Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[joobz]

You're crediting the private sector for repairing roads with public funds. Roads built and run by the government. Roads that make much of the private sector even possible. Roads policed by the government.

you're forgetting the general BAC Mantra:
"Private good/public bad. Ignore data to the contrary."

Funnily, BAC raised the point of privatizing roads as an example of an intelligent choice that government has made. When in truth, it's not done because it's more efficient. It's being done because it's a fast short term way to make money for the state, city, town.
If anything, BAC should be using it as example of poor government management.

 

[BeAChooser]

The horror! I take it all back. Oh wait, no I don't, because that's your hangup, not mine.

Yes, I know you have no hangup with communists.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Hate to tell you but the underlying philosophy of the US (up to now) has been a promise of equal OPPORTUNITY ... not equal service or outcome.

Wait, but I thought the American left had a long history of being secret commies. Isn't Obama a Socialist? Wasn't FDR a Socialist? Aren't they hugely popular presidents that won landslide victories? Isn't social security an enormously popular program? Despite decades of right wing red-baiting, the American public overwhelmingly chooses to support "socialist" programs when given the chance.

Notice folks, that psychictv refused to address my point? And the American public did not "overwhelmingly" choose to support socialist programs in the last election. In fact, the margin of victory was very narrow and many of those who voted for Obama and the democrats weren't voting for socialism (or communism) but against Bush. It was all about Bush. Had they known that what they were voting into office was a group that was going to bring socialism (and communism) to America, I suspect the outcome of the election would have been very different. In fact, polls now show that there's considerable buyer's remorse, especially amongst the independent voters. Had the mainstream media been honest and properly/accurately reported on Obama's background and friends (you know, all those socialists and communist that he associated with for decades and still associates with today), the American public might have chosen differently.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But does that really make economic sense?

To deliver mail to every address in the U.S.?

No, delivering mail to every address at the same cost.

Yes, I think that by definition, high school dropouts are somewhat "troubled" or come from homes where an emphasis isn't placed on education.

But which do you think came first? The chicken or the egg?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Actually, data shows that private schools do take the less privileged children and do better with them as well.
... "Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000"

I never said anything about race or financial status.

So you think race and financial status have little to do with high school dropout rates? Well, I hate to tell you but that stands at odds with the liberal position on the subject.

Of course, private schools will have scholarships for the economically disadvantaged but that's still a self-selecting situation as only those families and students who are motivated to even pursue the scholarships and the private school education will apply.

Well it seems to me that you're telling us that half the students in the largest 50 school districts are simply destined to fail (despite everything the public system can do for them) because they are troubled or live in homes where education isn't valued. So what's your solution? You now going to take the kids out of the homes ... for the "public good"? Maybe the real solution, if what you claim is true, is to simply stop wasting the dollars spent trying to educate these 50 percent of kids. And we could do that by simply having a private system where families and students are motivated to pursue the scholarships. But then, that wouldn't be good for all those liberal education unions. So perhaps that's the real reason we continue to throw good money after bad.

Public education in the United states has freely educated millions of people for almost 200 years.

Yes, it did a relatively good job for most of that time ... until liberals recently decided to make it a place to promote liberal thinking and create good little democrats. Until folks like William Ayers became influential in creating the courses that teach our teachers to teach our children.

You can't point to recent failures and use them to condemn the very concept of public education

I don't believe I did. But by the same token, I could say you can't point to recent failures of the private health care system and use them to condemn the very concept of private health care and the "profit system" than underlies it ... and which has been so successful for generations. Which is exactly what Obama and his supporters are currently doing.

 

[BeAChooser]

I apologize for not reading the thorough response that you wrote two months ago but never posted.

What you should apologize is for not reading (or remembering having read) the many other posts on that thread which proved the failure of your so-called successes. You think the post I added was the only one I made on that thread? LOL!

 

[Lurker]

A system that can't even graduate on time half the students in the largest 50 school districts? A system that has forced the SAT to lower its standards? A system that produces students, who if they do attend college, have to take remedial courses just to pass the most basic college courses? A system that produces loads of psychologists and sociologists, community organizers, sports figures, leaches (I mean lawyers), starry eyed media and entertainment flunkies, and department store clerks ... rather than loads of engineers and scientists? You say that system is good (the opposite of bad)?

You have not answered my question about how suburban schools are doing so well. Please address this question. Why do suburban schools do so well in graduation rate, college SATs and college placement?

LOL! You just named two programs that are both literally bankrupting the US. Do you know what the combined UNFUNDED debt of those programs is? Over 70 TRILLION dollars

70 Trillion? I don't think you are on base here. SS brings in more money than it pays out right now. How much do you think SS is underfunded and over what time horison? I sure hope you are not accounting for an infinite horizon as no accountant uses that method.

