Just how far are we going

[FlattopMike]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/FlattopMike/ScreenHunter_01Jan261602.gif

 

This is a page from the actual report.

It shows a net decrease in the deficit of $56 billion by 2013. (I added the arrow)

 

Here is the link if you care to check it out yourself.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf

[Shelby]

health care and medical costs ,,this is so stupid it's not provideing need'd mediacal care for our people it's the bloat'd prices charge'd by all involve'd

that makes it so expensive

 

take hospitals a room that was built by a donation 10 years ago is still makeing them $3k to $6k a day , a tyanol cost $.50 cents,, they charge $12.00 for a single pill , you can't take your meds why cause they can charge you 100 times more for theirs

 

and doc's listen to this, for 2 months i have had problems with dizzyness and virtgo , ok the doc says we have to try this first , then this and then some thing else step by step,, sort of like a game don't matter what any exam says if one was done and it wasn't , first meds did nothing,so i call and he says ok try this,, 3 weeks later i say doc this ain't helping at all,, ok try this,,well this just happen'd to be Diazepam wt.... , diazepam certianly is not a med for vertigo or dizzyness in fact the main side effect of it is dizzyness and vertigo , i call his nurse and she says WTH did you give you that for ,,your gona have to ask him about that , any way i stop'd takeing it and feel much better,,the doc could care less one way or another as long as he gets his moneys

 

long and short of it is people need to be require'd to earn what they charge not just do so cause the traffic will bare it , with the only concern they have is how much they can get into their own pocket , thats whats wrong with health care , it's not the program but the people stealing from it

[lmwii]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/FlattopMike/ScreenHunter_01Jan261602.gif

 

This is a page from the actual report.

It shows a net decrease in the deficit of $56 billion by 2013. (I added the arrow)

 

Here is the link if you care to check it out yourself.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf

you're right, the report states that there is a projected reduction in the deficit under the plan. spending goes up, but so do taxes and projected revenue. my post was not clear on that. the problem is that it increases government spending enormously, and HOPES to generate revenue to offset that. you have to make assumptions when projecting results, but the cbo has doubts - from the same report, page 15-16:

 

Those longer-term calculations reflect an assumption

that the provisions of the reconciliation proposal and H.R. 3590 are enacted

and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not

the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate

mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently

been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid

reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently

under consideration by the Congress.

 

The reconciliation proposal and H.R. 3590 would maintain and put into

effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long

period of time. Under current law, payment rates for physicians’ services in

Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline

further in subsequent years; the proposal makes no changes to those

provisions. At the same time, the legislation includes a number of

provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of

Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many

providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of

ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). The

projected longer-term savings for the legislation also reflect an assumption

that the Independent Payment Advisory Board established by H.R. 3590

would be fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that

would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation.

 

Under the legislation, CBO expects that Medicare spending would increase

significantly more slowly during the next two decades than it has increased

during the past two decades (per beneficiary, after adjusting for inflation). It

is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of spending could be

achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater

efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to

care or the quality of care. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite

different if key provisions of the legislation were ultimately changed or not

fully implemented.

[averse]

Our standard of living is SO much higher than 20 or 50 years ago. I wonder if part of our problem is that what we expect as "standard options" in our homes account for so many people feeling money poor. Internet, cable, computers, televisions, microwaves, etc... it all costs money if you want to have it. I see way too many people looking to money and things to fulfill their lives, which is a dangerous trap, imo.

 

As far as making changes, I focus on what *I* can do to make my life a better quality, rather than expecting someone who lives 2283 miles away from me to make my life better.

Edited January 27, 2011 by averse

[Shelby]

Our standard of living is SO much higher than 20 or 50 years ago. I wonder if part of our problem is that what we expect as "standard options" in our homes account for so many people feeling money poor. Internet, cable, computers, televisions, microwaves, etc... it all costs money if you want to have it. I see way too many people looking to money and things to fulfill their lives, which is a dangerous trap, imo.

 

As far as making changes, I focus on what *I* can do to make my life a better quality, rather than expecting someone who lives 2283 miles away from me to make my life better.

 

 

most of you younger guys have no idea what liveing was like 50 years ago , the fact is we had it better then you do with all you tv, computers , internet and what ever

 

first off let me start off by saying we're talking about old people , people 66 or older people that have spent their lives trying to get ready for this day, knowing that their way of life was about to make a change,, and not a change for the better , you talk about tv, internet , cell phns etc , i can show you a great many retire'd people that do not have such items cause they can't aford them .

 

some seem to think that the number of people retireing each yr is steady,, that is just not so,, we're on the down side of the largest surge of retires ever seen,, this was because of the return of soldiers from WW2 and a what was call''d a baby boom , SS was create'd and was in shape to handle this increase untill the gov start'd to barrow the funds or more correctly say they STOLE the moneys , and have spend the last 30 years makeing up lie's to cover up the fact they stole the moneys and are useing it for things it was never intend'd for

 

another fact that isn't well known is the 20 yr cycle , whats that you say well it's the time it takes for you to be born and have kids of your own , what does that mean well for one the so call'd baby boomers influx will be follow'd by a much lighter influx of people of age to retire for several yrs

[Shelby]

this is the sort of thing that gets passed around as truth, and it is false. the total we have spent on iraq and afghanistan since 2001 would merely cancel out the budget deficit for 2010. just one year of our budget deficit, to say nothing of the trade deficits that we add to annually, or every other year that we run in the red.

