Politics Fiscal Conservatism

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Note the $2.8 trillion cost of Bush's torture war, just the military portion.

When Republicans and Hillary fans would say that Bernie's program would cost $3 trillion over many years (that was the most pessimistic partisan estimate, but most-quoted by opponents), I would think, every non-Bernie candidate will spend the same on war.
 
jlprk said:
Note the $2.8 billion cost of Bush's torture war, just the military portion.

When Republicans and Hillary fans would say that Bernie's program would cost $3 billion over many years (that was the most pessimistic partisan estimate, but most quoted by opponents), I would think, every non-Bernie candidate will spend the same on war.
Click to expand...

So you're saying we should only invade countries that have over $6 billion in liquid assets? I agree, half for the military, half for healthcare.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
We need to invade richer countries.

#ProblemSolved

#SlyPokerDog4President2020
Click to expand...

What's wrong with paying poor countries a bunch of money, build them vast cities with utlities, and then invading when they can't pay it back.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
We need to invade richer countries.
Click to expand...

About a year into Bush's torture war, warmonger articles and message board posts laughed that getting ownership of Iraq's oilfields could pay for the war.

China later bought the refineries at bargain prices, and the Chinese money didn't go to the U.S.

But your theory would work, if the U.S. government became Communist and operated all the businesses in the conquered country. The problem is, U.S. politicians would then have to greatly expand their job descriptions to what their responsibilities were in the Soviet Union--technocratic captains of industry, instead of American-style intellectual-lightweight blowhards.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So you're saying we should only invade countries that have over $6 billion in liquid assets? I agree, half for the military, half for healthcare.
Click to expand...
Sly, what happened? That $2.8 Billion figure should read $2.8 Trillion. That's a 100,000% error.
 
jlprk said:
Note the $2.8 trillion cost of Bush's torture war, just the military portion.

When Republicans and Hillary fans would say that Bernie's program would cost $3 trillion over many years (that was the most pessimistic partisan estimate, but most-quoted by opponents), I would think, every non-Bernie candidate will spend the same on war.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind Obama's policies haft left US with a spiraling out of control deficit that will not stop.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...nt-debt-is-worse-than-you-think/#4f7b274515f9

But Bernie's plan will cost 3 Trillion PER YEAR, not total. Tacked on top of the endless debt from Obama we could be looking at a $60 trillion debt in about 10 years.

Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR)
July 29, 2018, 9:43 PM PDT Updated on July 30, 2018, 10:11 AM PDT

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.

Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.

"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.

Sanders' office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. His 2016 presidential campaign website cites an estimated price tag of $1.38 trillion a year for an earlier version of the plan, but other studies have projected much higher costs.

Also called "single-payer" over the years, "Medicare for all" reflects a longtime wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans. With Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it has little chance.

But Sanders' idea has broad rank-and-file support among Democrats, and polls show it also appeals to many independents. Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a "litmus test" for national candidates.

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.

Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of the earlier studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.

The Mercatus study also takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients. Medicare rates are currently about 40 percent less than private insurance, according to the analysis.

The study found U.S. health care spending under Sanders' plan would drop over time — about $300 billion lower in 2031.

However, it also found that potential savings would vanish if hospitals and doctors aren't willing to accept lower fees for patients who are now privately insured. In that case, the U.S. would spend about $400 billion more in 2031.

Costs have been a stumbling block for state efforts to enact a single-payer system, including in Sanders own state of Vermont.
 
Now we are militarizing the southern boarder. We also let the Saudis kill whoever they want to protect our arms deals with them. But we got tax breaks for the rich so it all worked out.
 

Maybe we can get the rich and the corporations to kick in with all the savings they received from the phony middle class tax cut.
 
donkiez said:
Now we are militarizing the southern boarder. We also let the Saudis kill whoever they want to protect our arms deals with them. But we got tax breaks for the rich so it all worked out.
Click to expand...

