Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[pattygreen 5]

to pattygreen:

and while you are spending all this time on your neocon, obama bashing websites you need to give your proof and source for your claim about the real cost of healthcare.

everyone on here is a witness to the fact that i have asked you to supply it or say it was a lie - many times!!!

i am calling you on on this pattygreen.

The Real Cost of Health Care Legislation

Are these folks disingenuous or dreaming?

March 23, 2010 3:43 PM

When White House chief of staff Rahm Emanual lobbied Democratic Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania last week to vote for the health care bill, he argued it would cut the deficit. “You ran because you care about the deficit,” he told Altmire, according to the Washington Post. “This is north of $1 trillion in deficit reduction.” Shortly after the bill passed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered the exact number, claiming the bill would save “the taxpayers $1.3 trillion.”

Are these folks disingenuous or just dreaming? It has to be one or the other. Why? Because the evidence of spending projections for health care legislation passes tell a simple and unchanging story. The projections never come close to capturing the magnitude of spending that actually occurs. They prove to be wildly off the mark compared to real-life expenditures.

Take Medicare, enacted in 1965. The initial projection was it would cost $9 billion a year by 1990. The actual figure for 1990 turned out to be $67 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the baseline for Medicare in 2010 is $521.3 billion, which includes $55.3 billion for the prescription drug benefit approved in 2003.

Or take one part of Medicare, the End Stage Renal Disease program (ESRD) that entitles every sufferer, regardless of age, access to dialysis. It was created in 1972 and its spending for 1974 was projected at $100 million. The real cost was $229 million. In 2007, ESRD cost $23.9 billion, nearly 6 percent of Medicare’s overall spending that year.

Or take Medicaid’s program of “disproportionate share hospital” payments. Passed on 1987, it was projected to cost less than $1 billion in 1992. Its actual cost in 1992: $17 billion. The program’s cost would still be ballooning if it hadn’t been brought under control by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

These faulty projections are not exceptions to the rule. They are the rule. The projection for the first year (1948) of the National Health Service in Britain was 260 pounds, far below the real cost of 359 pounds. The under-projections have continued to miss the actual demand for health services.

In Massachusetts, the universal coverage plan was predicted to cost $472 million in 2008, but the price tag turned out to be $628 million. Now Governor Deval Patrick wants to cap insurance rate increases to less than 5 percent annually, which would force insurance companies to cut payments to providers or quit the program. In 1994, Tennessee sought to control Medicaid spending with a new program called TennCare. By 2004, costs had more than tripled.

One thread that runs through all these breathtakingly erroneous projections is the lowballing of volume, which is always far greater than expected. This shouldn’t be a surprise. When offered a free good or a good that’s highly subsidized and thus cheaper than its real cost, people act in a fairly rational way. They demand more of the good than they would if they had to pay for it out of pocket. Not only that, there are invariably more people who are demanding more of that good.

The new health care program, assuming it’s implemented in 2014, is not likely to escape this phenomenon. Besides, its cost is under-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office in other ways due to assumptions imposed by the bill’s sponsors, congressional Democrats.

To make matters worse, the cost is also affected by the practice in Congress of minimizing a measure’s spending to enhance its chance of approval.

Adding all this up, the unavoidable conclusion is the newly enacted health care bill – Obamacare -- has approximately zero chance of cutting the deficit. History says it will drive up the deficit, and history doesn’t lie. Fred Barnes

[pattygreen 5]

3-24-10

• Print This Article
  
• Forward to a Friend
  

The Real Cost of Health Care Reform

by Kim Trobee, editor

Tax increases are likely to top $500 billion over 10 years.

The enactment of health care reform marked the beginning of one of the biggest tax hikes in American history. And families will pay the price.

President Barack Obama signed the reform into law Tuesday and ushered in a massive tax increase for the American people.

Democrats touted the plan as a way to reduce the deficit, but a closer inspection by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) shows a cost in new taxes of more than $500 billion over 10 years.

Such numbers will have a chilling effect on an economy that is already struggling.

"You can’t take $500 billion out of the economy and not have anybody notice it," said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at ATR. "There’s going to be quite a lot of pain."

Robert Book, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said nearly all Americans will be affected.

"There are a number of taxes in the bill designed to pay for health care," he said. "Most of these taxes are broad-based taxes that apply to pretty much everybody."

And that means American families will ultimately pay a steep price. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that insurance premiums for a family of four will increase by $2,100 a year.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The HC bill came back with a figure of $800 billion, and a week after it passed we found out it would cost $1.2 trillion. That's a difference of $4 billion dollars This bill is going to kill an economy that is just beginning to rally. We need to repeal it!