 

cost of war:

http://costofwar.com/en/

 

2010:

http://www.dailyfina...tions/19675849/

 

 

 

i don't follow you are you saying that our spending for the wars makes no diff if they paid us back or not ?

as i recall it the agreement was they paid our cost plus so much a month for being t here like $95 million a month,, seems like that would be a hefty amount after 10 years , and how ever much should make a fair size'd dent in or national debt

 

as i recall at the time we start'd the war we were in the red already and Iraq was in the blk for a hefty amount ,but we did not recive any espense $$

[lmwii]

what i mean is this - even if we got back every dime we spent in iraq AND afghanistan since 2001 it wouldn't even cover our deficit from last year. it wouldn't pay off any debt, it wouldn't offset trade deficits. our budget is so out of control that 10 years worth of war spending (1.15 trillion or so dollars) would not quite cover what we overspent in just 2010 (1.29 trillion.) we have spent a huge amount on iraq and afghanistan and it would be great if we could get it back, but we are so far over budget that even getting back every bit of that money cannot cover our deficit for a single year.

[Shelby]

I can only say this ,, what my kids and g-kids owe me is liken'd to the national debt,, if i was to recive any part of it back it'd deff be of help

 

and this war thing is not just for the last 9 years it start'd in 1991 so that is 20 years of owe'd espences or did we forget about desert storm

[Shelby]

we're starting to get way off topic here,, the main thing i was implying is the over all cost of liveing going up every where and every thing , not just SS and retirement costs

 

those makeing $100-200k a yr , won't notice it ,sure the amount they put into saveings or stocks or hedge funds will drop but,, they are still not gona worry about how much they spend for food this month

 

but what about those of us makeing $12-$24 k a yr , to us a food cost increase of 30% is a burden we can't carry , a vehicle reg cost increase of 100% is money taken from the food budget that we have to have in order to feed our selves and children ,cause the truth is there is no left over moneys for saveings or stock buying

[FlattopMike]

we're starting to get way off topic here,, the main thing i was implying is the over all cost of liveing going up every where and every thing , not just SS and retirement costs

 

those makeing $100-200k a yr , won't notice it ,sure the amount they put into saveings or stocks or hedge funds will drop but,, they are still not gona worry about how much they spend for food this month

 

but what about those of us makeing $12-$24 k a yr , to us a food cost increase of 30% is a burden we can't carry , a vehicle reg cost increase of 100% is money taken from the food budget that we have to have in order to feed our selves and children ,cause the truth is there is no left over moneys for saveings or stock buying

 

That's why there needs to be a progressive tax rate.

30% hurts a lot more for some one making $25 compared to someone making $250k.

For some reason, a lot of people can't seem to understand that.

[lmwii]

That's why there needs to be a progressive tax rate.

30% hurts a lot more for some one making $25 compared to someone making $250k.

For some reason, a lot of people can't seem to understand that.

we have a progressive tax rate.

Marginal Tax Rate	
--------Single------------------Married-----------------Married/Separately------Head of Household
10%	$0 – $8,375	        $0 – $16,750	        $0 – $8,375	        $0 – $11,950
15%	$8,376 – $34,000	$16,751 – $68,000	$8,376 – $34,000	$11,951 – $45,550
25%	$34,001 – $82,400	$68,001 – $137,300	$34,001 – $68,650	$45,551 – $117,650
28%	$82,401 – $171,850	$137,301 – $209,250	$68,651 – $104,625	$117,651 – $190,550
33%	$171,851 – $373,650	$209,251 – $373,650	$104,626 – $186,825	$190,551 - $373,650
35%	$373,651+	        $373,651+	        $186,826+	        $373,651+

Edited January 27, 2011 by lmwii

[patra_is_here]

yeah and we need to keep the progressive tax (i think that' what the previous poster was getting at). flat-tax seems like a bad system.

[Boosted77.]

This is all the fault of the NWO that Bush senior was proposing a few years ago; that the Illuminati has been proposing and pushing for over 300 years. It is to break the back of the US so that we will give up our sovereignty and join the rest of the world that is falling head first into socialism. It is the purposeful destruction of the value of the dollar. If you disagree, then you need to study what is really going on globally right now. It will usher in the reign of the AntiChrist who will say to have all the answers to our problems. Paper money will be done away with and everyone small and great will be forced to take a mark (microchip implant) or you will not be allowed to buy/sell/trade. They want this done globally by 2017. This is a FACT. This is not religion, this is reality and Henry Kissinger will confirm everything I just said by his own quotes.

[lmwii]

[FlattopMike]

It will usher in the reign of the AntiChrist

 

That's all I needed to read.

So much for an intellectual discussion.

[Shelby]

ah i think we're safe for a couple 100 years or so