And don't deceive yourself. You get what you pay for, and for the most part you do get a better education at the admittedly more expensive private schools. They turn out better engineers.

Where do you get your info from? Why don't we look at ratings for engineers? Here are the top 20 engineering schools (http://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/)

1 Massachusetts Inst of Technology
2 Stanford University
3 University of California-Berkeley
4 California Institute Technology
5 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
6 Georgia Institute of Technology
7 University of Michigan
8 Cornell University
9 Carnegie Mellon University
10 University of Texas at Austin
11 Purdue University
12 University of California- San Diego
13 University of California- Los Angeles
14 Texas A&M University
15 Princeton University
16 Pennsylvania State University
17 University of Wisconsin-Madison
18 University of Maryland College Park
19 Harvard University
20 University of California-Santa Barbara

Seven are private while the other 13 are public. So what are you basing your statement on that I bolded above? By the way, the ratio gets even better for public universities as I include more.

I would say that you are quite wrong in stating that private universities put out better engineers than public universities. The public university system does a great job in educating engineers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I certainly am angry that billions of taxpayer dollars that were sent to Iraq are not accounted for by the US government.

You were awfully quiet about it, then. ETA: At the very least, it didn't make you oppose spending for and conducting the war in Iraq.

But what's curious is that you folks think the same incompetent (corrupt?) organization should take over a 1/6th of the US economy. How many TRILLIONS will never be accounted for then?

Nope--that's not going to happen. Healthcare spending doesn't happen with gunnysacks full of cash being disbursed in wheelbarrows as it was in Iraq. (ETA: At least that won't happen as long as we can keep Halliburton out of the health insurance industry.)

The CBO estimate of the fiscal impact of the bills (before any of them are even passed) is proof that there will be more oversight on this matter than there was in the rush to shovel money into Dubya's invasion and occupation of Iraq.


BTW, I notice you've still not responded to my questions about what you think of the CBO. You deflected the question by saying something about the people who redefined "is"--said you weren't referring to Bill Clinton, but to me (????), but still haven't said why you seem to confuse the Democratic Party with the CBO.

Also, you've yet to say why it makes sense to count insurance premiums as taxes (since you admit they don't go to the government), and also why if you did count them as taxes it would somehow increase the cost of the program to the federal budget--a cost which will be negative (will reduce the federal deficit).

You also haven't answered why you think it's valuable to estimate the costs of the program beyond the first 10 years (knowing that such guesses are far less certain), or how far into the future you think it makes sense to make projections.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's being done because it's a fast short term way to make money for the state, city, town. If anything, BAC should be using it as example of poor government management.

Isn't it amazing that government can turn over something to the private sector and make money from that transaction, and yet the private sector can still make a profit and provide an even better something than the government was providing? I think what that really speaks to is the total inefficiency of government and the incredible efficiency of the private sector.

 

[BeAChooser]

70 Trillion? I don't think you are on base here. SS brings in more money than it pays out right now. How much do you think SS is underfunded and over what time horison? I sure hope you are not accounting for an infinite horizon as no accountant uses that method.

Clearly, you didn't even bother to look at the link I provided. Which is why I'm not even going to bother debating you on this thread.

 

[joobz]

Isn't it amazing that government can turn over something to the private sector and make money from that transaction, and yet the private sector can still make a profit and provide an even better something than the government was providing? I think what that really speaks to is the total inefficiency of government and the incredible efficiency of the private sector.

There's a problem with that bolded statement...


ETA: A drive on Ohio's Public turnpike and then Indiana's private turnpike will give you a chance to see how wrong you are.

 

[joobz]

removed...

 

[Lurker]

Clearly, you didn't even bother to look at the link I provided. Which is why I'm not even going to bother debating you on this thread.

As I stated earlier, no real accountant uses an infinite time horison for budgeting purposes yet this is what your link does. NOBODY does accounting like that. Name ANY govt or even private program that uses an infinite timeline for accounting?

Anyway, I was addressing the SS portion and it has been successful for over 50 years. Nobody is interested in your infinite time projections and extrapolating those results over teh next 60 years. That is not honest accounting.

 

[Lurker]

Still waiting for your answer to my query concerning suburban schools and how they manage to do quite well. Please advise.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's cheaper in every country where it's free.

And yet they come here, and not vice-versa.

 

[Lurker]

And yet they come here, and not vice-versa.

They do? It is becoming common for people to go south of the border for plastic surgery. I know three people personally who went north of the border for lasik.

Times they are a changing.

 

[jimbob]

It's cheaper in every country where it's free.

And yet they come here, and not vice-versa.

And do they pay a lot for this treatment?

