Interest payments in the future

Look, the fact that the national debt has gone from 2tri to 12tri is worrisome just because it grew so fast. We never really think about paying down the principle on the debt, it just keeps inching up, right? As long as GDP goes up, we can afford the incremental increase in interest payments, right?

Interest payments alone are going more than triple in 10 years. Like think of it this way. You are paying $200 on your credit card now. In 2019, if you do nothing to pay down the principle, you are going to be paying $700 per month. It's just money going out the door (to China) without earning anything or doing anything productive (like build roads or schools). Yep, just money out the door before it even lands in the wallet. Consequence? Read on... (hint: health care ain't got nuthin on this problem, at least paying for health care contributes to the economy).

(Talk about your hockey stick graph.)

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CNBC from the NYTimes

Dear Senator Mark Warner

I am writing to say that I agree, the issue with health care is cost. In my opinion, government insurance programs (medicare, medicaid, CHIP) have largely removed cost-based market competition, resulting in the current complete disconnect between the price charged and the cost of the service performed. The market motive right now is get the most possible out of the government program. Given the percentage of Americans that use these programs, the private insurance companies are seriously constrained by having to play in the same market.

For example, for routine blood tests (the usual annual panel) a lab submits charges of $150.00 to BCBS. The allowance is $25.75. Neither of these amounts have anything to do with the actual cost for performing the service. When I negotiated prices for surgery, lab and xray for my (uninsured) son's surgery, I could get reductions of 35-50% for cash in advance. This was for professional services as well as facility costs. (Always get it in writing before paying.)

I do not see how a federal program covering even more people is going to change that market dynamic. I believe consumers are far more effective in driving the cost of service down. Currently, they have no influence in the process, let alone motive. Most people have very few choices for providers (under private or government programs) and little knowledge about service costs because the bill goes to the insurance company. They have no way to make any decision about the price of the service before it is performed.

If consumers have choices and incentive to choose lower cost alternatives among service providers, not insurance policies, costs will go down. As long as the government is getting the bill, it's just a game managed by lobbyists and law makers, who despite what they say, aren't concerned about the price. It always comes back to political motives which is how we got in this situation in the first place.

Results count

To the Congress:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.

And finally, to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

1948 cartoon extension dept., Harding College

This is a fascinating perspective. You can see how far we have come - or how far gone we are.
National Juggernaut

And this makes a lot of sense....

Under both house and senate proposals, insurance companies would not be able to drop you if you are sick, nor deny you a policy because of a prior medical condition. So, can't turn you away if you are or have ever been sick. Nor can they charge you more in premiums because of your medical status. But may the Lord save you if you have an unhealthy lifestyle (in whose opinion???)...

Under current regulation, incentives based on health factors can be no larger than 20 percent of the premium paid by employer and employee combined. The legislation passed by the Health and Finance committees would increase the limit to 30 percent, and it would give government officials the power to raise it to 50 percent. For example, families with premiums of $13,375 — the combined average for employer-sponsored coverage, according to a recent survey — could have $6,687.50 at risk.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33336289/ns/politics-washington_post/

Whether you look at it like a discount or a penalty, makes no difference. If you smoke, have high cholesterol, are overweight, don't exercise, eat too many carbs, have high blood sugar, and whatever else the government and your insurance company come up with has risk factors, you are going to pay more. Now you will have your insurance company inspecting your every body function to determine if they can either charge you more or deny you some discount. You will need to get this test, that exam, some other procedure, to determine if you measure up to your insurance company's standards. Now isn't that a pleasant thought? If you don't submit, well then you are going to pay all the penalties. Your insurance company, your employer and your government are now going to be right there overlooking your every day behavior, reminding you that you have a personal and financial responsibility to live your life their way, not your way.

I think I'm going to puke! Oh crap, that will make my rates go up, I might be bulimic!.

Everyone benefits when I spread your wealth around

Remember the NYT writer that had an idea how we could regulate lawyers like we treat physicians under medicare? This guy explains wealth redistribution with a new grading system. Mike Adams

The lastest "you can't be that stupid" moment:

1) Young people (who pay a lot more in premiums than they use in benefits) only have to pay 10% of the premium if they don't get insurance. So of course, they will get the insurance, right?
2) Insurance companies can reduce premiums by offering low cost policies to more sick people.
3) Your premiums won't go up if we tax the hell out of the insurance companies.

Why is it that they get "spread the wealth" but they don't get spread the risk?
Why is it that we privatize the profits and socialize the losses? The losses are not an asset, duh! And the losers should not be spreading the risk, they should be eating the whole thing.

Abraham Lincoln, a lesson not learned (oh yeah, he was a Republican, too)

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

......Abraham Lincoln