Obama on Health Care: The Economic Case for Reform

Three things could significantly reduce costs in the current private health care system but it will never get done because it doesn’t make government takeover look attractive.
1. Tort reform – You won’t see this in ANY area especially from democrats considering the special interest contributions.
2. Limiting coverage – This won’t happen either in the private system. Liberals have for years attacking HMOS for not proving enough choice and sued to get things like alternative medicine approval. Yet under government health care they’re already talking about limiting choice.
3. Illegal immigration – Stop paying for non-emergency illegal immigration health care.
Part of this burden is doctor/nurse availability. If 20 million people come to the US and 0 are doctors it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out its a problem.

HMOs have had decades to restrain health care costs with virtually no government rein. the fact that healthcare in Britain costs $2,700 a year with everyone covered versus $6,700 here with 60 million uninsured or underinsured show that choice is the least of our worries.
the real drive to costs is a system that rewards # of procedures and transactions over paid general practitioners for actual healthy results. so while we got sicker and more obese, costs go up and for what.
cut the # of choices and procedures that have no return on health. you call it rationing, it pay for performance. healthcare has gotten fat off everyone misery. about time that stops.

and should we also have government paid for date nights for those who cant afford it as well?

Theo also a lot of the tests and procedures you talk about are related to tort reform. They are referred to as “defensive medicine” as CYA from malpractice lawsuits. Defensive medicine not including litigation and litigation insurance is estimated at 100-200 billion a year.

Cyros:”1. Tort reform – You won’t see this in ANY area especially from democrats considering the special interest contributions.”
Why don’t Republicans bring that to the table? The few willing to compromise had an outsized impact on the stimulus bill (just one example is almost 10% of it went to the AMT tax cut – a Republican amendment to the bill).
“2. Limiting coverage – This won’t happen either in the private system. Liberals have for years attacking HMOS for not proving enough choice and sued to get things like alternative medicine approval. ”
It already happens in private coverage. And please provide a citation for liberals suing “to get things like alternative medicine approval.”

People who don’t have insurance or are here illegally get free medical care. The ones that are on Welfare also get Medicaid. They get their care and medicines free. I pay $1200.00 and get a lot less coverage. This is outrageous. Our country awards people who don’t work and penalizes does who do.

I will however provide you with a term you can do your own searching. “Patient’s bill of rights.”
Just because you are in denial or oblivious to history more than a few years old doesn’t mean everyone else is.

Cyros:”Sorry if partisans answer statements with questions I am not obliged to waste my time finding links for you.”
A link is not required, however your statement: “Liberals have for years attacking HMOS for not proving enough choice and sued to get things like alternative medicine approval” rings hollow to every person who has fought their HMO for anything – from standard allergy shots to ‘exotic’ asthma treatments like Singulair. I asked for more information, the case and where it was would do it (links are not allowed), to support your allegation before suggesting you are grossly exaggerating if not flat out lying – which calls into question the credibility of your opinion.

With democrats(and some republicans) before “evil big oil” it was “evil HMOs” for several years.
Things like the “patient’s bill of rights” and similar litigation were pushed and pushed.
Then once the private health care industry was successfully sabotaged including Bush’s horrible medicaid coverage they moved on to wreck another industry, “big oil.”

Cryos:”I will however provide you with a term you can do your own searching. “Patient’s bill of rights.”
Just because you are in denial or oblivious to history more than a few years old doesn’t mean everyone else is.”
Do you mean Senate Bill S.1052, introduced in 2001 (that failed)? It was NOT “su(ing) to get things like alternative medicine approval” as you wildly claimed. It also had no mention of “alternative medicine.”
I will just have to assume your nonsense about liberals suing for alternative medicine coverage is just exaggerated rantings. I would have though you’d have at least a nuisance lawsuit from the some hippy that got played up on Hannity; I didn’t realize you were improvising and making stuff up entirely.

Some may not like the facts, but the facts are clear. An increasing share of our economy is being wasted on an under-regulated, price gougin industry, that has needed reform for half a century. It is time to stop the destruction of many small businesses with health care costs. We cannot allow additional millions of our people to have no health insurance. Over one in ten Americans now cannot afford even basic insurance. It is a national disgrace!!