America does provide some of the best expensive treatment that money can buy, so if you have shedloads of cash, it is a good choice.

If you are poor enough to have to rely on insurance, then contemporaries in countries with Universal Healthcare would often get better care.

 

[BeAChooser]

At the very least, it didn't make you oppose spending for and conducting the war in Iraq.

No, because winning that war was far more important than a few billion dollars.

Quote:
But what's curious is that you folks think the same incompetent (corrupt?) organization should take over a 1/6th of the US economy. How many TRILLIONS will never be accounted for then?

Nope--that's not going to happen. Healthcare spending doesn't happen with gunnysacks full of cash being disbursed in wheelbarrows as it was in Iraq. (ETA: At least that won't happen as long as we can keep Halliburton out of the health insurance industry.)

LOL! How can you guarantee that? A penny here, a penny there and before long you've got not just billions down the drain but trillions, much of it unaccounted for. And electronic funds are even easier to manipulate and mismanage than hard cash.

And for the record most of the missing billions in Iraq didn't go to Halliburton but directly to the Iraq government. And because of the poor management system of that government (set up by who else but the US government) they simply couldn't verify where that money actually went).

And do you think Iraq is the only example of unaccounted for funds in the US government? Think again.

In a report to the DoD comptroller, acting Assistant Inspector General for Auditing David Steensma wrote: "We reported that DOD processed $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries to DOD Component financial data used to prepare departmental reports and DOD financial statements for FY2000. For FY2001 we did not attempt to quantify amounts of unsupported accounting entries; however, we did confirm that DOD continued to enter material amounts of unsupported accounting entries to the financial data." Imagine that ... $1.1 TRILLION dollars missing under Bill Clinton. Did you complain about that, Joe?

And the Pentagon and the Defense Department inspector general estimates that nearly half of the military’s weapons budget went unchecked last year. That's the problem with government. It throws money around like it's play money because to them it play money. The private sector doesn't act that way. Money is real to them.

According to Susan Gaffney, HUD Inspector General in 2000, they had accumulated over $59 billion dollars in "unsupported adjustments" for FY 1999 activity ... before they simple gave up on the audit. Now of course it's not Halliburton that's involved with HUD but ACORN. Oh ... so things must be ok.

Look at Social Security. Here's an article (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-129782416.html ) that points out the law requires employers to accurately identify who contributes what to the system. But the GAO released a report that says "uncredited social security payments have added up to a whopping $462.8 billion since the Social Security program began in 1937, with $350 billion of that sum entering the system over the last 15 years." So someone got royally cheated.

Look at Medicare. It's currently got fraud of over 60 billion dollar a year. MSNBC even found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26860289/ ) that someone got away with buying shoes for amputees, wheelchairs from people suffering from deformed noses and sprained wrists, and walkers for paraplegics.

Look at Obama's Stimulus package. What revision are we on now as to where the trillion went? How many non-existent districts did the money go to? How many non-existent projects. And what about that lawn mower that cost $1100 dollars (or thereabouts) and magically created a hundred (or thereabout) jobs?

Don't try to pretend that trillions couldn't slip through the cracks under the guise of "government *managed* health care".

 

[AvalonXQ]

And do they pay a lot for this treatment?

Yes they do. People come here to get healthcare that they can't get anywhere else.
And the entire world relies on the medical research being done here, because we pay for it.

 

[joobz]

Yes they do. People come here to get healthcare that they can't get anywhere else.

such as? Which treatments are unavailable elsewhere?

And the entire world relies on the medical research being done here, because we pay for it.

They do?

 

[psychictv]

And the American public did not "overwhelmingly" choose to support socialist programs in the last election.

The electoral college landslide and the big coattails that took both houses of Congress and a handful of governorships signaled a clear mandate for Obama's policies. And those policies which you label as "socialist" were clearly enunciated during the campaign. We knew what we were voting for and your red-baiting didn't fool anyone.

So you think race and financial status have little to do with high school dropout rates?

I never mentioned dropout rates. You brought that up. I said that private schools perform better because the students and parents want to be there and are more involved. Your response was that private schools have an ethnically and economically diverse student body. There is no relation between those two points.

Well it seems to me that you're telling us that half the students in the largest 50 school districts are simply destined to fail (despite everything the public system can do for them) because they are troubled or live in homes where education isn't valued. So what's your solution?

Nobody has one. It's a difficult problem. But constantly attacking the public school system and teaching children that teachers are worthless is certainly not helping.

Maybe the real solution, if what you claim is true, is to simply stop wasting the dollars spent trying to educate these 50 percent of kids. And we could do that by simply having a private system where families and students are motivated to pursue the scholarships.

