MIT: Americans would pay less under Senate health care plan

good point

nope we're just dumb as hell, and pr people eat it up every time...

Yeah, that left wing left nut liberal media.

second

yes, well its things like endless wars and institutions like the federal reserve that make it so we can never pay it back .. 1 trillion dollars could buy a lot of things

BS.

Disagree

it's a hard fact. the current bill will cost less than 900 billion, where the bailout initiated by bush will cost over 1.7 trillion. that's not mentioning the greater than 1 trillion war deficit he racked up.

great comment

:D

Why not follow truth where it leads?

As of yet, we're not paying for neo socialism. If and when the health care bill passes, we still won't be paying for neo socialism.

And 48 years ago, yeah Harry Truman was president. Oh no... He was president through the end of the second World War, and a liberal scumbag democrat? No, the man who pushed the final paperwork to drop the first nuclear weapon on a war target couldn't have been a limp dick democrat who'd let our country be defenseless long before taking any kind of harsh military action. It's just not possible.

Nor could it be possible that our economy, once lifted out of the depression by the second world war, continued strong under a democratic president. Because if history, especially recent history shows us anything, it is that tax increases mainly on the wealthy for public services and tight regulations for banks and businesses don't promote a healthy economy. We know this because our deficit obviously shrank during the years of Regan, Bush senior, and Bush junior, but it really got into the pit when Clinton with his tax increases and regulations came into play. Oh, shit, I got that backwards. Never mind. I guess reasonable taxation with representation and tight regulations on large businesses is a good thing.

Ok, you accurately predict our country's financial status for the next ten years and I'll agree with you.

How do you even defend that statement, samesixth?

I wish people would just be honest with the facts and admit that the reason they don't like the bill is not because of it's cost, but because of the government's role being too big.

Why do we have to dance around these stupid one liners that don't make any sense?

Credit,

I ignored your comment to begin with because of the assertions behind it, but since you have commented on it several unrelated threads, I choose now to address it.

If you read the Senate bill, which I, undoubtedly just like you, have now taken the time to read, you will find that the deficit neutral claims, or deficit reduction claims, are based on conjecture and projection of future circumstances.

Perhaps you can predict the future. Perhaps all the pundits can. I cannot. I challenge you to go back in history and find claims were the original government cost projections actually panned out. Medicare, social security, Bush's prescription program for seniors, any war since WWI, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, etc etc. All were supposed to reap rewards for our investment. At the time, people believed in the rhetoric. That is the difference between the mouth and the pen. I want Obama to succeed as much as you do, maybe even more so since I have kids and have put my beliefs on the line to change this country for the better. I am more tempered in my hope having lived through and supported several previously disappointing Democratic administrations.

It's interesting to get a bit of your history. I would agree that there are government programs that don't necessarily pan out as expected. However, it's a bit out there to assume that none of them have been of any net value, and to toss a blanket over all of them that says they are all just a waste of money is absolutely preposterous.

The drug war, as per my understanding was championed by conservatives. It's one of the biggest wastes of money in so many ways that we won't get into here.

The GWOT and its manifestations in Iraq and Afghanistan are, again, conservative white elephants.

The war on poverty, a democratic intervention, was dramatically successful. Just read about it.

Social Security and Medicare keep the elderly off the streets and able to live out their remaining lives in relative safety and care. That's something I gladly pay part of my paycheck for, since i could be so unfortunate as to be unable to support myself at that age. My grandma would really be suffering if it weren't for these programs.

The Bush prescription drug benefit was a well known debacle and has since been exactly what common sense would tell you it was going to be. A handout to drug companies to the tune of $80 Billion or so.

I'll agree with you that the current bill has the potential to be just as big of a handout (waste waste waste) if it isn't authored correctly. If this passes without a public option, I will be right there with you bitching away.

To respond to your comment, I guess I would say that the republican plans largely don't have ANY payback potential (drug war, gwot, Rx benefit plan) and the democratic plans have proven to provide real, substantial value to our culture (medicare, SS, poverty war) with SOME KIND of substantial payback.

