Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Undertoad]

but how dare we try spend a tiny fraction of that amount to fund healthcare for those that can't afford it

Oh it's no tiny fraction. NOT AT ALL.

The House bill starts at 1 Trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire health care spending for *everybody*, public and private, is about 2.5 Trillion. And some people think the actual cost of the House bill is 1.6 Trillion... at this level the accounting gets messy, you know...

And so far, every health care approach we've ever enacted in this country has blown its budget to smithereens. The original 1965 warning on Medicare was that, unimaginably, its costs could someday rise to 3 billion dollars. Today it's about $300 Billion and roughly 14% of the entire US Gov budget.

We can't live with another one like that. This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

To me it looks like Health Care reform has lost and stupid has one.

I just found that typo rather amusing amidst all the insanity this issue has caused.

As you were.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.

And that, I'm certain, could have been argued and a compromise could have been established, but the price point wasn't what the majority of the opposition was arguing. It was the concept, not the cost, of government provided health care that people have been furious over. At its core, this is disturbing -- that we are the most powerful country on Earth and will send our military to the other side of the planet at any cost under the banner of spreading democracy and goodwill, but we will fight each other so fiercely under the label of pro-American values because we do not want to extend a hand to a fellow citizen who cannot afford a life saving medical procedure. What does that say about us as a society and our culture? Our priorities? That there are groups that have risen up and gnashed their teeth, screamed some nonsense about how the constitution is being trampled upon when it was proposed that we might try to take care of our own as if it were some sinister concept that will take our country down the same path as the political group that exterminated the jews in the late 1930s. What. The. Hell.

I wonder how these same people would react if they found out that those who cannot afford a lawyer are offered public defenders paid for with tax payer money. How come no one is up in arms about giving aid to potential criminals that don't have enough or don't want to pay for their own lawyer? Public schools, a public police force, the fire department... all of these have private options. I want to see these people up in arms about UHC take such a verbal stand against those government provided services. Where's all that anger?

In the process of becoming this distrusting of each other, this afraid, we're hurting our communities. Not only that, but we're continuing to slide into disadvantage in the global market because we can't work these issues out.

The Woodstock site is also believed to hold an edge over the US states of Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and Alabama, which all sought to attract the plant, because health-care costs for employees in Canada are half those in the US, the Journal said.

We've lost countless jobs and lives because we can't work out something considered so simple and fundamental in every other industrialized nation on this earth. I'd just want to know why it is currently considered so courageous to stand up against the ideals of UHC and in favor of such petty selfishness.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...The House bill starts at 1 Trillion....

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

From your link:

Neither of the bills covers their costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting the House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. That takes into account the spending changes and revenue increases that would save about $219 billion and bring in $583 billion in new revenue over the same period. The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion, and the bill intends to pay for the provisions with spending cuts and a new tax on the wealthy.

The Senate bill approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is less close to covering its costs. According to the CBO, the bill would increase the federal budget by $597 billion in the 2010-19 period, offset by a net savings of $48 billion. Details on the reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee were not available, but it may not include a public plan option and could impose taxes on employer-sponsored coverage.

While the bills make a number of financing proposals, some health experts argue they don't go far enough to rein in costs over the long term.

"There are no substantial proposals to change the system," said Victor Fuchs, Stanford University professor emeritus of economics, health research and policy. "You cannot increase coverage and reduce costs without making substantial changes to the way we finance care and organize the delivery system."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics