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: Road Walker who wrote (14596)	3/16/2010 3:19:37 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The last new government health program has come in way under budget. Which doesn't even attempt to reply to point number 2, and which isn't an effective reply to point number 3 since "usually" or "almost always" does not equal "always". The last program came in under budget. Every other large federal health care program came in well over initial budget estimates. Perhaps to be more specific I could say "every large government health care program except Medicare Part D, came in above initial cost estimates. But instead of being that specific, I made the weaker (less extreme, not less solid) statement that projections of large government health care program costs have almost always been way too low. Either statement is just recognizing the facts. Its always possible to claim that this time is different (than all but the one exception), but usually such claims are false, and the burden of evidence should be on the person making the claim. And as for point 2, Medicare Part D coming in under budget just isn't relevant to it. It doesn't change the fact that the CBO estimate is heavily gamed by what's in the bill. Point 4 is obvious. But ignored the possibility of bending the cost curve. It also ignored the fact that Pluto has been declared to no longer be considered a planet. Something that's more obviously not relevant, but not all that much less relevant. Obviously a response to a particular point, may "ignore" a totally different point. But so what? Point 4 is simply that if the program is deficit neutral because of tax increases, it still makes our deficit situation worse. The idea of bending the cost curve either is a reduction in the amount the private sector pays, or its a claim that the reduction will be so great that the government will pay less even as it takes on a larger share of the cost for a larger effort (insuring more people, reducing the uninsured is a major objective of this effort). The first idea still runs in to the point of increased taxes combined with increased spending being fiscally harmful. The last idea is extremely dubious, but even if it actually is true, its a different issue. Its not a claim that "deficit neutral" through extra taxes is perfectly ok, its a claim that the program will be deficit neutral through actual reductions in spending.