LIE! LIE! LIE! All you offered was some neocon's opinion of what he THINKS will happen to the cost of the healthcare bill based on facts and figures from the past. Yawn.

Our government uses the independent CBO as it's source and that is what I am going by.

I knew you didn't have anything concrete to base this claim on. Oh, and someone from Americans for Tax Reform. Even better. LOL

[pattygreen 5]

Caterpillar claims Health Care Reform Bill will hit their bottom line for $100 million. John Deere claims it will cost them $150 million. AT&T claims it is $1 billion. No matter what the cost is or which corporations are impacted, the one thing for certain is that the tax payer will foot the entire bill.

photo credit: theqspeaks

Well, here we are. Some people believe that “Large Corporations” have this unlimited resource or “Pot of Money” that they simply pull out when they need to pay the bills. Then, what ever is left over goes to the “Big Wigs“, who buy mansions and fancy cars to show us how important they are.

There is an opinion that we can lay the tax burden on ” Large Corporations” instead of the “little” guy and that the “little” guy will pay less as a result! Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. It just ain’t so!!!

First of all, large companies don’t pay for tax increases. Technically they do, but realistically, all taxes are eventually paid by the people who buy their products. That’s a fact no one can argue!

The Basic Business Model

People invest in the stock of large corporations in order to gain a “fair” return on their money. If a company can not return more on a person’s money than the person can get by putting in a nice safe savings account at the bank then the person would not, or at least should not, invest in that company. Therefore, it is imperative that a company make a reasonable profit so it can return to it’s investors a fair return on their money.

The price of products are usually determined by the cost it takes to provide them as determined by all of the expenses (cost) required to produce and deliver that product or products to the market place. It is also limited by the competitiveness of the industry the company participates in. Never the less, you simply take (labor, material, utilities, advertising, health care benefits, warranty expense, taxes and all other costs and add a margin for profit. The amount of margin is usually limited by the competitiveness of the industry that company competes in.

If expenses(cost) such as health care benefits or taxes go up, then it simply increases the total cost of producing the product or products. In order to maintain profitability or margin, the price of the product must then either go up or other expenses(cost) must go down. If the price goes up the consumer pays the increased cost of the health care or taxes in the increased price of the product. The alternatives to increasing prices are not any better.

What if the price of the product doesn’t go up?

When health care costs and/or taxes go up, there are four things a company can do to maintain margin.

1. Increase the price of the product in which case the consumer pays more for the same product. This is not a very viable solution if the company is to remain competitive in their industry. Everyone loses!
   
2. Cut jobs sometimes called improving productivity. Everyone loses!
   
3. Reduce benefits or wages paid to it’s employees. Everyone loses!
   
4. Move the jobs to somewhere that doesn’t have the same tax burdens or benefit costs (aka China, Mexico) Everyone really loses (unless you are from China or Mexico)!
   

Other Things A Company Can Do

Some will argue that there are other things you can do such as reduce material cost, reduce you utility cost, or even reduce your quality? However, I will argue that in the big picture all of those have a chain reaction to your suppliers and/or consumers that results in the same reduced jobs, reduced benefits, and increased prices to consumers and real tax payers.

1. Reducing material cost simply puts the same burdens on your suppliers to reduce jobs and lower expenses.
   
2. Reducing utility usage puts the burden back onto the utility supplier to do the same as above and then next the coal companies, etc.,etc..
   
3. Reducing quality results in increased warranty cost, increased consumer costs or lack of competitiveness.
   

Who Pays for it? … You do! I do, We do! … Nobody else!

The government produces nothing. They pay for nothing. Everything they do, every job they add or create, every thing they supposedly pay for, every tax they impose on large or small businesses, every give away program they create is paid for from the taxes they collect from you. The Government doesn’t make money. Every cent they spend they get from us!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Caterpillar claims Health Care Reform Bill will hit their bottom line for $100 million. John Deere claims it will cost them $150 million. AT&T claims it is $1 billion. No matter what the cost is or which corporations are impacted, the one thing for certain is that the tax payer will foot the entire bill.

photo credit: theqspeaks

Well, here we are. Some people believe that “Large Corporations” have this unlimited resource or “Pot of Money” that they simply pull out when they need to pay the bills. Then, what ever is left over goes to the “Big Wigs“, who buy mansions and fancy cars to show us how important they are.

There is an opinion that we can lay the tax burden on ” Large Corporations” instead of the “little” guy and that the “little” guy will pay less as a result! Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. It just ain’t so!!!

First of all, large companies don’t pay for tax increases. Technically they do, but realistically, all taxes are eventually paid by the people who buy their products. That’s a fact no one can argue!

