Pretty self explanatory. If you need more money than you have, in order to pay for something, you can't afford it. That isn't confusing. That is scary. Are you stating that where the tax increases take place is irrelevant?
Despite them all having limbs blown off, ptsd, etc? Only 6 out of 26 make a visit to the doctor per year? Seems like they must be a pretty healthy group. Actually, there are only 7.84M enrolled in VA healthcare. Why, when there are 23M vets? I don't know. My guess is that many vets are covered by employer plans which are in some way considered superior to the VA care. So let's do the math again. 47B/7.84M = $6000 per person. (Oddly enough, pretty much exactly what my employer healthcare costs). 30 million uninsured * 6K = $180B/yr. 2014-2019 cost: $1.08T. Senate bill: $848B. Seems like it's in the ballpark. barfo
Either some of them were dead then, or a lot died off since, because as of 2008, the VA claims 23.4M total living vets. barfo
You don't seem to get how insurance works. I'll say it again. It works because most people pay premiums but receive less in benefits. The excess they pay subsidizes those who need more benefits than they pay. It's still $1400. Your logic is like saying there are 300M people in the USA, but only 30M end up in the hospital, so take all the premiums all 300M pay and divide by 30M and it's really expensive.
No... not at all. It would be interesting, for example, to see an analysis of PapaG's list in terms of who actually pays those various taxes. What does a family of 4 making $25K pay? Or $100K? OR 500K? barfo
Try reading my post again. There are only 7.84M people enrolled (aka insured) in the VA program. The fact that 23 million people are eligible to sign up but didn't is irrelevant. barfo
Not really. How many of the 23 million chose a private plan over the government plan? Let's start there, and take the debate forward from that starting point. I know for a fact that many vets bypass the VA. What does your data say, barfo?
That agrees with my hypothesis, although I don't have any data on what the 15 million who aren't signed up for VA healthcare are doing. It seems logical that they are on private plans, most likely employer plans. My argument to Denny is that if they are on private plans then they aren't costing the government anything - none of the $47 million VA coverage is being spent on them. Unless the VA reimburses vets for private care - if that's the case, my numbers would be wrong. Edit: oh, Medicare - i guess that vets over 65 might be covered by medicare instead of the VA? barfo
Ok, so here's some more data. This is from a survey, and the numbers differ significantly from the data the VA provided - not sure why exactly - but the conclusions are still the same. In the survey, even fewer vets used the VA (3.7 million instead of 6.1 million), and the number of vets was 27 million not 23 million. But it's clear that most vets don't in fact use the VA. At all. They have private insurance, they have medicare, or they have no insurance (even though the VA would provide it for free). Those that don't use the VA, I assert, do not cost the VA anything. Now, you can probably claim that some fraction of the uninsured-by-VA vets are simply waiting till they get sick, and then they'll sign up for the VA coverage. And I'm sure that there are some people in that category, but it is probably small. In the first table in the paper, you'll see that of the people who do not use the VA at all, only 26% have not been to the doctor in the past year. In other words, most veterans not using the VA are in fact getting healthcare from other sources. Here's a nice graph from the CBO on VA enrollment: If you read this CBO report very carefully, you'll find that they report an average cost per patient of $5800, which is very close to the $6000 that I computed. So, in summary, Denny, your $1400 estimate is wildly incorrect. [As it had to be - you would be the first one to point out that the government isn't going to be able to do something more efficiently than private enterprise - right?] The true cost is closer to $6K, and when you scale that up to the 30 million uninsured that are intended to be covered by the healthcare bill, you find that the projected costs are in the same range as the reported cost of the bill. Of course, the healthcare bill is actually quite a bit more complex than simply paying for coverage for 30 million people, but these calculations do show that there is no giant "bamboozling" or siphoning off to Goldman Sachs or whatever. Healthcare costs a lot of money; covering 30 million people costs 30 million times a lot of money. And I now know far more about the VA than I really ever needed to. barfo
Barfo, you're still not getting it. Assume 100 people pay $1,000 a year for insurance. One goes to the hospital and needs a $75,000 operation. The remaining 99 are healthy and don't go to the doctor at all. The cost to the insurer is $75K. The income is $100K. So they profit by $25K. 100 people are insured. By your reasoning, insurance costs $75K and only 1 person is insured, so it's $75K/person. The government IS insuring 26.5M vets. It is irrelevant how many participate. Of 26.5M, 3.7M need care. Their costs are $7000 in medical services (like the $75K in my example) per vet who gets treatment. It is not $7000 per veteran in insurance cost/premiums. Those 3.7M out of 26.5M seek care is going to be a higher % than in the general population because those guys were shot at, etc.
