the wording here, but it seems to say that Congress has the power to emit bills of credit, and I'm not sure I understand why the Federal Reserve would be needed to do that for them.

GoSlash27
03-30-2010, 09:59 PM
Revs,
I completely agree with your original post, and I hate it when I agree with you. :chuckle:

43Hitman
03-30-2010, 10:27 PM
I know how we (America) could pay for decent health care for all and lessen the budget crisis...but I don't think all the employees of the IRS would like it too much.

For starters, The government using its own power to print money would go a long, long way right now.


To be honest this statement isn't very clear. What do think someone is going to think when you say the government should print more money. I wasn't trying to be snarky so let's not go there. There is a huge difference between 'coining' and 'printing money' on paper. Paper is worthless. Something coined is usually a precious metal which always has value.

43Hitman
03-30-2010, 10:31 PM
And apologies for furthering the hijacking of the thread...my belief though is that if there was no federal reserve and the government controlled the printing and value of money, we probably wouldn't be having any discussions on the climbing of the national debt to 12 trillion dollars and wondering where the money for health care would come from.

The article is spot on, the government doesn't have the kind of money to make this a feasible venture, and it never will until the root problem is dealt with IMO.

Actually the deficit is over 100 trillion when you add in all the committed entitlement programs. I agree though the Fed should be dissolved and is the main reason were in this predicament.

GoSlash27
03-30-2010, 10:40 PM
SCM,
Also, I have to ask after reading that again...it seems to be stating that the states do not have the power to create their own currency, I don't see anything about Congress not being able to supply it's own paper bills. i.e. "For though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no constitutional restraints on these points." Maybe I'm misunderstanding the wording here, but it seems to say that Congress has the power to emit bills of credit, and I'm not sure I understand why the Federal Reserve would be needed to do that for them.

The basic rule of the Constitution is that any power not expressly delegated to the Federal government is denied them. Or at least that was the original idea. The Fed was created for exactly the purpose you're thinking. The Treasury can't pull money out of the inkwell on their own, so they subcontract it out.

SteelCityMom
03-30-2010, 11:19 PM
SCM,


The basic rule of the Constitution is that any power not expressly delegated to the Federal government is denied them. Or at least that was the original idea. The Fed was created for exactly the purpose you're thinking. The Treasury can't pull money out of the inkwell on their own, so they subcontract it out.

As I do have a lot more questions and ideas on this topic, I think I'll start a new thread so this one isn't further hijacked.

tony hipchest
03-31-2010, 12:07 AM
Yeah, well, whatever....

THIS thread is solely concerned about the lies and twisted math surrounding how this thing is supposed to pay for itself. I'm curious to see what, if any, liberal spin can be applied to this to make it appear better than it actually is....

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/cowbell.jpg

revefsreleets
03-31-2010, 09:54 AM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/cowbell.jpg


So very typically Tony. Absolutely no idea what the thread is about, so...well, post up some pictures. Do you have ANY idea how this legislature is going to be paid for? Do you even understand the OP? Better yet...

Got any bunker maps laying around?

As for flaming assholes, yeah, well, if you're an asshole, you're gonna get flamed. Don't want to be flamed?

Don't be an asshole.