Posted on 09/01/2009 9:44:44 AM PDT by La Lydia
Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system, according to a study being published Tuesday. Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.
However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows...
The study comes a week before lawmakers are due back in Washington to continue the debate over Obama's signature domestic initiative, a debate that has come to focus heavily on cost...
In response, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), among others, have promised that health-care reform will save money, in part by increasing the availability of preventive care. In addition, Pelosi and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have chastised the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arbiter of the cost of legislation, for failing to include such savings in the estimates of pending reform bills....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dont you know that spending pays for itself? tax cuts too. It’s all free. No one has to pay. If enough spending and tax cuts are enabled we will run huge surpluses. Washington is so smart.
Tax cuts DO pay for themselves!!
When you look at people who get sick, and compare how much they cost to what they would have cost if you had given them preventative checkups, you find you could save money.
However, if you start with the entire population, and give them ALL preventative checkups, you find that the costs outweigh the savings for those who would get sick.
An absolute crock of $h_t. The assumption that you can control other factors for 25 years to obtain the desired results is a joke. The gov’t can’t predict what’s going to happen next year so to “trust” them for 25 is laughable.
Preventive care doesn't stop that.
The plan is to save money by not spending money on people over 65. Let them die at home with no medicine other than morphine. In some shape or form, this is how they want to save money.
It's obvious hat "preventive care" is like using less oil by inflating your tires. Yeah, it's not TOTALLY stupid, but it's close to useless.
RE :”Tax cuts DO pay for themselves!!”
Sure they do, just like Obama-care will pay for itself, that’s why president Bush and republican congress ran huge surpluses. You got a tax cut, but were paying more in taxes at the same time. It was patriotic too to support the troops with a tax cut. Everyone must do his part. You cant beat that!
Of course given that golden rule that tax cuts are free, there is no point in controlling spending is there? Since the medicine is always ‘more tax cuts’ why not get sicker and enjoy more free government services?
President Bush made REAL tax cuts, they cut everyone’s income taxes, and the TAXES COLLECTED went UP!
When taxpayers get to keep more of their earnings, the economy grows and more people are paying taxes.
Buy a clue.
RE :”When taxpayers get to keep more of their earnings, the economy grows and more people are paying taxes.”
Sure, no one had to pay for Bush and republican spending, and no one has to pay for Obama’s spending either. We must just cut taxes. The more they spend, the more we can cut. That sounds great. Who says there is no Santa Claus? Spend more, cut more. How can this not work?
And Obama-care will keep everyone healthy too, so they wont need a doctor and will pay for itself. And the stimulus package will jumpstart the economy and generate more tax revenue, sure it will.
I am trying to see things your way. I just need to repeat it a few more times.
So, now the government has more revenue than it would have had, because of the tax cuts. So, what does government do next?
1) Keep spending level and pay down the old existing deficit?
2) Ratchet up the spending to unheard of heights and watch the deficit get bigger, despite the revenue increase?
It's true that Bush chose option #2 (with a lot of help from Dems in Congress) and that it a great shame. But it does not change the FACT that tax cuts cause an increase in revenue. They DO pay for themselves. But they don't make politicians act in a fiscally responsible manner.
Multiple studies indicate preventive care costs more than waiting to get sick and die. Preventive care, for example an annual PSA test, is not only expensive, but the tests find prostate cancer early and with an extensive and costly regime allow the patient to survive. No PSA, prostate cancer is so far advanced when it shows up the patient quickly dies. Once again, the Odious One lies. I am all in favor of PSA tests and get one every year, regardless of the cost. Even vaccinations are more costly. Take MMR: I had all three as a kid. No medical costs. Now, kids get vaccinated instead of getting immunities from the disease. Dimocrats lie so often, they no longer can discern truth from fiction.
Wow, this is exactly what talk radio claims over and over,
This is an assumption, not a fact, not proved. The cash for clunker program increased tax ‘revenue’ by taxing their giveaways. So what? The Reagan and Bush tax cuts coincided with huge Keynesian spending increases that make it impossible to determine what was the source of the revenue (but there was a deficit in both case.) Those that want to believe they payed more by paying less simply attribute all the revue increases to tax cuts which is bogus.
