PelosiCare breaks the one trillion dollar mark over a decade

what's the bill for the 2 current wars? you have 30 seconds.....

could it be?

Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Tops $900 Billion, Report Finds - US News and World Report Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Tops $900 Billion, Report Finds
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted December 15, 2008

The U.S. government
has already spent $904 billion since 2001 to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both of those conflicts are far from over.
Click here to find out more!

And even if the number of combat troops declines as planned, the final price tag for the wars by 2018 will be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion, according to a study released by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan policy research group.

As President Bush returns from his final presidential tours of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the CSBA study warns that the additional burden of accrued interest payments could easily push that tab to $2.5 trillion, depending on how the cost is financed.....article from 2008...it costs 390,000 dollars a year for each soldier. not a problem for you liberpublicans is it?

***** and moan about helping our own, but you're ok with waging war while feeding the mi complex and the coffin industry. that is brilliant!

Two trillion here, two trillion there. We don't have it, but they're going to spend it anyway. You and the war mongers Bob, you're birds of a feather, you just have different special interests.

***** and moan about helping our own, but you're ok with waging war while feeding the mi complex and the coffin industry. that is brilliant!

Bob, I am concerned that you and others think it is ok to fund expensive social programs because the various wars are expensive. I get your point, but you have to admit that in forty years we will not be paying for wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, but our taxpayers, many of them yet unborn, will be paying for whatever health plan becomes law. The price tag of the plan is a legitimate concern ans ultimately has nothing to do with how much any military program costs.

Actually it has everything to do with it. When a government forces citizens to pay taxes and spends the money on corporate handouts and pointless wars (and the resulting profits for some) at the expense of programs that benefit the taxpayer, that's a problem. If I don't have to pay for corporate welfare (sometimes dressed up as neccessary war) I will be fine with no public health insurance option.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually it has everything to do with it. When a government forces citizens to pay taxes and spends the money on corporate handouts and pointless wars (and the resulting profits for some) at the expense of programs that benefit the taxpayer, that's a problem. If I don't have to pay for corporate welfare (sometimes dressed up as neccessary war) I will be fine with no public health insurance option.
Posted via Mobile Device

So, we should just shut up and pay, price be damned, if the program in question is to your liking?

You are shutting up and paying for wars and bailouts, no? So what's the difference? Which is better for the country, medical insurance and health care for all citizens, or the other stuff? A trillion bucks over ten years is a pittance compared to what we have risked to keep Wall Street fat.

You are shutting up and paying for wars and bailouts, no? So what's the difference? Which is better for the country, medical insurance and health care for all citizens, or the other stuff? A trillion bucks over ten years is a pittance compared to what we have risked to keep Wall Street fat.

I'm shutting up? Actually, no, I vote and write elected officials frequently. I am not debating the import of health care, only pointing out that it is foolhardy to accept a health care package (or any other expenditure for that matter) at any cost with the rationale that another expenditure is expensive. You don't think cost matters? Don't you wish, for example, that the architects of medicare and social security would have taken measures at their conception to keep them solvent in reality instead of on paper?

We cannot afford the war or the healthcare. I would end both and get started on paying down. But the cold hard truth is that war is an allowed action of the Federal governement under the Constitution and forcing healthcare on us is not. So one strike on the war, two on healthcare.

Welcome to TennCare's Website

TennCare is a government-operated medical assistance program designed for people who are eligible for Medicaid, as well as for some children who do not have insurance. TennCare is a Medicaid waiver, or demonstration, program. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the use of managed-care principles can generate sufficient savings to enable the state to cover more than Medicaid eligible people.

TennCare provides health coverage for 1.2 million low-income children, pregnant women and disabled Tennesseans with an annual budget of $7 billion.

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/data_pubs/rates-costs/cap-rates/pcc-0911.pdf
estimated population of Oregon is just under 4MM = approx. $1B/yr.



Reform has to have costs under control as well as provide sufficient coverage for those who choose to insure their health. This should start at the State Ins. Comm. and Physician Offices, Laboratories and Pharmaceutical Cos.

Tort Reform should be a part of this, but highly dubious that will pass any time soon.

Just do the math on these three states. Oregon has had their plan in place for over a decade; however, has always actively denied procedures based upon ones health and age, family history, etc. Really, it's no different than the Canadian Plan.

These types of plans take away your rights as opposed to enhancing and protecting.