President Obama … the only man who can “save money” by spending trillions.

You know, at what point does the country just declare bankruptcy. QUIT printing money and spending every child’s child’s future. Every kid born in the US is in debt. I talked to a proud illegal alien with a newborn American citizen and I said, Dude, that kid owes the US govt. 100K. He didn’t know what I was talking about.

President Obama … the only man who can “save money” by spending trillions.
Posted by: Open-Mind | Jun 2, 2009 6:12:23 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another member of the NO NO NO fraternity. No matter what, not matter how serious the problem, no spending except for killing people in other countries.

BarefootBoy, America is already bankrupt. But the problem President Obama inherited, national debt over $10T, was created by out-of-control spending by Republican administrations that go all the way back to Ronald Regan. Making health care more affordable will reduce the percentage of national income spent on it, not increase it. Think in collective terms and long-term rather than me and mine here and now.

I am no big fan of lawyers but if I had major surgery I would go under anesthesia a little more relaxed knowing an attorney has my back if the surgeon tries to cut corners because he he or she has a dinner date. I worked in hospitals for years and I know most doctors are dedicated professionals but there are some that I wouldnt trust to babysit my children. Having said that I believe a national health plan could eventually cut the cost of malpractice insurance since a major portion of rewards are for providing future care for the afflicted patient. With national health, particularly single payer, those costs would be greatly decreased.

BarefootBoy, America is already bankrupt. But the problem President Obama inherited, national debt over $10T, was created by out-of-control spending by Republican administrations that go all the way back to Ronald Regan. Making health care more affordable will reduce the percentage of national income spent on it, not increase it. Think in collective terms and long-term rather than me and mine here and now.
Posted by: Kent | Jun 2, 2009 6:25:08 PM
===================
Obama is VOLUNTARILY increasing the deficit for things far beyond health care. Using Bush as an excuse works for naive people but other people know his keynesian economics using borrowing against the deficit is a backdoor way to ensure bigger government and higher taxes being a necessity.

I offered patient’s bill of righs as an example, starting point, and reference point.
However continue building your strawman jhw and ignore the bigger issue of laws and litigation to force greater choice in healthcare.

Cryos:”ignore the bigger issue of laws and litigation to force greater choice in healthcare. ”
The issue I was trying to point out was the common use of lies and exaggerations to cloud the issue, for example suggesting that a major problem is liberals “su(ing)to get things like alternative medicine approval.”
There are real issues and facts to be worked through, and when lies and baseless slander are injected into the debate it makes it harder to find a good solution.
I am not sure the issues you were trying to point out (that were supported by real facts, not liburl bashing fantasies).

This country needs to put together a COMPREHENSIVE and well THOUGHT OUT plan for health care reform. Despite President Obama’s pleas of urgency – nothing is more important that doing this correctly. We seem to be in the era of quick and dirty Obama politics. Its got to stop and we need to all get on board with a plan that most Americans can live with.
Obama wants to take advantage of the financial crisis to urge people to act quickly. He also wants this done before we get to mid-term election time for political reasons. We can’t rush to Obama’s timetable just to be convenient to what he wants. Its got to be about what we, the American people want.
A more than small part of this decison will be based on how much as a nation we feel we can afford right now. The Administration may think it can get by with sweeping social reform by printing up money and heavy borrowing – but most of us know better. We are already headed in way over our heads financially. We have been given this “sky is falling down” rhetoric from the Obama administration to get us to all let him spend us into oblivion. Bush did this too. We have got to slow down and think for a change.
Or is the new “change” in politics to act without thinking the problem through? Seems more often than not lately that we are getting more of that than we need.
A great deal can be accomplished with legislation that does not involve further commitment of our funds – not that we really have any left to commit. Rigorous regulation of the health care industry and insurers would cure a good part of the problem. Why re-invent the wheel when we can fix it? This is especially true when we cannot afford another wheel. The fact is that the administration does not want incremental reform. The administration wants a major act of sweeping reform – mainly so it can get it all done at once and get credit for it.
We fell for George Bush and his urgent timelines – and now we are getting it again from Barack Obama. When are we going to smarten up and not be led down the hysterical path and instead think on our own?

