Report says health care will cover more, cost more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a..._law_costs

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

That's a little unsettling. I'm no economist but that doesn't sound good. Fortunately there are much smarter men than me who can figure this stuff out.

Economics is not my forte.

I just heard an interview with Nancy Pelosi saying that the bill is supposedly going to save 30 Trillion or something crazy like that. So which is it?

Also, I don't see how increasing the Federal Budget will reduce the deficit.

Then again economics are not my forte.

If you increase it in one department to create greater savings in another.

I'm not stating I think this is what actually happened in reality, just how it could happen in theory.

Kyle, if you increase the budget, the only way to even break even on the deficit is raise taxes. Obamacare raises taxes. That's a done deal. It still won't be enough to offset costs, which is where all the accounting gimmicks came in.

I'm not sure what's scarier, honestly. That people actually believe this is going to save money, or that (from your article above) the Democrats apparently rammed this thing through without ever asking Medicare's chief actuary what he thought it might do.

It's ok. They're trial lawyers. They know everything they need to design a health system for hundreds of millions of citizens.

What could possibly go wrong?

I think that the huge savings estimates are based on things like people who currently don't have insurance finding things like cancer earlier and getting it taken care of inexpensively instead of waiting until they are really sick and then having a long drawn out battle. Of course you probably can't estimate effects like that very accurately so it's easy to be extremely optimistic if you want to be.

Or maybe just having the death panels to kill off all of the senior citizens will solve all those Medicare worries .

Huh, you mean this is going to cost more than what was expected? Never saw it coming... or wait...

Rickenhawk is making progress!

Rickenhawk has somehow figured out that raising income taxes lowers the deficit!

Of course, he might get kicked out of the wingnut club for heresy, as wingnuts know that LOWERING TAXES also REDUCES the deficit.

Now if Rickenhawk could only figure out the difference between actual results and projections.

I know. Too much to ask. Oh well.

Wing nuts know that lowering tax RATES increases tax REVENUE and therefore decreases deficits.

Steve, do you really believe that? Hell, lets lower the rates so we will all feel free to 'donate' revenue to the government. Yeah!
That should work for healthcare and Wall street also. Trickle down lives! NOT!

There is elasticity in tax rates. A major part of the GDP is Investment. When tax rates are too high investment goes down. If all else remains the same GDP goes down. When tax rates are reduced investment goes up. If all else remains the same the GDP goes up. When GDP is down tax revenues decrease. Less production means fewer wage earners and fewer tax payers. Simple economics. If it doesn't work, why aren't we back to Carters 70% nominal tax rate?

Hey Steve Z:

Your argument is obviously with Rickenhawk.

The government does static accounting, Bob. You know that.

It doesn't translate to the real world well (or at all) But when we're talking government budget projections, there is only taxing and spending.

But to use the same analogy I have before

McDonalds can sell cheeseburgers for $2 or $200 dollars.

If McDonalds did their budgeting like the government, they'd tell you that they could generate 100 times more revenue if they sold cheeseburgers for $200 apiece. This is how CBO would calculate it.

In reality, McDonalds would make far less selling their burgers for $200 than they currently do at $2. Consumers will simply go elsewhere. But government budget estimates never take this sort of behavior into account. In reality its inevitable.

There is a curve in play, and unless you believe we're undertaxed, tax increases will always generate much less revenue than they budget for.

If you're overtaxed (as I believe we are as a nation) then you will actually increase revenue by cutting rates. It's worked every time it's been tried, because we are overtaxed (collectively)

Where we keep getting into trouble is on out of control spending. That's why politicians always talk about controlling deficits, but rarely about controlling spending. They can literally siphon hundreds of billions out of the economy in taxes (ala Obamacare), then brag that they're 'saving' a splinter of that on 'the deficit' But they never take into account the economic toll it takes on those paying the taxes. Or the fact that companies and taxpayers will find new ways to avoid the tax altogether.

Rickenhawk:

Are you overtaxed?

Did your tax rate go down in 2009 compared to 2008? HINT: Look at your tax returns.

That's why I used phrases like 'as a nation'

Federal Income taxes make up a tiny portion of the taxes we all pay, either directly or indirectly.

Our government has become very fond of taxing business. They either don't realize who ULTIMATELY gets that tab, or they don't care. I'm betting it's the latter. Just makes for better PR than taking it straight out of your check.

Anyway, to get back to what I was talking about... remember those last major tax cuts... 2003. Everyone over there insists those tax cuts did irreparable harm to federal finances. Revenues were supposed to collapse.

Show me where it happened. When and where did federal revenues decline after those tax cuts?

The truth is federal revenue grew quite a bit after those 2003 tax cuts. It even outpaced GDP growth by quite a bit. And GDP was growing pretty nicely back in those days.

Tell me how that's possible?

What difference does it make if Rick thinks he is over taxed or not? Totally irrelevant. If you don't feel you are taxed enough feel free to donate a larger portion of your income. You can even write it off on next years taxes. If tax cuts don't work, why did the chosen one cut taxes? To spur the economy and therefore increase revenue. It has worked every time. Thanks to Rick for simplifying my view on tax revenue. Sometimes I forget that simple minds are confused by even basic economic rules.

Uh oh....

Rickenhawk wrote:

Kyle, if you increase the budget, the only way to even break even on the deficit is raise taxes.

Stevo:

How can you explain what your mentor, Rickenhawk, posted on this very thread?

Here's a thread I started last year:

http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=72955


Obama's tax cuts were larger than any cuts during the Bush administration. Yet the wingnuts cry "socialism."

And Rickenhawk states that Obama has to raise taxes.

Hmmmmmm.