I am hearing more Dems are not for ObamaCare because they are recognizing these facts alone.

If I had to choose between war vs. insuring America, of course, I choose insuring America.....however, comparing the two is apples and oranges.

We really just can't afford anything right now. Is this why President Obama isn't proposing an implementation until 2013? And, that date is ironically after the 2012 election.......why the delay? How many Americans will die between now and 2013 because they have a pre-ex and can't get coverage, thus seeking medical care??

If TN's budget is $7B, you can't bet the National Budget for a public option will far surpass that and that equates to higher, much higher taxes.

I'm shutting up? Actually, no, I vote and write elected officials frequently. I am not debating the import of health care, only pointing out that it is foolhardy to accept a health care package (or any other expenditure for that matter) at any cost with the rationale that another expenditure is expensive. You don't think cost matters? Don't you wish, for example, that the architects of medicare and social security would have taken measures at their conception to keep them solvent in reality instead of on paper?

I never said I am willing to accept any cost. However, 100 billion a year out of a 3.5 trillion dollars plus annual budget I am willing to accept.

I never said I am willing to accept any cost. However, 100 billion a year out of a 3.5 trillion dollars plus annual budget I am willing to accept.

I would only be willing to accept this if Congress and Obama first detail cuts in the annual 2010 budget equal to the 850 billion we're projected to spend that isn't there. (I'll go ahead and forgive Obama for the 1.2 trillion he spent this year he didn't have.)

Spending 100 billion you borrow (obviously) costs a lot more than the base amount of the loan long term.

You are shutting up and paying for wars and bailouts, no? So what's the difference? Which is better for the country, medical insurance and health care for all citizens, or the other stuff? A trillion bucks over ten years is a pittance compared to what we have risked to keep Wall Street fat.

There won't be any tax revenue if nobody is rich.

There won't be any tax revenue if nobody is rich.

That's irrelevant, but I'll play along. Are you saying that adding an amount equal to 1/35th of the U.S. budget, or simply re-prioritizing spending to absorb that amount into our existing budget is going to rid the country of rich people?

That's irrelevant, but I'll play along. Are you saying that adding an amount equal to 1/35th of the U.S. budget, or simply re-prioritizing spending to absorb that amount into our existing budget is going to rid the country of rich people?

Nope. I'm saying we could not afford to let the financial markets collapse.



30A Skunkape is right:

I get your point, but you have to admit that in forty years we will not be paying for wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, but our taxpayers, many of them yet unborn, will be paying for whatever health plan becomes law.

And particularly:

The price tag of the plan is a legitimate concern ans ultimately has nothing to do with how much any military program costs.

I think it certainly has something to do with it - there's always money for war and killing, but domestic spending is somehow money down a rathole. :roll:

How exactly do you think we WON'T be paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 40 years?

Is the over 900 BILLION we have spent on them (and counting) somehow not part of our deficit?

I disagree. Military spending has nothing to do with healthcare reform spending. We already spend more money domestically than we do on "war and killing."

In 40 years our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will be over.
In 40 years any government programs we enact now in the name of reform will be growing from their initial underestimated costs to an ever higher cost level with no end in sight.

I think it certainly has something to do with it - there's always money for war and killing, but domestic spending is somehow money down a rathole. :roll:

How exactly do you think we WON'T be paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 40 years?

Is the over 900 BILLION we have spent on them (and counting) somehow not part of our deficit?

You mean we could have nearly paid for both wars with the one stimulus bill passed earlier this year? Wow.

Winnie, I find it puzzling that a conservative believes we should abandon free market principles just because the media tells us it's for our own good. In the long run, I'm not convinced it is for our own good. More likely it is a disastrous precedent.

There are many free market advocates who believe that the results of these bailouts are an illusion and that we have simply re-inflated the bubble. Much of the market run-up of late was dirven by interest free printed government cash and job cuts. It's hard to see how this bodes well for our long term economic prospects. There's a good chance we're going to be feeling the pain of this type of socialism for the remainder of America's death throes as leading world power. Twenty Four trillion dollars were potentially put at risk to put a bandaid on a leg that has gange green. We should have let them fail and undergone a real change. We might have learned something.

