Another Study proves...

• riggo33

  the Senate Health Care bill would cut costs
  
  A new analysis by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber claims that the Senate health-reform bill will "make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market."
  
  The report, which is surely good news for Democrats, states that the Senate's version of the bill will significantly curb health care costs for both individuals and families.
  
  Gruber finds "that the single individual would save over $2500 at low incomes (175% of poverty), and would save $200 even at higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher). For families, the savings are much larger, ranging from nearly $7500 for low income families (at 175% of poverty) to $500 for higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher)."
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/29/study_confirms_health_care_bill_will_cut_costs.html
  
  Another blow for the Anti-Health Care Reform crowd
• CenterBHSFan

  

  It isn't a "blow" for me. People can get all sorts of numbers theoretically.
  
  Ever hear the term "it all looks good on paper"?
  
  LOL!
• tk421

  

  Yeah, right. I don't care how many studies they do, I'm not going to believe it unless it actually happens.
• jmog

  They say it will be cheaper on the families, well no crap sherlock. If the government is handing it out for basically free yeah, it doesn't take an MIT economist to figure out it will be cheaper on the families recieving the hand out.
  
  What it DOESN'T say is it will be cheaper on the COUNTRY as a whole, or the health care system AS A WHOLE. That will most likely not happen, it will actually raise costs overall, just the government will be paying for it.
• dwccrew

  

  Yea, ok.
• dwccrew

  

  Another study proves nothing. It is a theory. It will only be proven if the program is implemented and saves families money.
• JoeA1010

  Let's see, we're going to add somewhere between 12 and 45 million to the insurance rolls, we're not going to ration health care, we're making tort reform even more difficult, we're moving away from the free market, and somehow we're going to cut costs.
  
  Yeah, that sounds likely.
  
  And if we're cutting costs, then why do we need tons of new taxes to try to pay for it all?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  You still with us, riggo? You haven't left yet, have you????
• CinciX12

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: It isn't a "blow" for me. People can get all sorts of numbers theoretically.
  
  Ever hear the term "it all looks good on paper"?
  
  LOL!

  It's not like its a sporting event. Typically laws are all written on paper.
  
  You can't really use the saying 'thats why they play the game' with a bill.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Why not? Laws are useless unless enforced = play the game.
• majorspark

  

  riggo33 wrote: the Senate Health Care bill would cut costs
  
  A new analysis by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber claims that the Senate health-reform bill will "make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market."
  
  The report, which is surely good news for Democrats, states that the Senate's version of the bill will significantly curb health care costs for both individuals and families.
  
  Gruber finds "that the single individual would save over $2500 at low incomes (175% of poverty), and would save $200 even at higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher). For families, the savings are much larger, ranging from nearly $7500 for low income families (at 175% of poverty) to $500 for higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher)."
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/29/study_confirms_health_care_bill_will_cut_costs.html
  
  Another blow for the Anti-Health Care Reform crowd

  My first question for you would be this: Name one federal social program that did not exceed initial cost projections.
  
  People are always more cautious when spending their own money then when they are spending someone else's money (social services). Factor in politics and you have a recipe for excessive abuse of budget constraints.
  
  Politicians are unwilling to control services to those in the group benifiting from the service, fearing the loss of said groups vote.
  
  Politicians are unwilling to raise taxes on those funding the benifits, fearing the loss of said groups vote. Yes they may give lip service to taxing the "rich", but they know damn well the "rich" alone cannot support their spending.
  
  Instead they settle for passing the burden on to furture generations by increasing federal debt. After all when the "chickens come home to roost" most will be dead or in nursing homes drueling in their wheel chairs.
  
  You can show me all the studies, congressional reports, whatever you want. I have history. I have posted this before but it bares repeating. Take a look at medicare, a federally managed health insurance program for a certain group of our population. Here are some past initial projections made by congress and the CBO and the cost overuns.
  

  In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
  
  In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
  
  The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion

  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTM5NGNmZDc3OGIxYTMwMTlkZTQzNTJlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
• believer

  

  You Big Government Health Care advocates can slice & dice this all you want, but the bottom-line is no amount of cooking the books and fudging the numbers will ever convince me that the Feds can, will, or even have the slightest idea how to reduce health care costs.
  
  In fact, when the Feds get involved in anything, costs have a funny way of mushrooming immediately after the politicians and bureaucrats begin "benevolently" calling the shots. The track record in Social Security and Medicare are picture perfect examples.
  
  Yet the ultra-blind left still believes Uncle Sam will cure our health care ills and do it efficiently, equitably, and inexpensively?
  
  Oh that's right...We'll just tax the rich to pay for it. Just more tried and true class warfare mantra not-to-mention a bald faced lie from the socialists.
  
  Cliché but oh-so-true: The height of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
• eersandbeers

  And CATO says it will cost more than 6 trillion the first 10 years. Oh who to believe: the government who has outspent every federal program in history or the people claiming it will save money.
  
  
  www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion
• Writerbuckeye

  

  jmog wrote: They say it will be cheaper on the families, well no crap sherlock. If the government is handing it out for basically free yeah, it doesn't take an MIT economist to figure out it will be cheaper on the families recieving the hand out.
  
  What it DOESN'T say is it will be cheaper on the COUNTRY as a whole, or the health care system AS A WHOLE. That will most likely not happen, it will actually raise costs overall, just the government will be paying for it.

  THIS is the bottom line.
  
  This bill, like so many other things this administration wants to do, is all about REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH from the private sector via the government.
  
  I don't give a rat's ass what MIT says, it's a BAD idea.