It's not "all the same" and it's not a blind "future prediction" to estimate the results of a government program. You have yet to show any MATH to support you original assertion, and your only argument seems to be skepticism.

I would venture to guess, from what you say, that you grew up conservative (hated dems to begin with) and was constantly disappointed with the wastes of money and morals that came out of your party, especially the Bush regime. Now, you've simply slid towards a skeptic middle. Supporting dems is unacceptable off the bat, yet you cannot consciously support neocons because they are SO obviously corrupt.

Am I wrong?

Have you considered the real value results of these programs you talk about? Is it such a stretch to consider that the democratic plans have been more effective at adding value to the society than the republican ones?

Is this debate enough for you? It sure doesn't look like shouting down and name calling to me...

Credit,

My point on the government programs was on the cost projections in the original bills for the projects discussed above. ALL of them ran significantly over the originally budgeted costs. Since our discussion was about an MIT professor's opinion (based on many assumptions) concerning whether the budgeted amount would leave Americans paying less.

Sure some of the programs have value. I never said they were all a "waste of money." If you want to discuss the various ones and whether they were a success, I will. The War on Poverty has been a disaster that according to prominent Dems like Daniel Patrick Moynihan has actually created several spin off problems such as a breakdown of the family in households receiving certain types of assistance.

The drug war was originated by a Democratic legislature and a Republican president. It was a bipartisan effort. Why put more blame on the party that signs the bill as opposed to the party that writes and passes the bill? More pot users (per capita) were incarcerated under Clinton than Reagan or Bush I. The Drug War has been kept going by Carter, Clinton, and to some degree Obama. That is bipartisan culpability. Instead of pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists and campaign contributors why didn't Carter or Clinton pardon all non violent drug offenders? How about just potheads? Why did they not commute their sentences? Certainly you and I can agree on why the Repubs have prosecuted the War on Drugs, but how do you account for the actions of the Dems on this one?

As far as the GWOT: As you know I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree both were championed by conservatives, but I would remind you that the majority of Democrats voted for both of them and every single request for additional funding. With the President’s speech last night, certainly one would have to acknowledge that the Dems are in control of the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Again bipartisan.

I agree on Social Security and Medicare in that they are valuable programs. My solution to insuring the uninsured is to add them to the Medicare rolls. However, my point that both of these programs have gone far over the original budgeted amounts is not negated.

I agree with your comments on the drug benefits for seniors. I see it as a massive transfer of wealth to the wealthiest segment of society and a handout for the pharmaceutical industry. Has any Dem introduced legislation to repeal Bush’s awful program? Are the Dems, as the party in power, implementing the bad Bush program?

If the health care bill passes without a public option, who will you hold accountable?

On the notion of Dem plans having social value and Repub plans not, it still does not undermine the point I was making that all of these programs have had higher actual expenditures than what was originally budgeted.

As far as math, anyone who can do statistics can run regression. That doesn’t make the number any better. The math he uses is based on the projected numbers in the bill. That is why the discussion is not about mathematical methodology, but on assumptions. My point is those same assumptions about costing have been made in all of the bills we talked about and EVERY one of those programs ran over budget (and still do in many cases).

My skin is thick and I have no problem being challenged or reading anything that is suggested to me. Often in responding to me, you throw in personal jabs (like I am a troll, just read it etc.). To me, character assassination is reflective of either laziness or a lack of argument. That is why I do not respond to those. I do however respond to your points when you make them, as I have done so today. I believe in the Bob lyric “none but ourselves can free our minds.” Tonight I will raise my beer glass in toast to you and me and our freedom!

You guys are everything wrong in this country. Forget a study by our best scientists. You're going with your ideological hunches.

We're talking about people's health here. 30 million people who don't have access will gain access to health insurance through this bill. That's a pretty good reason for those who can afford it to pay a little more. Yet here are reliable studies that suggest that everyone may pay less.

