The New York Times health care blog has a post about the games that politicians are playing with the cost of their health care bill--in this case, the new House bill that was initially reported as costing less than $900 billion. A more accurate assessment would have been $1.05 trillion....
What kind of spending is she not concerned about?
The U.S. government has already spent $904 billion since 2001 to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both of those conflicts are far from over.
And even if the number of combat troops declines as planned, the final price tag for the wars by 2018 will be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion, according to a study released by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan policy research group.
As President Bush returns from his final presidential tours of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the CSBA study warns that the additional burden of accrued interest payments could easily push that tab to $2.5 trillion, depending on how the cost is financed.
That's a steep price, even compared with past conflicts. "In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, the war in Iraq alone has already cost more than every past U.S. war but World War II," the study finds. Cost estimates by the administration on the eve of the war, meanwhile, proved to be wildly optimistic and unrealistic. "Costs have already exceeded initial administration estimates by roughly an order of magnitude," the report adds.
We can afford endless war, a giant defense budget, and perpetual occupation of million-dollar military bases, but we can't afford health care for the people who pay for those wars. We invaded two countries because 3,000 people were killed, but we ignore 44,000 deaths every year. Fourteen 9/11s, year after year after year, perpetrated upon our most vulnerable citizens by their ruling elite. War and our current health care system make rich people richer, however, so it's easy to see why the rich are happy. But it's strange to see the poor and middle class tolerate the status quo, and only take up arms when they think they will be forced to help that same, despised group.
feeble attempt at math corrected
Agree with your sentiment, but 44K deaths/year = 11.3 911s/year, not 14,000. 14,000 911s a year would be 52 million deaths/year, which would kill us all in about 7 years.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be fourteen 9/11s each year...
ReplyDeleteUh, no, Malaclypse.
ReplyDeleteTotal deaths were just under 3,000, even if you include (as you should) the 19 hijackers (which the link above doesn't).
14*3 = 42, so 14*2,993 (counting the hijakcers) < 42,000.
If anything, Susan is being generous in leaving the multiplier at 14.
"the new House bill that was initially reported as costing less than $900 billion. A more accurate assessment would have been $1.05 trillion...."
ReplyDeleteI know I'm being silly, but did McMegan have a source for why the CBO would be off in its scoring by more than 16%? Or is she pulling "data" out of Peter's arse again?
Fake libertarian Megan McArdle is distressed about how Obama wants to spend taxpayer money
ReplyDeleteI've never understood this type of statement. Do you think that there is a group of people, the "real libertarians", who have rational and consistent positions on the economy, foreign policy, and social mores? If so, then you might want to disabuse yourself of that notion.
Heh! I guess I mean that even by her own loose standards, McArdle isn't a libertarian.
ReplyDelete