I need to add to my previous post that its way too early to be getting into the details of health care reform. We need to first decide if we want to, then how deeply involved we want to get. We then have to decide what plan(s) would be optimal to please the most Americans.
After that we need to put this package together in such a way as to be fair to everyone and not to make any segment pay more than its fair share.
To talk about single payer or socialized or privatized medicine – or a combination of all of the above is really way before its time. We’ve got to figure out what we can afford and how we’d like to live.
Sorry, but I feel like we are all being pushed way too quickly on every front – and there is no need to go like that. Is this about our welfare of about our President and politicians?

“Name ONE government program that is well-managed.” – The U.S. Postal Service.
LOL!!

Obama’s Heath Care Steering Committee or “Heath Care for America Now.org” – Who makes up this group? ACORN, NAACP, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, UFCW, SEIU, USACTION, NEA, NWLC, Communication Workers of America, National Council of LA RAZA, MOVEON.org, Americans United for Change, Campaign for Americas Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I’m sure most of these groups receive Obama stimulus money also. Maybe all these groups should consolidate into one and call themselves, “YOULOST” – Yesterdays Over U-Losers Obama’s Socialism Tomorrow). C’mon America! When are you going to wake up!

so lets offer free health care and open borders and we will be overun by illegals. how about we leave the existing arrangement in place, give tax credits to those who pay insurance,since they already pay for everyone elses health care and send the illegals home.make more doctors, and do away with lawsuits.

Obama wants to do for the health care industry what he’s done for the auto industry.
If that doesn’t frighten you, nothing can.

“how about we leave the existing arrangement in place” – Thats what a lot of folks say until they lose their job and get a serious illness. Then they try to obtain insurance from a private company. Its a non-starter because of the pre-existing condition. Those of us who are healthy and/or have good insurance should try a little empathy for those less fortunate.

Another word for national health is rationing. Senior citizens will have some faceless civil servant decide if they are worthy of an operation, there will be no “cost containment” however the only way to attempt it is through rationng. we have the best health care for the most people of any country in the world, or the history of man. Why would we vote to change it?

“Then they try to obtain insurance from a private company. Its a non-starter because of the pre-existing condition.”
MarkfromAtlanta- You know what happens then? They have to sell everything they own to pay into healthcare and then, when they don’t have anything left, then the low-income government insurance starts. So I guess you think it’s better to take everything everyone owns first from everyone, dish it out to politicians, and then see who gets sick?

Another word for national health is rationng. Some faceless civil servant will decide on the health care your parents get. Ask the Canadiens who are told that you are told old to have life saving or quality of life improving surgery- your life expectancy does not justify the cost. The only way to get cost containmenet is through rationing- and it still won’t work. How would you like your local hospital to run like the governement is running GM and the banks?

Jay-we don’t want Canadian and Great britan’s style of nationalized insurance, more like the Germans and Swiss…some socialized medicine countries have fabulous systems. The U.S. health care regime is beginning to out price most so rationing to them is better than nothing.

Obama Health Care Is Bad For Your Health.
President Obama has stated that the US is broke so he is now saying in order to pay for health care reform he needs to break his promise of lower taxes for 95% of the people and raise everyone’s taxes. The Congressional Budget Office analysis confirms the fact that even if taxes are raised there still would not be enough money to pay for the billions of dollars required to fund Obama’s government run health care program. Think about it Social Security and Medicare are going broke and instead of talking about how to fix Medicare and Social Security, President Obama is advocating another bloated and inefficient government program with no way to pay for it. It is unacceptable to raise taxes and put the US into further debt that will only do further harm to an already bad economy.
A Government run health care system will not only increase the cost of health care for everyone, it will reduce the quality of health care for all. Health care will need to be rationed like it is in every other Nation that has National health care. People will die standing in line waiting to seen by a doctor and be denied critical health care based on your “worth to society” as dictated by some faceless bureaucrat.
A recent Gallop poll shows that a majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health care plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. The bulk of those who are not covered by health insurance choose not to be covered and by law have access to health care in hospitals and clinics. So what “problem” is government trying to solve?
The only beneficiaries of a single payer government run health care program will be the government bureaucrats and union workers who will get the lions share of the tax payer dollar. Everyone else will suffer.
The bottom line is that the US cannot afford another wasteful and oppressive government program that serves the political interests of a few at the expense of every American. People need to do everything they can to oppose President Obama’s government run health care which will put us deeper into debt and lower the quality of health care for everyone.

