riggo33 wrote:
the Senate Health Care bill would cut costs
A new analysis by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber claims that the Senate health-reform bill will "make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market."
The report, which is surely good news for Democrats, states that the Senate's version of the bill will significantly curb health care costs for both individuals and families.
Gruber finds "that the single individual would save over $2500 at low incomes (175% of poverty), and would save $200 even at higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher). For families, the savings are much larger, ranging from nearly $7500 for low income families (at 175% of poverty) to $500 for higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher)."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/29/study_confirms_health_care_bill_will_cut_costs.html
Another blow for the Anti-Health Care Reform crowd
My first question for you would be this: Name one federal social program that did not exceed initial cost projections.
People are always more cautious when spending their own money then when they are spending someone else's money (social services). Factor in politics and you have a recipe for excessive abuse of budget constraints.
Politicians are unwilling to control services to those in the group benifiting from the service, fearing the loss of said groups vote.
Politicians are unwilling to raise taxes on those funding the benifits, fearing the loss of said groups vote. Yes they may give lip service to taxing the "rich", but they know damn well the "rich" alone cannot support their spending.
Instead they settle for passing the burden on to furture generations by increasing federal debt. After all when the "chickens come home to roost" most will be dead or in nursing homes drueling in their wheel chairs.
You can show me all the studies, congressional reports, whatever you want. I have history. I have posted this before but it bares repeating. Take a look at medicare, a federally managed health insurance program for a certain group of our population. Here are some past initial projections made by congress and the CBO and the cost overuns.
In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTM5NGNmZDc3OGIxYTMwMTlkZTQzNTJlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
