paying for health care reform

well you have to hand it to nancy pelosi for her ability to twist arms and cut deals right to the end in order to get the health care reform bill passed by 3 votes. we may not be able to sustain another bloated entitlement program but just try to "take away" the peoples health care once it is enacted.

of course we dont start seeing too many benefits right away, but we sure do get to start paying for it. thats right, the federal government will be collecting taxes for 10 years to pay for 6 years of health care. and you WILL pay. in fact part of the bill adds 16000+ IRS agents to the federal payroll to be sure you do.

to better understand the budgetary gimmicks being employed in order to show that this reform bill will save the country money, check out this piece from douglas holtz-eakin in the ny times. he is the former director of the congressional budget office so im assuming he knows what hes talking about. heres his short answer as to why the current CBO analysis shows the healthcare reform bill saving money:

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out. (emphasis mine)

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

since were talking about federal entitlement programs, did anyone find it a tad ironic that the same week that the healthcare reform bill was signed into law that a report came out stating that for the 1st time social security "will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016."

im betting that social security wont be allowed to fail because, well, just try taking away someones benefits after they are already receiving them.

olympic lies

firstly, i dont know why i didnt write anything during the recent winter olympics. i watched more olympic action this year than in years past and really enjoyed all of it. thank you to canada for putting on a great games.

the one thing i wanted to comment on is directed at the post games analysis and commentary. heres the general theme - "the united states performed extremely well in the vancouver games hauling in the most medals with a total of 37. yeah, but, the united states has basically invented some olympic sports simply so they can win more medals."

so i had to look into the legitmacy of what will be named for the remainder of this posting as The Theory.

the three events that always seem to get mentioned during these statements are the snowboarding halfpipe, snowboard cross and skier cross.

snowboard halfpipe






ive listed the top 5 countries based on their average finish. however in regards to the number of competitors, on the mens side there were 6 countries that placed 4 snowboarders in the top 40 finishers. on the womens side the usa placed 4 snowboarders in the top 40 finishers but there were 5 other countries with 3 snowboarders in the top 40.

final tally, the rest of the world is equal to the usa for the number of competitive snowboarders and the usa placed 2nd (men) and 3rd (women) for average finish.

so for the halfpipe, The Theory is busted.

---------------------------------
snowboard cross







again the top 5 countries are listed based on the average finish of their athletes. for the men, 4 countries had 4 snowboarders finish in the top 40. for the women, 3 countries had 3+ snowboarders finish in the top 40.

final tally, again the rest of the world has an equal number of snowboarders competing in snowboard cross. the usa placed 3rd (men) and 6th (women) for average finish of their snowboarders.

so for snowboard cross, The Theory is busted.

------------------------------
skier cross






on the mens side there were 4 countries with 4 skiers finishing in the top 40. on the womens side there were 3 countries with 4 skiers finishing in the top 40. notably, the usa had Zero top 40 finshers on the womens side and the top finisher for the usa men was 23rd.

final tally, the rest of the world exceeds the usa for the number of top 40 athletes. the usa finished 13th (men) and Did Not Qualify (women) in regards to average finish of their skiers.

so for skier cross, The Theory is busted.


lets do a quick comparison. curling always catches everyones eye when the winter olympics comes around every four years before dropping off the collective radar again. this year canada took the gold medal for both mens and womens curling with records of 9-0 and 8-1 respectively. so who is inventing sports for their countries benefit?

so dont perpetuate The Theory and tell those spouting it that they are just plain WRONG!

health care reform and cost containment

since congress continues to dither with if, when and how they plan on passing the health care reform bill, lets dive back into it. in doing some research i came across some interesting figures in regards to costs of existing programs. this highlights why i believe that any kind of reform to the system needs to have cost controls in place.

united kingdom's national health service
when this program was created in 1946 to provide free health care to all citizens, it was estimated to cost ₤260 million. the actual cost turned out to be ₤358 million.

medicare - hospital insurance
this is the part A portion of medicare and when created in 1965 it was estimated to cost $9 billion in 1990. the actual costs in 1990 turned out to be $67 billion.

medicare - the entire program
in 1967 it was estimated that this entire program would cost the US taxpayer $12 billion. by the time 1990 rolled around, it actually cost $110 billion.

massachusetts commonwealth care
this is the most recent example and has been shown as a model for how health care reform could work on a national level. i say, its an example of how out of control the costs could get on a national level. the program started in 2006 and the estimated cost for 2008 was $472 million. it actually cost $628 million.


and what happens when the actual costs exceed the estimates? either you can increase taxes and continue to find the money to fund the program or certain individuals or services need to be cut. i know it makes some people furious to say this, but the second option is called rationing of care. heres a somewhat chilling quote from the british health minister when faced with this exact situation:

If the present [budget] estimates are not to be exceeded, services must be withheld which the community has proved it urgently needs—dental treatment and spectacles must be refused, beds must be closed, staff dismissed, and waiting lists already appallingly long must grow even longer. I do not think my colleagues will wish this to happen; I hope they will share my view that the additional money must be found to prevent its happening. But if they do not, I shall need their assistance in determining which services should be withheld and which developments cancelled.

how about one more? i will keep it local but use a non-healthcare related example. The Big Dig. this project essentially moved the bridge through downtown boston into a tunnel under the city. it was estimated to cost $2.6 billion. it ended up costing $22 billion. and the ceiling tiles fall down and kill people.


which leads us to todays debate. we are told by the president and congress that this health care reform bill will costs the taxpayer in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. based on the historical evidence, do you think this reform will cost more or less than $1 trillion? we know the answer already. without cost containment it will cost more than predicted, it will continue to grow and it will never go unfunded.