OMG! how embarrassing!

[Ramo]

Yes, economic modeling as obviously inferior to your gut as a prediction of the future.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Neither work.

BTW, you still haven't given a good reason why reducing the costs of one entitlement program won't counteract the rise in costs for another entitlement program, from a fiscal perspective.

[Ramo]

Ok, Ben. Before I explain, there is thing called arithmetic that you might want to figure out first...

[Naked Gents Rut]

Good answer. I'm totally convinced now.

edit: Let me put the question another way, one you might be more tempted to actually answer...

How many years out do I have to accept those questionable projections of Medicare/Medicaid spending to get to the point where your assertion that counteracting increased healthcare spending with lowered Social Security spending is a "lunatic fantasy" becomes true?

[Ramo]

Ok. If you assume that the economic consensus on health care is completely wrong, you can believe whatever fantasies you'd like to.

[Naked Gents Rut]

That's not an answer.

Anway, I think I'm on solid ground in questioning the validity of an extrapolation of federal healthcare costs 75 years into the future.

[Zkribbler]

Straight-line projections

As I wrote in the other thread, just about every other system in the developed world has drastically lower costs with better health outcomes.

Every other system has had decades to get its population used to rationing and reduced services. Good luck forcing that on the American people at this point.

Every other system produces longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates.

We ration healthcare as well. 1/4 of Americans are uninsured; while 3/4 of Americans are underinsured.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Every other system produces longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates.

We ration healthcare as well. 1/4 of Americans are uninsured; while 3/4 of Americans are underinsured.

These are reasons to support universal healthcare in the United States. They are not reasons to think universal healthcare in the United States will actually succeed in reducing healthcare costs, however.

[Ramo]

80 years is a straw man, and you know it. I posted the first graph for a reason.

And yes, I happen to think that absent any mechanisms to control costs, the trend of rapidly increasing health care costs over the past few decades is likely to continue indefinitely. A mysterious decline in the rate of increase of medical costs that occurs for no discernible reason is a ludicrous right wing fantasy. Is this out of "Left Behind?"

[Naked Gents Rut]

I posted the first graph for a reason.

Yes. It's from a lefty think-tank and better supports your partisan views. It's the same reason right-wingers (ie. people far to the right of me) link to studies by the Heritage Foundation.

And yes, I happen to think that absent any mechanisms to control costs, the trend of rapidly increasing health care costs over the past few decades is likely to continue indefinitely.

That's a pretty big assumption. In the future, you might want to try talking down to me when you have better logical support for your claims of lunacy.

[Zkribbler]

Not the way Obama is doing it. Health insurance is not the answer. Health insurance is the problem.

We need to replace insurance companies with the goverment. Those countries that have government-paid healthcare pay 3%-10% of the healthcare dollar for administration. We pay about 33%.

[Ramo]

Yes. It's from a lefty think-tank and better supports your partisan views. It's the same reason right-wingers (ie. people far to the right of me) link to studies by the Heritage Foundation.

It's the same data as the CBO, you hack.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's the same data as the CBO, you hack.

Same data. Different assumptions and projection.

[Ramo]

Same data. Different assumptions and projection.

No. For the measurement that I'm talking about - comparing SS with Medicare/Medicaid costs, it's the same thing.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I do like this report from the CBPP. They may be left-wing, but they totally agree with me.

It also should be understood that even with major reforms, it is likely to prove virtually
impossible to hold health care expenditures in either the public or the private sector to their current
levels as a share of the economy. While the U.S. health care system contains significant
inefficiencies that raise its costs, the rate of growth in health care costs is driven largely by medical
advances that tend to improve health and lengthen lifespans but that also increase costs. It is
inconceivable that Americans will not want to avail themselves of the medical breakthroughs that
will occur in the years and decades ahead, even if they entail significant costs. Furthermore, ongoing
economic growth will raise incomes in coming decades, and it would not be unreasonable for
Americans to elect to invest a substantial share of that increase in securing better health and longer
lives.

So much for serious cost-cutting.

edit:

For the measurement that I'm talking about - comparing SS with Medicare/Medicaid costs, it's the same thing.

You should be comparing the amount spent on SS to the amount of unfunded spending above tax revenues, not total spending on Medicare/Medicaid. No wonder you aren't making any sense.