p>How much was the Big Dig going to cost… $2 Billion and what did it actually cost… $21.93 Billion.
<
p>How about this projected cost…
<
p>
March 6, 2005 – The Congressional Budget Office has updated its projection of the cost of the new Medicare program and has increased the cost estimate to $70 billion over the 2006-2015 period – about $54 billion due to increased cost estimates for the drug program. They now estimate the deficit for that period to total $2.6 trillion.
<
p>But that was back in 2005 and the error of even that prediction is way off.
<
p>Remember this quote…
<
p>
However, even with the stimulus package, we’re expecting that the unemployment rate will still be at high levels. According to Obama’s stimulus plan, in 2009, it will be just below 8 percent and in 2010 it will be 7 percent, but that might be a low estimate.
p>Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in September (-263,000), and the unemployment rate (9.8 percent) continued to trend up, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses were in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and government.
<
p>Another prediction… this bill from the House is DOA.
What does the Big Dig have to do with any of this? The price of tea in China? etc?
<
p>I have heard that the CBO actually over-estimated the cost of Medicare part D. It’s still a boondoggle, insofar as the gov’t can’t negotiate for lower prices, but still … http://www.rollcall.com/news/3…
Would need to see someone else confirm this before I believe it.
<
p>And as liberals predicted … the stimulus package should have been bigger, and should have included more actual stimulus. Duh.
<
p>None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand, but nice hijack.
johndsays
Predicting that this new House bill will be neutral or actually save money is preposterous. I gave a few examples of their ineptitude. Even the recent “cash for clunkers” showed how WRONG they are when they do anything. I will take bets that the Healthcare reform bill will cost far more then they project!
jimcsays
I hate to say it, but JohnD is probably right. The costs will be enormous, and will go well beyond the laboratory estimate, no matter how faithfully it was calculated.
<
p>In the first year or two, the costs will be staggering, and unrecoverable.
<
p>Within five years, I’m guessing, we’ll see cost reductions. In the longer term, definitely, if we do this right.
<
p>
arlingtondansays
“If we do this right” is definitely the key phrase, here. At first glance, not having read the fine print, it seems that this bill is exactly as good as the negotiators that HHS puts in place to set the rates. A competent, motivated negotiator – someone who understands that a paper dressing-gown does not cost $50 – will be able to get reasonable rates out of the health providers and out of insurers. Since we’re already paying double the percentage of GDP that every other developed nation in the world pays for health care, “getting reasonable rates” by definition means bringing down costs and thus reigning in the real problem.
<
p>So long as Obama and Sebelius are in office, I’m sure the negotiators will be good enough. That gives the country until 2016 to figure out how to prevent some future administration from reversing whatever progress has been made under the Obama administration.
<
p>Realistically, if the President of 2017 were to either leave critical positions in HHS unfilled, or else appoint people who are guaranteed to overlook the law and the national interest in order to guarantee higher dividends for corporate campaign contributors, then we might have a problem. But again, unless there’s something wrong with the bill that isn’t immediately obvious, even that future problem would be less severe than the full-scale crisis that we’re currently facing.
neilsagansays
instead of the one we have with negotiated rates would save Americans an additional $85 billion dollars over ten years.
Reduces costs…
<
p>How much was the Big Dig going to cost… $2 Billion and what did it actually cost… $21.93 Billion.
<
p>How about this projected cost…
<
p>
<
p>But that was back in 2005 and the error of even that prediction is way off.
<
p>Remember this quote…
<
p>
<
p> THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — SEPTEMBER 2009
<
p>Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in September (-263,000), and the unemployment rate (9.8 percent) continued to trend up, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses were in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and government.
<
p>Another prediction… this bill from the House is DOA.
<
p>PS Do you want to buy a bridge?
<
p>
What does the Big Dig have to do with any of this? The price of tea in China? etc?
<
p>I have heard that the CBO actually over-estimated the cost of Medicare part D. It’s still a boondoggle, insofar as the gov’t can’t negotiate for lower prices, but still …
http://www.rollcall.com/news/3…
Would need to see someone else confirm this before I believe it.
<
p>And as liberals predicted … the stimulus package should have been bigger, and should have included more actual stimulus. Duh.
<
p>None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand, but nice hijack.
Predicting that this new House bill will be neutral or actually save money is preposterous. I gave a few examples of their ineptitude. Even the recent “cash for clunkers” showed how WRONG they are when they do anything. I will take bets that the Healthcare reform bill will cost far more then they project!
I hate to say it, but JohnD is probably right. The costs will be enormous, and will go well beyond the laboratory estimate, no matter how faithfully it was calculated.
<
p>In the first year or two, the costs will be staggering, and unrecoverable.
<
p>Within five years, I’m guessing, we’ll see cost reductions. In the longer term, definitely, if we do this right.
<
p>
“If we do this right” is definitely the key phrase, here. At first glance, not having read the fine print, it seems that this bill is exactly as good as the negotiators that HHS puts in place to set the rates. A competent, motivated negotiator – someone who understands that a paper dressing-gown does not cost $50 – will be able to get reasonable rates out of the health providers and out of insurers. Since we’re already paying double the percentage of GDP that every other developed nation in the world pays for health care, “getting reasonable rates” by definition means bringing down costs and thus reigning in the real problem.
<
p>So long as Obama and Sebelius are in office, I’m sure the negotiators will be good enough. That gives the country until 2016 to figure out how to prevent some future administration from reversing whatever progress has been made under the Obama administration.
<
p>Realistically, if the President of 2017 were to either leave critical positions in HHS unfilled, or else appoint people who are guaranteed to overlook the law and the national interest in order to guarantee higher dividends for corporate campaign contributors, then we might have a problem. But again, unless there’s something wrong with the bill that isn’t immediately obvious, even that future problem would be less severe than the full-scale crisis that we’re currently facing.
instead of the one we have with negotiated rates would save Americans an additional $85 billion dollars over ten years.