Both Keynesian spending and tax cuts can end up going to personal consumption(even government employees consume) , just more debt based consumption. This cannot last forever, and the Bush revolution party ended Oct 2008 in a sea of red (as a kickoff to the Obama debt period) .
And you have no idea what you're talking about.
RE :”You’re on the wrong board. And you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
You know Mark Levin is always right too, and he says the same things as you about taxes. Mark got a tax cut, paid less taxes but says he paid more in taxes at the same time and yet somehow there was a deficit again under Bush.
If someone calls up to challenge him he cuts off his phone, and he berates him for being too stupid to understand. You have to be pretty smart to do that.Right??? Or just have dumb listeners.
Is this the Mark Levin “My way or the highway” board?
If tax rates seem high to someone, they may be more risk averse and may adjust their work strategy or their investment strategy to compensate. What that means is that the upside of personal income is diminished by potential tax debt, but the downside (investment loss) is just as strong as it always was. In such circumstances, people sometimes don't try so hard to earn money -- because the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit.
Now, if the tax rates decrease, then the potential upside benefits. People might work longer. They might make more aggressive investment decisions. Some of these decisions actually pay off and their personal income increases.
So, the tax RATE gets smaller, the personal income might increase, which might increase the total tax BILL. But the taxpayer is still ahead, thanks to their willingness to behave more aggressively.
So, tax rates are down, income is up, tax bill is up, federal revenues are up. Everyone is happy.
The key idea is that tax policy tends to change people's behavior. Lower tax rates can convince people to behave more dynamically and because of that, they may earn more. The pie gets bigger and federal revenues benefit.
This really isn't controversial.
RE :”The key idea is that tax policy tends to change people’s behavior. Lower tax rates can convince people to behave more dynamically and because of that, they may earn more. The pie gets bigger and federal revenues benefit. This really isn’t controversial”
Yes it is. Federal revenues cant benefit unless someone pays taxes. And not everyone can afford to work less when their taxes go up because that would decrease their income even more. And the tax cuts that buy the most votes, are those tax cuts that cant be reduced, those are the ones likely to lose revenue. And many others wont work less because they want more not less.
I already pointed out the major flaw of the talk radio ‘incentive argument’ a few times. If Joe voter is told the only way to increase revenues is to cut his taxes(maybe off the rolls completely), then why would he oppose government services? especially if they are going to him? More spending, more tax cuts, more spending, more tax cuts. Now what does he do with the extra money? Same as the Obama voter did withy his tax credit, save , consume or pay off debts. (Keynesian stimulus)
So Joe voter demands that conservative president with republican congress increases spending, and Karl Rove tells him to to win 2004. So then president gets re-elected buying single moms and seniors. And conservative talk radio guy is happy(with a tax cut and an election win) , but he disowns the deficit.
I think I'm done here.
I know, your “My tax cut reduced the deficit” is much easier to follow and much more appealing, to you. Except only those desiring more tax cuts themselves believe it,
Just like those wanting free health care believe it when Air America says it will pay for itself because people wont get sick anymore (I had three liberals explain this to me at work and they, like you got frustated with me.)
There are two topics here, but you keep confusing them. For one thing, I have never said that "My tax cut reduced the deficit". You're bringing that up out of the blue because you misunderstand that there are two topics here.
First topic: Revenue
A reduced tax rate affects behavior, increases economic activity among some people, grows the economy, and produces more personal income, a larger personal tax bill, and more federal revenue. Tax rate goes down, money sent to Uncle Sam goes up. Everybody is happy.
Second topic: Deficit
Deficits are a product of spending. When politicians spend more than they receive in revenue, the deficit increases. Doesn't matter what the tax rate is. Doesn't matter what the tax revenue is. They spend more than they should, and the deficit goes up. Bush was guilty of this.
I understand that your concern is the deficit. But you have to understand that deficits are dependent on spending. Revenue, on the other hand, is dependent on tax rate.
And lower rates make revenue go up.
Stupid politicians who spend more than they should make the deficit go up.
This is a numbers equation. Don't get wrapped up about the psychology of the voters and how they will approve more spending because they feel a certain way about changing tax rates. Now you're out of economics and you're into the realm of making political calculations about what the masses want, and what the masses will approve.
In term of economics, it's real simple: Rates do down, revenue goes up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.