Reply With Quote
No, I'm quite sure I know the difference between taxation and stealing. I appreciate your concern, however.
"stealing when it is taken by one small section and made to directly benefit others. "
like when red states "steal" more federal dollars than they send to the feds?
"socialist" blue states subsidize most red states.
No, I'm quite sure I know the difference between taxation and stealing. I appreciate your concern, however.
Thank you.
From your link, I got the original quote:
That came from a do ent put out by Republican Sam Brownback:
http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/pu...ly_31_2009.pdf
Which in turn derived its source data from the following for the cost of the program in 1990:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist16z1.xls
and the following for the original estimate:
"Actuarial Cost Estimates for the Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance System as Modified by the Social Security Amendments of 1967."
Now given that actuaries are pretty sharp cookies, I would imagine the $12bn figure was in 1967 dollars, but the do ent is not available electronically.
BUT
As I stated previously, the second figure was in 1990 dollars.
So, in essence, the ultimate source for your statement did just as I said was most likely, fudge the numbers. More than likely the drone responsible for researching for the good Senator made the sophmore mistake of not accounting for inflation when considering the 1990 figure.
After accounting for inflation the statement should have read:
"In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $28bn in 1967 dollars, off by a factor of 2.3"
The actuarial assumption that probably threw the thing off was life expectency. People probably lived a lot longer in 1990 than was projected in 1967.
Not quite the damning sniglet you wanted it to be concerning en itlements is it?
That is precisely the conclusion one should make, given productivity gains, and the fact that the only people who have actually seen their income rise ahve been in the upper quarter of income earners, and even that is mostly in the upper upper upper .1% of income earners.
I would further point out that if your argument is that "rich people are the ones that provide all the capital for new investments, so taxing them more will cost a lot of jobs", then you are ignoring the fact that most stock ownership is done in mutual funds held for retirement benefits.
Stock ownership in this country is generally NOT the exclusive purview of "the rich".
And I think it could be considered stealing by using lobbyists to get favors from the political system.
Or maybe it's theft when the majority of taxpayers bail out CEOs who still make millions.
It wasn't really relevant to my question no. It seemed to have pretty much nothing to do with the conversation in general, as it was introduced with little to no explanation.
Darrin was trying to make the point that new en lements tend to be far more expensive than they are initially projected to be.
People making that point will try to fudge the numbers to make their case, and selectively parcel out facts/statistics to support their position. That is the definition of intellectually dishonest, but it is the way politics is generally argued.
Let's review:
Making lots of wealth by gaming the system for loopholes through congressmen= Brilliant, wise, benevolent leaders, using their profits to reinvest in American knowhow
Trying to gain back wealth by gaming the system for taxation through congressmen= Useless druggies who would rather kill a baby than work a day in their lives
What's the magic income number where you are inherently smart/wise/benevolent, I wonder? Certainly, the lower income people are all lazy shifty hobos, so I'd like to know the tipping point.
You ASSUMED that the numbers weren't adjusted to account for inflation.
DarrinS claims a win in the Medicare sidebar he introduced himself.
(Golf clap.)
You assume they are?
Omnisciently-voiced play-by play might be considered condescending, too, Wino.
I reflected the question because I wrote a long reply earlier in the thread explaining exactly where I stand, and because it (his Q) came loaded with no genuine curiosity, only the now-familiar dead-stupid preconceptions.
I did indeed assume that something was amiss and likely there was a TVM/inflation error somewhere within the statement.
Given that many figures given concerning such things that deal with long periods of time tend not to be, especially when the topic is politics, the odds tend to favor that. My general experience when it comes to things like that says that someone is usually leaving something out.
I tested my assumption, and that assumption proved correct.
That is how a critical thinker goes about examining his own underlying assumptions.
Further, had I been incorrect, the intellectual honesty principle of critical thinking would have compelled me to admit that my assumption was incorrect.
I do give props to the Heritage Foundation for proposing health care mandates, though.