So if a student drops out halfway through high school, there was no value in the rest of the K-8 education that they successfully completed? Your solution is throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it would also exclude the kids who are doing fine in public schools but can't afford to go to private school. And your 50% statistic only refers to large urban school districts. Overall the dropout rate is about 16% nationally.

Yes, it did a relatively good job for most of that time ...
I don't believe I did. [ use recent failures to condemn the entire concept of public education ]

So you admit that the public school system was successful for most of it's history? And since you keep focusing on dropout rate, I would assume that you consider completion of high school to be some valid measure of success, and would agree that the system currently has somewhere around an 80% success rate.

But this has been the Republican modus operandi for decades: consistently defund social programs until services start to erode and then point to them and say "look it's a failure"!

But by the same token, I could say you can't point to recent failures of the private health care system and use them to condemn the very concept of private health care and the "profit system" than underlies it ... and which has been so successful for generations.

Except that our current system of HMOs has only been in place for about 36 years, so it doesn't quite have the same history of long term success as Social Security or public education. But I agree, I would definitely not argue that private industry has never successfully provided services for the public good. That would be as absurd as arguing that the government has never run a successful social program.

It's equivalent to saying "Private industry can't do anything right. The banking industry? Failure. Auto industry? Failure. Energy? Fail. Healthcare? Fail. See, private industry never works."

 

[johnny karate]

BTW, I notice you've still not responded to my questions about what you think of the CBO.

Well, not too long ago, he was citing them to support his arguments.

Perhaps the CBO has suffered some kind of communist infiltration in the past two months.

 

[BeAChooser]

The electoral college landslide

LOL! So now democrats suddenly like the electoral college?

And those policies which you label as "socialist" were clearly enunciated during the campaign.

Yeah. Sure they were.

Then why is Obama's job approval down, down, down?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/another_look_at_obamas_job_app.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...istration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month



Like I said, were the election to be held today, knowing what is now known about Obama and his policies, it's delusional to think you'd win. And that's with the mainstream media still hiding from the public many facts about Obama's socialist and communist history and the nature of his closest associates and supporters.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think race and financial status have little to do with high school dropout rates?

I never mentioned dropout rates.

LOL! What do you think we were discussing?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So what's your solution?

Nobody has one.

Then why have you democrats insisted on spending uncounted billions year after year after year doing what you now admit is no solution? Why not do what I suggest then and stop wasting that money?

But constantly attacking the public school system and teaching children that teachers are worthless is certainly not helping.

I never said or implied that teachers (as a category) are worthless. I value teachers a great deal. But those who have sold out to political interests in order to protect salaries and pensions, their union representatives and the democrats who take their lobby money are basically worthless. They are willing to take more and more dollars year after year when they (by your own admission) can't solve the problem of those 50% who they fail to graduate from high school each year. When they fight every change that might help that group (such as vouchers and charter schools and home schooling) they prove themselves worthless.

Your solution is throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it would also exclude the kids who are doing fine in public schools but can't afford to go to private school.

LOL! I was being a little humorous in my response. Couldn't you tell? I'm not really suggesting we not try to educate these children. But I think the answer isn't to keep on doing what hasn't worked for 3 decades. The answer is to get creative. Allow vouchers, support home schooling, support non-unionized charter schools and stop making schools a social engineering experience designed to indoctrinate kids into thinking politically correct about whatever the democrats happen to find politically correct. The solution is make teachers accountable. Allow competition. And encourage free market participation and solutions. And, by the way, on average private schools are far less expensive than public schools. Let people keep more of their own money and they'd have plenty of money to afford a good private school.

And your 50% statistic only refers to large urban school districts.

It refers to the largest 50 school districts in the nation. For example LA Unified is just one such district. Don't kid yourself into thinking this isn't a serious problem.

Overall the dropout rate is about 16% nationally.

NONSENSE.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_31.htm

The national graduation rate for the public school class of 2000 was 69%. The rate for white students was 76%; for Asian students it was 79%; for African-American students it was 55%; for Hispanic students it was 53%; and for Native Americans it was 57%.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23 (You'll notice that graduation rates only approach your claimed statistic in the overfly region of the country which you liberals so disparage. Everywhere else has graduation rates below 73 percent.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/education/22dropout.html

a nationwide study shows the magnitude of the gap: the average high school graduation rate in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in the suburbs. ... snip ... As a whole, the nation’s graduation rate improved by a few percentage points over the same decade, to 71 percent from 66 percent, the study said.

Is your tactic now going to be just making up statistics?

Except that our current system of HMOs has only been in place for about 36 years,

But profit driven health care has been in place for far longer. And the preeminence of America's health care system is the result.

it doesn't quite have the same history of long term success as Social Security or public education.

Do you seriously believe that? LOL!