But you've picked your ridiculous selfish position and you're not going to let information affect that.

It's idiots like this that make every other civilized country on the planet laugh in hysterics. Obama hasn't created a new system, he's adapted other systems proven by other countries to work better. Spanky, if your a millionaire than continue to be a blood sucking capitalist, but if your a working class individual like the majority of this country, then get your head out of the Republicans ass and start fighting for what you deserve. Health care at least.

The facts are staring you in the face and yet you hold on to your flawed convictions. Grow up, read a book, and evolve.

Truthiness is pathetic.

To begin, this administration did not launch the country into debt and it would take quite an imagination to fashion such a tale. Second, the budget deficit has little to do with what is being discussed, which is that someone at MIT ran a simulation and discovered a lot of people would save a little money with the proposed health care reform.

You asked earlier how we would pay for it. It's somewhat outlined here, so take a look. I know these papers can be a bit dense and sometimes almost unreadable, but I think if you spend a solid 20 or 30 minutes on it, you'll get the idea in the first 5-10 pages of what exactly is happening, and how the federal budget will be affected. May as well educate yourself, this is as non biased as it gets, straight from the Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

Well, maybe "abide" isn't the best word. A lot of it is prediction of some fairly uncertain future events, and "abiding" implies it's a choice. That said, this isn't even an analysis of the final, fully amended bill, so some of this information won't even apply. But, fair enough. I don't necessarily trust the predictions either.

At the same time, medicare is clearly cutting into the GDP, and people are losing coverage when they shouldn't be, so something needs to be done. It looks like "socialized" medicine does a pretty good job for other countries, and the majority of people under those systems love it. I think we're headed the right direction. Private insurance just won't work.

Sorry to inform you Spanky, but you clearly don't know what your talking about. First off, the documentary Michael Moore made is called Sicko, not "Sick in America". if your going to make a reference (on something that you seemingly haven't even taken the time to watch) at least get the name right. Have you ever experienced socialized medicine? What is your standpoint based on? Because you have yet to offer a valid point to support your stance. "Clutter the system with red tape" what does that even mean? Are you implying that private corporations who profit off of our health are more trust worthy than our government? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government is perfect by any means, but I know for a fact that allowing faceless unregulated corporate entities to profit off of healthcare is not cost effective, nor does it offer a stable system for it's peoples well being. At least if it's government run we know exactly who to hunt down when something goes wrong. As of now all I've heard you do is place blame on President Obama, and he has nothing to do with running our fucked up health care system.

I've lived in Sweden and France, both of which utilize a "Socialized" medical system that works great for it's people. Go to one of these countries for yourself, or just ask someone who lives there what they think, 92% of them prefer their socialized system. In every discussion I've had with family and friends abroad, they can't believe that we (Americans) allow private corporations to dictate our health care. They think we're idiots for privatizing healthcare, and they're right. America is (was) one of the richest countries in the world ranking 47th in healthcare internationally. How can you possibly support this, because your scared of waiting in a line. We wait in lines everyday, big deal!

I feel bad for you Spanky. It appears that all of the Republican propaganda has really payed a toll on you. You obviously haven't lived outside the country or you would know from experience how much less "red tape" there is in a socialized medical system, and how much cheaper it is over all. I mean we have MIT economists (individuals that obviously know more about the matter than you and I) telling us that it would save us money, but you still believe what some privately funded television campaign has to say about long lines and red tape. All I have to say is the American healthcare system is broken, that is a fact. We need to fix it, and you don't fix something by leaving it as is. You eliminate the problem and learn from your mistakes. I can guarantee you one thing Spanky, our economy isn't going to bounce back if we don't change the faults that put us in this situation in the first place. Pure capitalism has been slowly imploding for the last 30 years. Mark my words Spanky, if we the people don't begin to modify our game plan, we will simply continue on the downward spiral.