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: Mary Cluney who wrote (2311)	10/24/2007 11:51:11 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Yeah, I saw that today, and additional commentary that it comes out to around $8,000 for every man woman and child in the US. Hey, come to think of it, that sum might cover health insurance for all! Of course others on this thread argue that it's only a 'one time cost', not ongoing like Medicare/SS and so on. Any way you slice it, 2.4 Tril goes a long way. If Cheney gets his way on Iran, perhaps that figure might even go up... Regards, John PS - Bush said not long ago that he envisioned a 'Korea' type situation in Iraq, so perhaps this is a 50 year long 'one time cost'...

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (2311)	10/25/2007 11:58:04 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

That's including accumulated interest on borrowing. If every estimate of the cost of programs include that the costs estimates would be noticeably higher. In fact, if otherwise accurate, the costs estimates would be higher than the actual costs because the government doesn't borrow anywhere close to 100% of the money its spends. Also the issue we were discussing was the cost of Iraq, not the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Iraq is the majority of that cost its not a huge deal but its still a minor issue. If your going to apply 100% of the borrowing costs to estimates of spending for Iraq, you have to also calculate all the interest on borrowing whatever the government spends on any new health care program. And consider that such programs are likely to cost much more than the initial estimates, look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid. But even if it was somehow correct to count every dollar of interest and indirect cost for Iraq, and to count Afghanistan as "Iraq", while not counting any interest or indirect cost for new medical programs, and assuming the $2.4 tril figure is accute; $2.4 tril would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of any new federal "universal health care" program.