Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com

The Gaggle

RSS
SPONSORED BY

Author

Katie Connolly


Ben Adler


Jonathan Alter

Eleanor Clift

Eve Conant

Howard Fineman

Sarah Kliff

Andrew Romano

Daniel Stone




Links

Featured Postings

A GOP Plan for Deficit Reduction

9:00 AM, February 9, 2010 | Comments (6)
I've been hard on congressional Republicans recently for pandering to voters' ignorance by offering politically appealing but irresponsible slogans instead of a credible conservative vision of how to meet America's challenges, even those they harp on...

The Press Evinces Soft Bigotry Against Republicans─By Not Expecting Them to Govern

1:05 PM, February 1, 2010 | Comments (21)

Conservatives React to State of the Union With Sneers and Jeers

11:50 PM, January 27, 2010 | Comments (18)

Archives

See All from November
Previous
November 2009
Next
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
       
Full Post
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:39 PM

Opportunity Cost: Studying Health Care's Sticker Shock

Andrew Bast
The new number is $849 billion. That is the cost the Congressional Budget Office has stamped on the health bill now in the Senate, which, spread out over 10 years, would provide medical coverage to some 31 million uninsured Americans. It's an awe-inspiring number, so how to make sense of such a whopping price tag? What about 849 thousand million? Or call it "just shy of a trillion"? It's stupendously difficult. That hasn't stopped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from trying: "It saves lives. It saves money," he said bluntly Wednesday night. Largely by way of increased taxes, Democrats argue that the legislation would in fact trim the federal budget by more than $100 billion. Undeniable though, is that any trillion-dollar program is a ridiculously huge undertaking.

That's not to say plans of such scale are unfamiliar. To compare, let's round the cost of the health-care bill to $85 billion a year and stand it up alongside some other massive spending projects currently underway:
War in Afghanistan
COST SO FAR: $300 billion ($33 billion a year)
According to the Congressional Research Service, the American war in Afghanistan through the end of 2010 will have cost Americans just about $33 billion a year, about a third of what health care would cost. However, since 2006, Congress has been allocating more and more funds for the effort (the request for 2010 alone is $73 billion), and should President Obama decide to deploy more troops (at an estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 soldiers), that number could continue to spike, and even surpass the sticker shock of health care.
Iraq War
COST SO FAR: $750 billion ($125 billion a year)
Dividing what has been spent thus far in Iraq by six (the number of years since the invasion) results in an astronomical figure: $125 billion annually. It's hardly a stretch to claim that health care would cost less than Iraq. Some, like Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, have claimed that total costs, when counted after the fact, will top $3 trillion. But since spending peaked in 2008 ($141 billion), the war budget has dropped as violence receded and American troops began pulling out. At least in terms of funds from Congress, and despite the treasure already expended, expenses for Iraq are now ebbing.
Federal Stimulus Bill
COST: $787 billion
Eerily similar in cost to the health-care bill was the Obama administration's federal stimulus package that passed in February. (Like Bilmes and Stiglitz on Iraq, the Heritage Foundation claims that the real cost is somewhere above $3 trillion over 10 years.) At $787 billion, it was the largest move by the federal government to avoid a recession since the end of World War II and consisted largely of tax cuts and aid to states.
In one sense, comparing a plan to give health care to tens of millions of Americans to wars overseas or reviving a seizing national economy is a non sequitur. Health, war, economy—each must be argued on its own merits. Perhaps. But this raft of spending is driving a whopping national deficit that could well prove that so many initiatives and wars may not all be affordable. (The cover of the new Economist hauntingly reads, "Dealing with America's fiscal hole".) And if that moment is coming, then the comparison might well be all the more apt and make the setting of priorities all the more urgent.
Advertisement
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Davole (November 23, 2009 at 9:17 AM)

Frankiefrank -

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

I point out the fact that several posters demonstrate that they are unable to competently and accurately pay attention to facts - and correct spelling is just one of those facts.

If they can't pay proper attention to facts, their opinions, and sometimes rants, are not relevant to the intricate and true aspects of the various thread topics.

Case in point - what intelligent discourse is achieved and contributed to this Newsweek site by the likes of "More paranoia from the crazy right, blah, blah, blah?"

That rant is both unfounded and immature, and doesn’t contribute one iota to intelligent discourse.

And I purposely choose and strive to avoid resorting to juvenile name-calling, such as ***, moron, idiot, crazy, etc.

Maybe now you might begin to understand why I choose to post as I do!

Have a wonderful day!

Report Abuse
Posted By: Frankiefrank (November 23, 2009 at 1:59 AM)

Dear Davole,

I'm actually late to work but I had to register to write this: I wouldn't want to personally offend you by calling you an ***, but the way you write seems to indicate you are one.

You have your well-formed opinions, that's fine. Criticizing people for spelling mistakes? That's... well, cheap. It just bloats your posts and make you seem like an ***.

People who comment here want to sound their opinions, and it is their right to do so. Some may have interesting points to make, even if they do not pass your spelling tests. But your childish attacks ("there is no such word as ' caffine ' ") would make them feel that the internet is full of *** and then all we'll have is radical "litterate" people like you, just shooting down other commenters.

To make your life just this much easier, I didn't run a spell check on my comment. Have fun.

Report Abuse
Posted By: Davole (November 22, 2009 at 6:09 PM)

drewand -

Try to stay on topic, if you know the meaning of that term!

For your information, there is no such word as "caffine" - strive for an education - and no, you won't achieve it by merely reaching into a cereal box.

It's obvious that you, one of Obama’s multitude of illiterate and intellectually challenged followers, missed your afternoon nap today!

Lay off the drugs, and get a life!

Report Abuse
Show All Comments (10) »