Told ya. Next estimate will probably double this. CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831
Why do you think public health care is found to be more efficient? The answers may help you appreciate where Obama is going wrong!
If the healthy and the wealthy pay for insurance they don't need, maybe it will be enough to cover the cost of the un-healthy and the poor? But take a look at feeding the poor in Africa for example. There are poor starving people in Africa in desperate help. Our charity organizations help them. Now, those people are having children they can't afford to feed that the same charity's need to feed too. If you can't afford to feed yourself why are you having sex and making more babies? That makes no sense. You help the poor and they multiply. If you don't help the poor they don't multiply.
You haven't answered the question: Why do you think public health care is found to be more efficient? Fertility rates fall with economic development. The problem are policies designed to maintain economic divides
It hasn't. In fact, it has to ration to stay within budget and creates wait times that become the national agenda in many State run HC programs. As you can see, Obama and the government, have no idea what they are doing so give bad information to begin with. While they try and decide how to fund their monster, the price tag will keep rising.
The evidence shows otherwise. Amenable mortality is lower in countries with public health provision. Efficiency analysis (e.g. Using Data Envelopment Analysis to undertake an input-output approach) also is against you. Seems like you're in denial. Not a good place to be when assessing health proposals with objectivity
Here you go again, using bad data as your foundation. Let's look at any mortality rate for instance. Different countries use different methodologies for measuring mortality rate. Infant mortality rate is measure in some countries by only those infants that were born normally and die. The US measures that differently. Then there is the fact that in the US, due to advances in science, we try to save babies earlier than other countries, which produces a larger volume of infant deaths, which are counted in our data but not in others. You will spout off how none of this matters because you read a peer reviewed paper somewhere, but facts are facts whether you like them or not.
Please give an example of a country with successful public health programs AND a population of over 300 million. Then we'll be on the same page.
Size isn't an issue: more patients, more people financing the scheme. We're talking about efficiency here. That analysis goes from overall comparisons (as illustrated by amenable mortality rates) to hospital specific analysis (using efficiency analysis into aspects such as operations per dollar spent)
I've just bothered to refer to the evidence. It does seem to be a crime for the 'right wing' I referred to amenable mortality rates. That adopts a common definition, given its used in international comparison.
Yet you still cannot prove the why's of the diseases and if HC would affect that at all. You just use numbers to prove what you want without being able to prove any of the background causes, except for the cause you are biased toward, in this case, HC.
You demonstrate the erroneous position you've adopted: it isn't about referring to the efficiency analysis and how policy change may impact on it. Its about aimless political attack. I'd put that right if I was you
No need for insipid personal attacks. Instead refer correctly to the available evidence and use that to construct sound critique of government policy. Job's a good'un!
You rely on evidence that is only supportive of your bias and ignore or dismiss anything that does not fit in your world view. You have shown this time and again.
yeah right, I am gonna switch from coke to Pepsi and it will cost me $1, course if I drank the coke it would of cost me $1 too...
You don't understand the implications to taxpayers or the nation in general. This is bad for the US as it is already talking about more quantitative easing. The amount being done now has never been matched in history and is an experiment. One of the failures of government run health care insurance is the loss of innovation which is about the only thing that will reduce health care costs, something this government has not tackled at all.
I have no bias when it comes to US health policy. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I've simply acknowledged the error in your approach and the evidence that you've ignored. You won't be able to deny the relevance of that evidence. However, happy to leave you to it. Some folk don't take kindly to advice one would suppose!
In other words, you have an opinion, you disagree with others, you try to point out that because we do not use the same bad data that others use that we are in the wrong. Got it.
The cost of RepubliCON care: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care insurance. 900,000 dead Americans in the past 20 years ~ a cost applauded by far right Republicans.
I disagree with the word "only" there, for all I have heard, read and seen, the law system is doing a huge amount of damage to the US health care costs, incentivating inefficient practices.
