I won't mind too much if national health insurance does not pass. Like many people, I wonder if the feds are up to a tightly run system, they way they do in France, Great Britain, Israel, etc.
The Israelis have become some world-beaters in capitalism, but they still insist on national health insurance--interesting, no?

But the 10-year calculations for national health insurance are puzzling--why not 10-year estimates for national defense, probably at $8 trillion or so. 10 years for the Department of Agriculture is more than $1 trillion. Homeland Security would be $600 billion. Something called "Civilian Defense" is another $600 billion.

Then we have annual subsidies for rural telephone systems, at $80 billion for the next 10 years, but probably more as the amount has been escalating.

All these numbers are from publicly available documents.

Odd that "libertarians" are so obsessed with national health insurance, but turn into mutes at these even larger federal outlays.

That is why some people say libertarians have become the catamite wing of the Rush L. crowd.

I am fascinated with the obsession BOTU has with defense spending, since by every measure domestic spending is far larger.

But there is, and was, no need to cause public debt for the private problems of medical care.

Pay your own way. Make your doctor listen to you. Earn money when you invest in medical savings.

And don't ever, ever give the keys to anything in your life to a government agency. They simply cannot have the same goals you do.

"Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $81 billion while spending $829 billion" (An earlier figure)

The government has fooled the people into thinking that it is deficits that matter most. But, it is the SPENDING that matters. The deficit is a red flag, of course. But the healthcare bills "reduce the deficit" by increasing taxes and fees by more than the increased spending.

The clearer statement is:
"Healthcare legislation will raise spending by $829 billion. But don't worry, it will raise taxes and fees by $910 billion, providing an extra $81 billion to the Treasury."

Worse, the savings included in the plans are unrealistic. They are there only to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office.

The major problem in writing the healtcare bills has been how to hide the massive tax increases by making them taxes on business and insurers, or merely claiming savings that will pay for the bills. All of these "business taxes" will and must be passed on to the people, in all income categories.

Memo - Health Plan Deficit Reduction
(Fictional but true)

==========
The estimated deficit for our health reorganization plan is causing us trouble in the press. President Obama has promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, and not to increase the deficit. Unfortunately, we have to live with this until the plan passes Congress.

After passage, we will spend what it takes, just like the last times.

Now, this is how we will "pay for it". Assign whatever fees (not taxes!) you want against insurance companies, big businesses, and "private" doctors. Make the fees big enough to cover the entire added cost of the plan. Yes, even if you think we can't raise that much money from those fees.
==========

To Mr Big,
A good insight. Why price this bill over 10 years?

They don't want to use 10 years, because it makes the numbers bigger. They want them to appear smaller.

But, the yearly cost is estimated at about $130 billion. And, that is a lowball. Ten years of that would be $1.3 trillion.

So, how to get that yearly estimate down below the $100 billion/year psychological limit for the public?

Price it over 10 years, but only operate it for the last 6 years and ongoing. Voila! It "costs" 40% less over 10 years. That is, if you believe their estimates.

Medicare has cost 8 times what it was estimated. Massachusetts public healthcare is now ridiculously expensive.

Busting the Bay State: Hiding the cost of health reform
========
RomneyCare is not cost-effective. The law covered an estimated 432,000 previously uninsured residents in 2009. That means Massachusetts is covering the uninsured at a cost of about $6,700 per person, or $27,000 for a family of four. The average nationwide cost of an individual policy ($2,600 in 2007) and an employer-sponsored family policy ($12,700 in 2008) are fractions of those figures.
========

Always have liked Stossel. He doesn't mind pissing off the politically correct crowd with facts and figures.