Many of the uninsured are that way because they have been priced out of the market of individual coverage. If you’ve over 40 or ever had anything go wrong with you – you are not going to be covered. If you are covered, you will pay 4 or 5 times what a corporate insurer will pay because the regulations only help business policies – not individuals. And in many instances the laws of some states do not help businesses with coverage very well.
The government’s solution is to step in and buy everything – to control everything. Why don’t they simply get moving and start forcing these companies to play fair? Government stepping in should be a last resort. It really can be fixed in the present form, without much additional expenditure if they would take their ego’s out of the reform issue. This is not about politics – its about health.
I am 56 years old, and Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt the very year I become eligible. Sorry, but I do not feel that the government has a good track record in this area. Perhaps it needs to fix its own flaws before it gets involved in more people’s lives.

OBAMA HEALTH CARE IS:… BAD FOR HOUR HEALTH… BAD FOR FOR YOUR POCKET
BOOK..AND BAD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!
President Obama has stated that the US is broke so he is now saying in order to
pay for health care reform he needs to break his promise of lower taxes for 95%
of the people and raise everyone’s taxes. The Congressional Budget Office
analysis confirms the fact that even if taxes are raised there still would not
be enough money to pay for the billions of dollars required to fund Obama’s
government run health care program. Think about it Social Security and Medicare are going broke and instead of talking about how to fix Medicare and Social Security, President Obama is advocating another oppressive and inefficient government program with no way to pay for it. It is unacceptable to raise taxes and put the US into further debt that will only do further harm to an already failing economy.
A Government run health care system will not only increase the cost of health care for everyone, it will reduce the quality of health care for all. Health care will need to be rationed like it is in every other Nation that has National
health care. People will die standing in line waiting to seen by a doctor and be denied critical health care based on your “worth to society” as dictated by some faceless bureaucrat.
A recent Gallop poll shows that a majority of Americans are satisfied with
their current health care plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of health care they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say
theirs is poor. The bulk of those who are not covered by health insurance choose not to be covered and by law have access to health care in hospitals and clinics. So what “problem” is government trying to solve?
The only beneficiaries of a single payer government run health care program
will be the government bureaucrats and union workers who will get the lions
share of the tax payer dollar. Everyone else will suffer.
The bottom line is that the US cannot afford another wasteful and oppressive
government program that serves the political interests of a few at the expense of every American. Contact your representatives and do everything you can to oppose President Obama’s government run health care which will raise everyone’s taxes, hurt the economy, put us deeper into debt and lower the quality of health care for
everyone.

Private costs that government (medicare, for example) won’t have:
Enrollment costs (avg. 20-25% turnover/year private)
Claims processing
Advertising
Marketing
Lobbying
Profit
Executive compensation
(private avg. $3 million, medicare $130,000)
The profit part is the most important, not because it is the greatest inefficiency, but rather because it distorts the values of the system.
Wall Street demands that insurance companies show “a good medical loss ratio” – in other words, the lower the percentage an insurance company spends on actual health care, the more they are rewarded by Wall St.
That is what is screwing up our system, and making it the most expensive in the world.

Cut health care costs by 44% by making private insurance illegal.
Simple.
____________________________________
Flash, I would wager that you have never worked in a government bureaucracy in your life. Nothing is simple there.

Flash Override, You really don’t have a clue, do you? You say that the government won’t have the cost of claims processing? Well who will process those claims then? Even Medicare processes claims. As bad as insurance companies are, government does nothing better or cheaper than the private sector.