And no, 30Askunkape is not right. The precedent that some firms on Wall Street must never be allowed to fail and that markets must be propped up artificially is something we will pay for again and again until the American people get some lobbyists to rival those of Goldman Sachs. Health insurance for all Americans is a drop in the bucket and of much greater utility to the country as a whole.

Winnie, I find it puzzling that a conservative believes we should abandon free market principles just because the media tells us it's for our own good. In the long run, I'm not convinced it is for our own good. More likely it is a disastrous precedent.

There are many free market advocates who believe that the results of these bailouts are an illusion and that we have simply re-inflated the bubble. Much of the market run-up of late was dirven by interest free printed government cash and job cuts. It's hard to see how this bodes well for our long term economic prospects. There's a good chance we're going to be feeling the pain of this type of socialism for the remainder of America's death throes as leading world power. Twenty Four trillion dollars were potentially put at risk to put a bandaid on a leg that has gange green. We should have let them fail and undergone a real change. We might have learned something.

And no, 30Askunkape is not right. The precedent that some firms on Wall Street must never be allowed to fail and that markets must be propped up artificially is something we will pay for again and again until the American people get some lobbyists to rival those of Goldman Sachs. Health insurance for all Americans is a drop in the bucket and of much greater utility to the country as a whole.

I assume you are calling me a conservative. I never said anything about nor do I believe in abandoning free market principles.

It sounds like you would like to see that happen regarding health insurance? I don't really follow your logic very well...obviously.

We disagree about the connection between defense spending and proposed health insurance reform spending. The logic of using the fact that money is currently being spent on one thing as a reason to spend even more money on something else is faulty. That type of reasoning is probably why so many Americans live in debt.

I also disagree that the cost of the currently proposed health insurance reform plans are "a drop in the bucket." I hope we won't find out who is correct.

I do think you are correct that between TARP and "the stimulus," we are prolonging the recession. Much like the difference between ripping the bandage off or waiting until the adhesive weakens on it's own.

One thing is for sure, at the federal level we are spending far more than we are taking in. The solution it seems is to spend even more. I really don't get that logic. It still amazes me that a president of the united states can come out with a long term ten year budget forcast that predicts deficits every single year, and nobody bats a single eye lash. If Obama isn't going to get spending under control, I hope his time in the WH is short lived and we get someone in there that can. The current standard is not sustainable.

I assume you are calling me a conservative. I never said anything about nor do I believe in abandoning free market principles.

It sounds like you would like to see that happen regarding health insurance? I don't really follow your logic very well...obviously.

We disagree about the connection between defense spending and proposed health insurance reform spending. The logic of using the fact that money is currently being spent on one thing as a reason to spend even more money on something else is faulty. That type of reasoning is probably why so many Americans live in debt.

I also disagree that the cost of the currently proposed health insurance reform plans are "a drop in the bucket." I hope we won't find out who is correct.

I do think you are correct that between TARP and "the stimulus," we are prolonging the recession. Much like the difference between ripping the bandage off or waiting until the adhesive weakens on it's own.

I can't make people understand the moral dillema of spending many times more on the military than any other nation but being the only western country without universal health care, and I can't make anyone see the problem with giving Wall Street money whenever they screw up while average people are bankrupted and see a larger and larger percentage of their income going to health care costs with no end in sight. You either see this as a problem or you don't.

I never said I was a proponent of free market at all costs. But I've seen you champion free market solutions for health care, so I assumed you'd like them for Wall street as well.

Sadly we live in the real world and not some libertarian utopia as I'd like it to be. I understand that people expect a nanny state. I just feel if we're going to have that, we might as well get some of the nice parts as well, instead of just the wire-tapping, etc. If you want to start an island with no social security, medicare, public education, etc. I am willing to live on it.

Per news reports...

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to unveil a health overhaul bill Thursday that includes the public health insurance option favored by her party's centrists.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) will introduce a plan similar to what a group of Blue Dog Democrats negotiated in July to get a healthcare bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The proposal calls for the officials who run the public plan to negotiate rates individually with physicians and hospitals.

Now we will have an opportunity to see what the bill will actually look like. It is interesting to note that this is not the robust option that the Democratic Progressive Caucus wanted. Earlier in the negotiation, they said they would NOT vote for this version of the Public Option as they wanted single payer anyway and this was further from that then the "Medicare plus five" robust option. Something tells me they won't derail President Obama's #1 domestic issue, but they are already saying that they want to be able to vote on an amendment for the robust option.