Oh, and Stevo: I've forgotten more about economics than you and your mentor will ever know.

Bob I seriously doubt that you have forgotten more about economics than I will ever know. That is just silly talk. If you take the statement of raising taxes in context you will understand that it means increasing tax revenue, not necessarily individual income taxes. As has been stated on MC.com numerous times, not all tax revenue is generated through individual income tax.

Steve's Mentor wrote:

Our government has become very fond of taxing business.

Pssst. Rickenhawk, U.S. corporate tax rates have not changed since 1993. I'm sure you knew that though.

Stevo wrote:

Bob I seriously doubt that you have forgotten more about economics than I will ever know.

I'm pretty sure I have. Let's break it down.

(1) I have forgotten more about economics than Rickenhawk will ever know.

(2) Rickenhawk is Steve's mentor and knows more about economics than Steve.

(3) Therefore, I have forgotten more about economics than Steve will ever know.


It's really easy when you break it down.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/30/2010)]

Pssst. Rickenhawk, U.S. corporate tax rates have not changed since 1993. I'm sure you knew that though.

Ahh, yes, the only two taxes America faces are the straight individual and corporate income taxes.

Someone better tell this guy.

http://dailycaller.com/20...%E2%80%99/

Henry Waxman... a true tool among tools.

Anyway, Bob. I suspect there's a thing or two that Andrew Sullivan neglected to teach you about economics.

But I do notice that you still haven't shown me that decline in federal revenue after the 2003 tax cuts. It has to be in there somewhere, doesn't it, professor?

Rickenhawk:

I went to school to learn economics, I didn't scan right-wing blogs like you.

Why don't you explain why Obama has to raise taxes, since lowering taxes always reduces the deficit?

Rickenhawk wrote:

Kyle, if you increase the budget, the only way to even break even on the deficit is raise taxes.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (4/30/2010)]

And in other KORN news...

Bob L, CEO of "Hay is my Forte, Inc.", has just won the his 5th JD Powers Consumers Choice award for best straw men in initial quality. "Hay is my Forte, Inc." is known for their highly and tightly fabricated straw men using only virgin recycled organic malt barley straw which is grown in the Valley of Insanity, ND. The Valley of Insanity is known for a unique potassium soil mineral with a double oxygen bond KO=OK. This mineral gives Hay is my Forte's straw men that one-of-a-kind shredded wheat look.

Next week, Hay is my Forte and Mr L. will make an appearance with his straw men in the "will it float" segment of the David Letterman show.

Hey Ricardo, you figure out your W-4 yet for 2010?

So is that were Rick's been buying them from for all of these years?

Steve Z said:

If you don't feel you are taxed enough feel free to donate a larger portion of your income. You can even write it off on next years taxes.

What the? Do you mean donate to charity?

Wendy, I'm sure your confusion boils down to your simple mind being confused by even basic tax rules.

No Wendy, if you refer back in this post Rick wrote that he felt that the nation as a whole is overtaxed. Bob's response was "Rick are you over taxed? Did your taxes go down?" or something along those lines. You get the idea. My suggestion, if anyone feels under taxed, that person may donate to the government, or charity which ever you would like to call it. The money just pays for entitlements anyway. I guess there wouldn't be much point in writing them off on next years taxes if that person felt under taxed though.

Bob, since I don't even know Rick I find it doubtful that he could possibly be my mentor. Should I gather from your statements that anyone that agrees with your point of view would be your mentor then? You may well have forgotten a great deal about economics, that would explain why you would attempt to argue with me. I only stated economic truths. You do remember the formula for GDP, don't you Bob?

[This message has been edited by Steve Z (4/30/2010)]

Steve Z,

You can't write off extra tax payments. If you pay in more tax than you legally owe you get a refund which is generally taxed in the year you get it so you don't get any extra net benefit. Of course I'm talking about the federal refund with respect to your state tax return (if you live in a state that allows your federal tax paid as a deduction; I don't) and the state refund with respect to your federal tax return. Perhaps tax law is not your forte.

If you're talking about charities then, yeah, it would be a tax deduction.

Denise,

Funny!

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (4/30/2010)]

Thanks Wendy, and no tax law is not my forte. I know only enough to get myself in trouble. Economics on the other hand...

Why don't you explain why Obama has to raise taxes, since lowering taxes always reduces the deficit?

As a great man once said...

Now if Rickenhawk could only figure out the difference between actual results and projections.

Just trying to flesh out that difference for you, Bob. To make Obamacare 'reduce' the deficit on paper (aka 'projection') he had to raise taxes.

Unless you've been in a coma for the last 6 months or so, you'd have a tough time arguing that Rick thinks all those Obamacare tax increases and accounting gimmicks will result in real-world (aka 'actual') reduction of deficits.

All that noise aside... still no answer to my question. I asked a very simple question. I guess the answer, unless I missed it, was that you're a very smart person, followed by another question.

If tax cuts always = less revenue, it should be pretty simple to provide evidence of that during the last round of major cuts in 2003. What happened to federal revenue after those cuts?

Preventative care and early diagnosis will save the taxpayers so much money.

I think it was the NEJM that published an article a couple years ago that basically said preventative care was a money loser overall.

That's not to say it's not worth it. But it's not a solution to the financial problems we have in health care.

Here you go Rick:

http://content.nejm.org/c...8/7/661/F1

http://content.nejm.org/c...8/7/661#F1

Some preventative maintenance is cost effective while other is not. I personally go to the health fair every year to keep tabs on Cholesterol and other blood counts. On the other hand I have yet to do a PSA screen due to age. I think the real measure should be the outcome regardless of cost. If preventative maintenance saves lives that is what is really important.