No Denny, 'tis you that is not getting it. The government is not insuring 26.5 million vets. 26.5 million vets (well, or maybe 23.4 million) are eligible to be insured. There is a difference between eligibility for insurance, and being insured. Your claim that only 3.7M out of 26M need medical care is completely ludicrous, and is disproven by the data I presented (only 26% of those not using VA care have not had medical care in the past 12 months). What you aren't getting is that there are ~15 million vets who are covered by other insurance. They don't use VA care. Ever. It's not that they aren't sick this year. It's that they get their healthcare somewhere else. And they'll presumably continue to do so. Which means they don't cost the government anything. Ever. They aren't insured by the government in any meaningful sense. barfo
In the general population, 82.8% of people seek medical care in any 12 month period [see first table, #158]. You are in fact claiming here that vets are far, far healthier than the general population. Which might be true, but seems pretty unlikely, since they've been shot at, etc. barfo
Did it ever occur to anyone that veterans have the option of getting free healthcare from the VA, yet choose to pay for private insurance themselves? The VA is a foreshadowing of Obamacare; and that's not a good thing.
Yes, it occured to me in posts 62, 68,69, and 71, and to PapaG in post 67. I'd have to agree - it is certainly not a good sign that so many people walk away from VA care. Of course, in some cases they may be getting free care from their employers too, but probably in many cases they are paying at least some of the cost of private insurance themselves. However, note that there is a very significant difference between VA care and "Obamacare". Obamacare isn't going to send you to a VA hospital, or require you to see VA doctors. barfo
I generally skim pissing matches, so I apologize for missing it. I think you've his upon one of the fundamental points of our disagreement. You seem to see this healthcare bill as a one-off thing that will remain static. I see it as putting us on the waterslide of slippery slopes. I think if we even allow a foothold of the government controlling healthcare, we get the UK's health system within a decade. I won't re-hash my reasoning behind that line of thinking, but I think Americans deserve better healthcare than something like the VA.
Oddly enough, what you refer to as a pissing match I'd call a fact-based debate. I didn't see either Denny or I doing any "pissing". Yeah, I know you think that, but as I posted in another thread, your grandpappy used that same argument against Medicare. Turns out he was wrong. Makes me think maybe you are too. barfo
The difference, of course, is that this isn't legislation to take care of a limited group. No one made these arguments about SCHIP. This is about the wholesale takeover of EVERYONE's healthcare.
No, it isn't. This bill isn't about taking over everyone's healthcare any more than the Medicare bill was. Less so than Medicare, actually. Conservatives said we'd have the UK system in ten years if we passed Medicare. It wasn't true. Now you say the same thing about this bill. Why should we believe you this time? barfo
Well, in the Boy who Cried Wolf, eventually the Socialist Wolf did come and eat something (the lambs? the boy? a whole order of jalapeno poppers? I don't remember). So, maybe the Socialist Wolf is at our door, and he's going to huff and puff and blow our healthcare down. If I actually see a Socialist Wolf, then maybe I'll get the AWBM (anti-wolf ballistic missle) out. But I'm not going to take the Conservative Boy's word for it. He cries Socialist Wolf every time the wind blows. barfo