What makes any sane person think that the government can manage health care. Look at what the government has done to Social Security, Medicare, Public Housing, and now AIG. With this kind of a track record they have proven that they aren’t even capable of successfully operating the local burger stand. To start with where will the money come from and not cause an increase to the government debt any more than it is? In his entire 8 years in office Bush increased the debt of the US Government by roughly 4.8 Trillion dollars. In his first 60 days in office Obama has increased the debt of the government by 412.8 Billion dollars. At this rate he will increase the debt of the Government by 2.4 Trillion dollars in his first year alone and 9.9 Trillion dollars by the end of his 4 year term in office. Since the debt owed by the Government was 10.6 Trillion dollars when he took office an additional 9.9 Trillion will almost double the debt in just 4 years. This is money that the Government does not have. It was recently reported that the interest alone on the debt is nearing $1 Billion a day, that $365 Billion a year which when you look at it in those terms is a very large chunk of the federal budget. At this rate there is absolutely no money available for health care. Get real and realize that it is time to stop spending and do what should have been done long ago, cut all spending which is not specifically authorized in the constitution. There is NO money for healthcare, there is NO money for Cap and Trade, there is NO money for education reform or any other dreams in the upcoming budget. Look at what the government has done to Social Security, Medicare, Public Housing, and now AIG.
As far as the federal government cost of health care to its own employees you can Google FEHB and see what the different plans available to federal employees are. It should be noted that these are the same exact plans which are available to our elected federal officials. The government does not pay 100% of the employee health insurance and the portion they pay is considered a benefit in lieu of wages just like most major employers who provide a health benefit to their employees. Usually the larger the company (more employees) the more likely is that they provide the health insurance rather than paying the larger wage as most employees would rather have access to the health insurance instead of the small increase in wages. For an employee in California with a family looking at an HMO (California Health Net, High Option) this amounts to roughly $4.40 an hour. For the same family in California looking at a FFS (Blue Cross Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, Standard Family) this also amounts to $4.40 an hour. Small business’s which have fewer employees cannot afford to offer this type of benefit to their employees without having to make drastic cuts (layoffs) or drastically raise the price of their finished product/service both of which will probably cause the business to fail in time due to lack of profit. The federal employee still has to pay to participate in the insurance ($292 a month for the HMO and $357 a month for the FFS) so the government does not provide 100% of the insurance to the government employee. Probably the best that the government could do for health care would be to somehow expand the FEHB type of insurance for the general public to participate in but with no government funding for the general public. You have to remember that the federal employee is receiving his government share of the insurance funding as part of his wage and benefit package and performing labor in return, the general public would provide no benefit to the government for any government funding of their health care. Perhaps another question you may want to ask yourself is how much would I pay for healthcare insurance? Would you pay $1055.00 per month to be able to partake of the HMO I used as an example? Would you be willing to pay $1120.00 per month to be able to participate in the FFS I used as an example? If yes then maybe the answer is not government paid healthcare but the government allowing all citizens to participate in their healthcare programs at their own expense (they would have to pay the total of what the government pays for their employee plus what the employee pays). I would imagine that there are some plans which would be cheaper but they might not offer the same level of health care as a more costly one. If this was the way they go then it would be up to each individual to carefully compare costs and benefits between plans before making possibly a wrong choice.
When Medicare was created in 1965, benefits were relatively limited and retirees paid a substantial percentage of the costs of their own care. In 1965, Congressional actuaries expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion by 1970. In 1969, that estimate was revised to $5 billion, and it actually came in at $6.8 billion. Things have gotten worse since, and Medicare today costs $455 billion and rising. Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. — that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Its annual bill is $227 billion, and so far this fiscal year is rising by 17%. Schip was pitched a decade ago as a safety net for poor kids, Schip is now open to families that earn up to 300% of the poverty level, or $63,081 for a family of four. Any new federal health plan will inevitably follow the same trajectory, no matter how much Senators might claim they’ve guaranteed otherwise. The Lewin Group consultants estimate that 119 million people who now have private insurance could potentially be captured by the government under the Obama public option. This is on top of the 90 million already in Medicare or Medicaid. This would guarantee a spending explosion that would over time lift federal outlays as a share of GDP into the upper 20% range or higher. This health-care debate isn’t like the “stimulus” bill, which was largely about short-term spending and deficits. This one is about whether to turn 17% of the U.S. economy entirely and permanently into the arms of the government.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security’s finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government’s general purpose deficit spending. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right”. In simple terms, the decision means that since no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits, Congress can cut or eliminate benefits at any time.
The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. It is important to note, however, that while the Treasury guarantees the interest and principal payments it makes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the benefit payments made from the Social Security Trust Fund to American retirees have no guarantee at all. The Social Security Administration’s authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security’s ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government’s ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. The federal government’s ability to repay Social Security, in turn, is contingent on fiscal policies taken today (which have tended to increase deficits and the percent of the budget spent on interest and principal payments) and in the future. Once again in simple terms if you want Social Security then the government is going to have to reduce its debt (lower spending to pay off debt) or raise the FICA taxes to ensure that there is enough coming in during the current year to cover the benefits which are to be paid. Raising the FICA taxes is probably not the way to go as in the coming years there are more people who will be receiving Social Security than there will be people paying the taxes which means that the government has to stop spending on all of their dream programs that they are now trying to pass. Bottom line is the Government does not have this kind of money and there is no way they can get this kind of money without a large tax increases on the entire population.