That would be in line with fiscal conservatism
 
MARIS61 said:
Keep in mind Obama's policies haft left US with a spiraling out of control deficit that will not stop.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...nt-debt-is-worse-than-you-think/#4f7b274515f9

But Bernie's plan will cost 3 Trillion PER YEAR, not total. Tacked on top of the endless debt from Obama we could be looking at a $60 trillion debt in about 10 years.

Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR)
July 29, 2018, 9:43 PM PDT Updated on July 30, 2018, 10:11 AM PDT

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.

Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.

"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.

Sanders' office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. His 2016 presidential campaign website cites an estimated price tag of $1.38 trillion a year for an earlier version of the plan, but other studies have projected much higher costs.

Also called "single-payer" over the years, "Medicare for all" reflects a longtime wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans. With Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it has little chance.

But Sanders' idea has broad rank-and-file support among Democrats, and polls show it also appeals to many independents. Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a "litmus test" for national candidates.

The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.

Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of the earlier studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.

"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.

But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.

The Mercatus study also takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients. Medicare rates are currently about 40 percent less than private insurance, according to the analysis.

The study found U.S. health care spending under Sanders' plan would drop over time — about $300 billion lower in 2031.

However, it also found that potential savings would vanish if hospitals and doctors aren't willing to accept lower fees for patients who are now privately insured. In that case, the U.S. would spend about $400 billion more in 2031.

Costs have been a stumbling block for state efforts to enact a single-payer system, including in Sanders own state of Vermont.
Click to expand...

Too expensive to save people immeasurable misery and grief by providing single payer Medicare for all, got it.
 
Lanny said:
Too expensive to save people immeasurable misery and grief by providing single payer Medicare for all, got it.
Click to expand...

Give all your own money you want to others to pay for their healthcare, IRS takes donations, unless you are pushing a lie. Why not sell that expensive LO Mansion and donate the proceeds?! :dunno: Go live with those poor people you say you don’t associate with and "feel their pain". :cheers:

Robbing everyone just above the poverty level is how socialism pushes everyone but the 1%ers into poverty.
 
Lanny said:
Too expensive to save people immeasurable misery and grief by providing single payer Medicare for all, got it.
Click to expand...

The ironic thing about this study that Maris keeps referring to is that it shows that we actually save money by going to single payer system over staying with our broken health care system, which will cost substantially more than $32.6 Trillion over 10 years (with a T).

Not to mention that nobody was talking about health care, we were talking about our military industrial complex. So Maris's response to we spend to much money on the military is essentially Obama, Bernie Sanders, and single payer health care. :breakdance:
 
dviss1 said:
Should Start right here:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/?redirect=cow
Click to expand...

Your link shows defending our entire nation for 17 years cost about 1/10th of what Obamacare cost in it's first 2 years.

Personally, Obamacare cost my wife and I the chance to ever have healthcare insurance again (my insurance jumped from less than $400 mo to over $20,000 per year) while forcing me to add enormous debt to my mortgage, then taxed/penalized me thousands per year for not being able to afford it.
 
donkiez said:
The ironic thing about this study that Maris keeps referring to is that it shows that we actually save money by going to single payer system over staying with our broken health care system, which will cost substantially more than $32.6 Trillion over 10 years (with a T).

Not to mention that nobody was talking about health care, we were talking about our military industrial complex. So Maris's response to we spend to much money on the military is essentially Obama, Bernie Sanders, and single payer health care. :breakdance:
Click to expand...

Wrong, but thanks for re-inforcing the tremendous financial burden that failed Obamacare has levied onto our country.

Our broken healthcare insurance system has been mortally wounded and will be gone in a couple more years as it was never sustainable under the Constitution. Nearly all of it's funding was illegally imposed by Obama and has already been partially dismantled. Class-action suits to reclaim the illegally-imposed fines and fees are on the horizon.

I guess you have jlprk on ignore, as that is who introduced the healthcare issue to this thread. I merely responded to it.
 
MARIS61 said:
I guess you have jlprk on ignore, as that is who introduced the healthcare issue to this thread. I merely responded to it.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't ignore anyone as a rule. I just missed his comment. I take that part back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top