The Basic Business Model

People invest in the stock of large corporations in order to gain a “fair” return on their money. If a company can not return more on a person’s money than the person can get by putting in a nice safe savings account at the bank then the person would not, or at least should not, invest in that company. Therefore, it is imperative that a company make a reasonable profit so it can return to it’s investors a fair return on their money.

The price of products are usually determined by the cost it takes to provide them as determined by all of the expenses(cost) required to produce and deliver that product or products to the market place. It is also limited by the competitiveness of the industry the company participates in. Never the less, you simply take (labor, material, utilities, advertising, health care benefits, warranty expense, taxes and all other costs and add a margin for profit. The amount of margin is usually limited by the competitiveness of the industry that company competes in.

If expenses(cost) such as health care benefits or taxes go up, then it simply increases the total cost of producing the product or products. In order to maintain profitability or margin, the price of the product must then either go up or other expenses(cost) must go down. If the price goes up the consumer pays the increased cost of the health care or taxes in the increased price of the product. The alternatives to increasing prices are not any better.

What if the price of the product doesn’t go up?

When health care costs and/or taxes go up, there are four things a company can do to maintain margin.

1. Increase the price of the product in which case the consumer pays more for the same product. This is not a very viable solution if the company is to remain competitive in their industry. Everyone loses!
   
2. Cut jobs sometimes called improving productivity. Everyone loses!
   
3. Reduce benefits or wages paid to it’s employees. Everyone loses!
   
4. Move the jobs to somewhere that doesn’t have the same tax burdens or benefit costs (aka China, Mexico) Everyone really loses (unless you are from China or Mexico)!
   

Other Things A Company Can Do

Some will argue that there are other things you can do such as reduce material cost, reduce you utility cost, or even reduce your quality? However, I will argue that in the big picture all of those have a chain reaction to your suppliers and/or consumers that results in the same reduced jobs, reduced benefits, and increased prices to consumers and real tax payers.

1. Reducing material cost simply puts the same burdens on your suppliers to reduce jobs and lower expenses.
   
2. Reducing utility usage puts the burden back onto the utility supplier to do the same as above and then next the coal companies, etc.,etc..
   
3. Reducing quality results in increased warranty cost, increased consumer costs or lack of competitiveness.
   

Who Pays for it? … You do! I do, We do! … Nobody else!

The government produces nothing. They pay for nothing. Everything they do, every job they add or create, every thing they supposedly pay for, every tax they impose on large or small businesses, every give away program they create is paid for from the taxes they collect from you. The Government doesn’t make money. Every cent they spend they get from us!

Try to keep up. Caterpillar, AT&T have already admitted that they were wrong and the healthcare bill will save them money. Loserbob first posted about this and then I found the article that explained it. They decided not to show up and Congress and testify as to the proof about what they were originally saying about what the costs would be to them.

In other words when they were told to "show me the figures" by congress, they folded like a deck of cards. :w00t:

I think it's under the conservative vs liberal thread. If I feel like it I will find it.

[pattygreen 5]

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ah, here it is:

March 29, 2010

The news: several companies, including 3M, John Deere, and Caterpillar, have already announced that due to the health-care plan recently (and with incredible tumult) signed into law, they'll see raised expenses this year, which could be tough in this economic environment. But all of those companies' added expenses combined don't add up to half of AT&T's proposed problem, announced on Friday and reported by The New York Times: the telecommunications giant says they'll see a whopping $1 billion "noncash accounting charge" this year. In other words, AT&T will have $1 billion less in 2010 than in 2009, explicitly because of this bill--and such a big change in the books may mean AT&T will pass on the loss to its employees, possibly resulting in a loss of health-care benefits for retirees.

April 18, 2010

House panel cancels meeting with company execs on healthcare law costs

By Vicki Needham - 04/14/10 05:44 PM ET

A House panel has canceled a hearing to examine the financial effects of the healthcare law on the nation's large companies.

The companies asked to allow more time for provisions of the new law to go into effect before holding a hearing, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote in a letter to subcommittee members dated Wednesday.

Company representatives from AT&T, John Deere, Verizon and Caterpillar were scheduled to testify April 21 about millions in additional costs the healthcare law would create for their businesses.

During preliminary interviews, representatives from the large employers said the new law could have positive effects for the companies by eventually cutting healthcare expenses, if implemented properly, according to the letter.

John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, told committee staff that if "implemented right, the law has the potential to make employers and employees better off because it could bend the cost curve," according to the letter.

Several companies commented on how the healthcare bill could help their companies. "Should the structural reforms intended to reduce the costs of delivering healthcare ultimately prove successful over time, self-insured companies like AT&T would likely benefit from such reduced costs," said Wayne Watts, senior executive vice president for AT&T.