Howard Dean is correct.
“a”(Toothy, Robust)”public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship, and Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary.”
“Democrats should have “no intention” of working with Republicans if it’s not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority.” (Howard Dean)
This is what WE THE PEOPLE gave the Democrats all that power to do for ALL of us.
You see, Dr. Dean knows that in medicine and healthcare there is only one acceptable standard. And that standard is the HIGHEST level of EXCELLENCE you can provide for everyone. Nothing less has ever been acceptable in caring for a precious human life.
And the White House is right too. “Good health care reform is essentially good economic policy.” (Christina Romer)
jacksmith — WORKING CLASS

How can anyone take Senator Dodd seriously? Support Peter Schiff for the U.S. Senate against Dodd in 2010. Unlike Dodd, Schiff predicted the economic crisis all the way back in 2006.

Let me pose a question.
As you are aware of when a company/individual develops a new product/drug they patent it and have exclusive rights to the patent for a set number of years before the technology/design is available for others to make copies of. Let’s say that I own a pharmaceutical company and over the past few years I have spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching a cure for AIDS. I have finally developed a drug which the patient has to take every day for a year to be cured, I have also determined that to cover research, development, production, marketing costs and a 10% profit I have to charge $100.00 per dose. The government run health care comes along and tells me that I can only charge $25.00 per dose or if not then other drug companies will be allowed to produce the drug. Is this fair, remember I spent all of the money to develop the drug and have an exclusive patent on the drug? If you say that it is fair and that I have to provide the drug per the government direction then I say what if I destroy all of my records and don’t produce the drug at all.
The government cannot run healthcare as they have proven with Medicare and Medicaid both systems are vast money pits that the government keeps dumping funds into but neither one is self supporting. Any government run healthcare program will have the same financial problems and I don’t care what you say about the health of the country, you can not have a viable healthcare program when you have no funding for it. If you read the Constitution you will find that there are some items which Congress is required to fund (i.e. a military) and there is no mention of healthcare.
Additionally the debt of the US Government is a large number and with the spending of the current administration growing rapidly larger. Although the yearly budget does not usually require the pay down of the debt there is a requirement to pay the interest on the debt each year. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department have warned that debt levels will increase dramatically relative to historical levels if entitlement programs are not reformed. For example, projected expenditures for Medicare and Social Security programs exceed tax revenues by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years. Mandatory expenditures are projected to exceed federal tax revenues sometime between 2030 and 2040 if reforms are not undertaken. The severity of the measures necessary to address this challenge increases the longer such changes are delayed. These organizations have stated that the government’s current fiscal path is “unsustainable.” Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations.
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Until the National Debt is paid off, the other problems facing our country will remain unsolved. Compound Interest is the ‘Eighth Wonder Of The World’ and it can bring a nation to its knees.”
– — C. Morgan Cofer