You did notice that I PROVED the second figure was unadjusted for inflation and therefore misleading, right?
If nothing else, you've shown us all a good example of "confirmation bias".
From http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/categ...lation/page/2/
When Medicare was passed, various future estimates of costs were made by Congress. Those estimates were wildly off base, so much so that it is doubtful that Medicare would have passed, had there been an accurate cost estimate. The chart above shows the estimate for the year 1990 of $12 billion versus actual spending of $110 billion. The $12 bill estimate was adjusted for inflation. So, the actual costs were nine times higher than estimated.
Back to the subject at hand, why not redistribute GPA's in college?
Because it doesn't serve the purpose of bettering the economy like social programs hope to.
The thing is that blog seems to base his information on the same report from Brownback as the other one you linked.If nothing else, you've shown us all a good example of "confirmation bias".
From http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/categ...lation/page/2/
Since the original source data is not available online, can you really, truly be sure that this blogger hasn't made the assumption that the Brownback report's figure was adjusted for inflation?
You might want to read a section in the wiki entry for confirmation bias :
Did you stop as soon as you found this, even though there is still no first-hand evidence as to what original assumptions were being used?Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they frame questions in such a way that a "yes" answer supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find supporting information.
If the number is indeed adjusted for inflation then the comparison is much more valid, however still not quite an exact one (I can elaborate on this if you wish).
I will freely admit if I am wrong about this. I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong when there exists ambiguity, as there is in this case. Since we do not really have access to the original papers' assumptions. Find THAT and we might get to the bottom of this tempest in our teacup.
I will remain, however, generally skeptical of figures presented to me by people making public policy points, as anybody should.
It might surprise you to know that I generally acknowledge the ultimate thrust of Browback's paper:
"Whatever the causes, it seems there is a kind of Murphy‟s Law of health care legislation: 'If it can cost more than the highest available official estimate, it probably will.' "
You get the inevitable benefits creep accompanyed by medical inflation that invariably is greater than assumed in most estimates. Both of which are the most probable causes of the overage. (note: populations living longer contribute a LOT to cost increases)
FWIW:
I have seen studies that show that medical cost inflation has exceeded that of overal inflation for at least 20-30 years, but I was struck by something that I ran across here, in one of the sources for Brownback's report, by an actuary in an insurance journal:
"In all of these prior estimates, no allowance was made for the fact that hospital costs were increasing three percentage points per annum faster than wages--a phenomenon known well since 1946 when AHA began posting average hospital charges"
Barkev S. Sanders-- 1967 American Risk and Insurance Association.
On a related note, a quote from Brownback's report that I found to be quite admirable and fair:
This is not to say the official “scorekeepers” are bad at their jobs. On the contrary, they typically exhibit very high levels of skill, integrity, independence, and professionalism—often working under extremely tight time frames and hectic conditions, and not infrequently amidst a din of interested voices attempting to influence their work.
That's on subject?
"Hi, lets get back on subject with some more deflection to issues that aren't on subject. Oh and hear is a youtube."
So good.
Let's get back on subject. Why hasn't everyone sent me a $100 bill?That's on subject?
"Hi, lets get back on subject with some more deflection to issues that aren't on subject. Oh and hear is a youtube."
So good.
Mainly because the older you get, the more likely you will need medical services. I don't have a graph available, but I'm guessing if you were to graph age on the bottom and hospital needs/costs/etc on the left, it would form a mirrored L shape.
Pretty much.
I think that the best criticism of the most current health care bill is that it didn't do enough to control costs.
Oddly enough, I will pretty much have to read that thing for my job as part of the background material for my next assignment.
Start drinking now.
I don't know how you can make it thru that thing sober.
"it didn't do enough to control costs."
it didn't do anything to control costs.
If it had, the doc and insurers and BigPharma who profit from those exorbitant costs would have killed it, Harry-and-Louise style. They were all bought off and their incomes/our costs untouched.
The fleecing/impoverishment of Americans by the for-profit health care industry will continue unabated.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