Wow! When they were told to "show us the figures" they backed down and changed their tune.

And there are those who say the government lies :w00t: - IT'S CORPORATE AMERICA WHO ARE THE LIARS AND THIEVES (DOES GOLDMAN SACHS RING A BELL?)

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute

Once again, an opinion, not the CBO report.

And you can keep cutting and pasting all these OPINIONS, but when congress (democrats and republicans) want a bill scored they go to the CBO, not Doug Holtz-Eakin, or the American Action Forum or Americans for Tax Reform.

Again, I will stick with the CBO and you can go on all these neocon websites.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute

Once again, an opinion, not the CBO report.

And you can keep cutting and pasting all these OPINIONS, but when congress (democrats and republicans) want a bill scored they go to the CBO, not Doug Holtz-Eakin, or the American Action Forum or Americans for Tax Reform.

Again, I will stick with the CBO and you can go on all these neocon websites.

I don't trust the CBO. They work for the government.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I don't trust the CBO. They work for the government.

Of course not, not when their numbers don't support your view and opinions. You'd be quoting them well enough if they did.

A chart that speaks for itself. bush policies has a bigger impact. Washington Post.

[phil1336 0]

ariscus, Obama has broken most all of his promises. You and I know that, but those who worship him will never admit to it because where would they go from there? He has the answer to the world's problems as far as they can see. What a shame.

The "End" must be near! I finally agree with something that PG stated! Obama made promises to end our War and engagement in Iraq where we still have tens of thousands of troops and instead is sending the same and additional troops to a never ending loosing War in Afganistan where drug war lords have and always will rule that country. This out of fear that Pakistan with its arsenal of Nuclear Weapons will fall next. Of all the disappointments that the American public should have with Barack Obama, is America continues to waste both billions of dollars of Tax payers monies and the agony of losing more young American Men and Women in a distant land where Victory will NEVER be accomplished. Even our closest allies Canada and Great Britain have put our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on notice that they are both pulling their troops out later this year. So much about our partnership. The end game there will be the same as Vietnam, we will eventually leave both Iraq and Afganistan and their people worse off and ourselves as well then the situation was before we got engaged. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by un-manned drones sacrificed in our "War on Terror". The United States in our futile effort of Nation Building and wanting to extend our "empire", has become the Terror we so fear!

Edited May 15, 2010 by phil1336

[BJean 16]

You wanted a list of his broken promises. Well, there you have them.

You've done a bang up job of proving my point. Thanks. No mistaking what you use for brains. And you just keep getting meaner by the day. Not even feigning an ability to really understand the issues or what's going on in Washington. Simply a collossal brainwashing job, thanks to the mom and pop tea baggers, Fox entertainment news and all the rest. Keep it up. You're doing a great job of helping the Democratic party in general and Obama in particular.

You people are traitors to the American cause and the American way. And this kind of stupidity is dangerous.

[phil1336 0]

You've done a bang up job of proving my point. Thanks. No mistaking what you use for brains. And you just keep getting meaner by the day. Not even feigning an ability to really understand the issues or what's going on in Washington. Simply a collossal brainwashing job, thanks to the mom and pop tea baggers, Fox entertainment news and all the rest. Keep it up. You're doing a great job of helping the Democratic party in general and Obama in particular.

You people are traitors to the American cause and the American way. And this kind of stupidity is dangerous.

Easy......Easy, be careful BJean, you just might piss PG off and she will likely report you to the Moderator as she did me and you will given a (warning) from the Moderator. I must refrain from speaking too bluntly on both this Blog as well as Yahoo Blogs. I was fitted with a "Gag Ball" from Yahoo Shine for a TOS due to the fact that I was reported to have given a previous poster a verbal (wedgie). Funny how censorship and freedom of speech is allowed for some points of view but not others. I know that yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is wrong an illegal but it seems that postings that are too far to the right and want to take us back to those so called (good old days) are tolerated a lot more then progressive rants.

[tdslf1 0]

Again PG,

Where is the DISPUTE of ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

[BJean 16]

I know this is true phil, having witnessed that very thing on numerous occasions.

I'm pretty sure that if you're not someone with a fundamentalist religious rant, they're pretty sure that you're the boogie man and going to hell and they're willing to start the process here. On the other hand, if you're a "Christian" in the right wing sense of the word, they don't want to mess with you because God will surely strike them down if they do.

Us U.S. Americans are totally pitted against one another and some of us don't even have maps. This makes total sense if you ever saw the very right wing Miss Universe (I think it was) spouting one of her brilliant pearls of wisdom.