Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2213)	10/16/2007 2:24:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<The financial costs of Iraq, including indirect costs, are small compared to health care>>> A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there adds up. Pretty soon you are talking real money. That is far less than needed to make social security solvent forever. If you don't believe me, ask Alan Greenspan (or buy his autobiography). Remember, he was the original John Galt disciple. Already they are talking about being there, in Iraq, to 2020 perhaps being there as long as we have been in Korea. And we are not even talking about widening our involvement to a wider ME presence. Besides providing our population with better education and health care directly benefits our economy.

To: TimF who wrote (2213)	10/17/2007 2:34:21 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

re: The financial costs of Iraq, including indirect costs, are small compared to health care. But the money is already being spent (at double the European single payer model). The only incremental part is the current uninsured, which would probably mostly be covered by the savings of going to single payer. All the costs of Iraq are incremental... there are even separate non-pentagon budgets.

To: TimF who wrote (2213)	10/24/2007 8:10:23 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<The financial costs of Iraq, including indirect costs, are small compared to health care.>>> President Bush’s justification for vetoing a bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program was because we could not afford the $35Billion cost of the program. U.S. CBO Estimates $2.4 Trillion Long - Term War Costs By REUTERS Published: October 24, 2007 Filed at 1:17 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday. With President George W. Bush indicating a large contingent of U.S. troops likely will be engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the total tab for the wars from 2001 through 2017. CBO estimated that interest costs alone from 2001-2017 could total more than $700 billion. So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about $412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11 billion a month, with costs escalating. Bush is seeking another $196 billion for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September 30 and Congress is expected to debate that request over the next few months. CBO estimated that between 2008 and 2017, the wars could cost slightly more than $1 trillion, assuming overall troop strength is cut to 75,000 by 2013. Currently, there are about 170,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and another 26,000 in Afghanistan. Finance charges for the money already spent on the war will total $415 billion from 2001 to 2017, according to CBO. For the next decade, "interest outlays would increase by a total of $290 billion over that 10-year period," CBO told the House Budget Committee, which is reviewing long-term war costs. "To put it all on our credit cards with no accountability, with no plan to pay for it, I think is the height of irresponsibility," said Rep. James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who serves on the budget panel and is an outspoken war critic. "It will be just one more toxic legacy of this disastrous war we will have to leave our kids to clean up." With national elections about a year away and public discontent with the Iraq war running deep, Democrats are highlighting the huge costs of the Iraq war as they seek $22 billion more than Bush wants for domestic social programs such as health care and education. Bush has vowed to veto the added funding. CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.