The healthcare bill, as currently written will cost (according to the CBO), about a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, and will reduce the deficit by $118 billion.
Considering that the tax increases star on Jan 1, 2011, but the benefits don’t start until 2014, we have an analysis based on 10 years of revenue and 7 years of expenses.
OK, let’s do some 6th grade math here… if you take 10 years to fund 7, then you basically are funding at about 150%, and if that comes up to 118$ billion, then first of all, the medicare cuts, and tax increases are not health taxes, they are general taxes. Secondly, what happens in the second 10 years, when we have 10 years of tax increases and medicare cuts ot pay for 10 years of benefits?
OK, now let’s talk about “comparative effectiveness”. The bill talks all about comparative effectiveness.
Please allow me to explain what this means….
If you have a 1972 Vega, and a 2009 BMW, and both cars need a new transmission costing $3,500. If you compare the 2 jobs, which do you think would be a comparatively more effective use of $3,500?
Now, relate that to a senior. Would it be more “cost effective” to pay $40,000 in medical expenses on a 25 year old, who will pay taxes for 40 years, or a 65 year old who is drawing from social security.
I for one don’t think that we should put our seniors out on ice flows. I think they have paid into the system, and have earned the right to be taken care of. That’s what we did 200 years ago.
What do YOU think? Comment below.