1 trillion over 10 years?

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
I heard a right-winger the other day complaining about how the healthcare bill will raise costs to the government by 1 trillion over 10 years.

It only raises spending by 100 billion a year? And it eliminates my private healthcare costs, which are far, far more per a person?

This is too good to be true!

Why should I be wary of such a great fucking deal?
 
Last edited:
I heard a right-winger the other day complaining about how the healthcare bill will raise costs to the government by 1 trillion over 10 years.

It only raises taxes by 100 billion a year? And it eliminates my private healthcare costs?

This is too good to be true!

Why should I be wary of such a great fucking deal?

I believe the comment was about a deficit of $1 trillion in the 10th year....that would be expenditures over revenue, not total expenditures....
 
I believe the comment was about a deficit of $1 trillion in the 10th year....that would be expenditures over revenue, not total expenditures....

That is ONLY if illegals are left out of Obamacare - whcih we all know they are not


CBO deals another blow to House health plan


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office dealt another blow to House Democrats on Friday night, saying their health care bill would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years.

The projected shortfall means Democrats would need to find additional revenue or make deeper cuts to existing programs in order to meet their goal of paying for the $1 trillion bill.

But those projections don't account for a $245 billion reduction in the deficit this legislation would create, if Democrats can also approve new balanced budget rules that would permanently address an annual shortfall in Medicare payments to physicians Democrats may also defend the cost of their bill by pointing out that in the long run, under new accounting rules, the bill would generate a $6 billion surplus.

The CBO also found that the measure would provide health coverage to 37 million people, — meaning 97 percent of all U.S. citizens would be covered by some form of health care if these changes are enacted.

The plan would leave 17 million people within the U.S. uninsured — nearly half of whom would be illegal immigrants who are denied coverage under the bill.

The overall cost of the bill and its impact on the deficit both became major flashpoints for rank-and-file Democrats after party leaders introduced the legislation earlier this week.

Many Democrats are pushing their leaders to find additional savings and scale back some of the $583 billion in new tax revenue and small business fees the authors had planned to raise over the next 10 years.

The legislation introduced in the House makes changes to existing Medicare programs that would save the federal government $219 billion over the next 10 years, according to the CBO estimates.

But the biggest change would come from the enactment of new accounting rules — something CBO still can't account for because those new rules haven't become law.

In the bill, Democrats provide $245 billion to eliminate an annual shortfall in payments to doctors under Medicare. Democrats resolved this annual headache, in large part, to win crucial support for the bill from the American Medical Association. That money currently counts against the overall costs of the bill, but Democrats have introduced legislation that would remove remove this obligation from federal deficit. However, CBO won't recognize that change until those new pay-as-you-go rules become law.

In the meantime, the three chairmen who introduced the measure – Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) – moved quickly to put a good face on the numbers after they were released Friday night.

“This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis,” the three chairmen said in a joint release. “The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25104.html
 
I have to wonder if some of these obstructionists are being paid to demonize health care reform.

It's a fact that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies, and the disparity is unsustainable, it's unacceptable.

Only 49 percent of businesses with three to nine workers and 78 percent of companies with 10 to 24 workers offered any type of health insurance to their employees in 2008.

In contrast, 99 percent of companies with more than 200 workers offered health insurance

Small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees. As a result, fewer of them do so, and the number has been shrinking further in these hard economic times.

A proposal in the House calls for employers with a total payroll above $250,000 to offer health insurance to their workers or face a surtax of 8 percent.

One Senate committee version would require all businesses, except those with fewer than 25 employees, to provide health coverage or pay a $750 fine per year for each uninsured worker.

Congress is weighing plans to exempt small businesses from these penalties.

Such provisions would enable small businesses to be more able to compete with the big boys in selling their goods and services and able to compete fairly on a level playing field with big businesses to attract the best workers.

The vast majority of small businesses will see their burdens absolutely lessened by the expansion of coverage, so they are absolutely going to be more competitive.

After a lot of hard work in Congress, we are closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and provide more choices for families and businesses

The economic landscape is going to change for the better when President Obama signs health insurance reform into law this year.
 
Well considering large employers have been reducing their work forces for a decade and most job growth has been in small business. Ohh yeah expempt the small businesses :rolleyes:
 
When you actually consider the matter, President Obama's "unAmerican socialist" plan is the only one where there is true competition.

When you work for any employer, your options for insurance are normally strictly defined. You either take the group plan the company offers (if it's offered at all) or you seek out your own insurance usually at a much higher rate. That really isn't a much of a choice, is it?

Our current "free market" health insurance system doesn't offer any of the benefits of competition. Premiums haven't gone down; they've risen steadily.

The only "competition" seems to be which company can generate the most outrageous profit, and the most innovative thing insurers do is to figure out how to deny a claim or drop an insured for making one.

Health care shouldn't be a competitive endeavor tied to profits.

Obama's plan may cost $1 trillion, which is about the same amount as Bush spent in Iraq.

Incredibly, we spend 4 1/2 times more on health care than it does on defense.

The profits go into the pockets of doctors, hospitals, medical associations, drug companies and insurance companies. Meanwhile, plenty of Americans go bankrupt as a result of soaring costs and limited benefits.

The public option will give us a choice, something most of us never really had before.

But the bottom line isn't financial. Access to affordable health care is a basic human right, and providing that access to those of limited means is a moral obligation.
 
Back
Top