Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 123 of 123

Thread: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Baffling Idiotic "Green New Deal," and why it will harm efforts to combat Global Warming

  1. #121
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,936

    Default Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Baffling Idiotic "Green New Deal," and why it will harm efforts to combat Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    That's a crude estimation at best, and a misleading one.
    If I’m wrong, then what is the true cost of the GND.

    Edit: Investopedia which supports GND cites a study that put the total cost at 93 trillion dollars, which is more than the combined GDP of the entire planet. https://www.investopedia.com/the-gre...lained-4588463

    The biggest portion there is Medicare for All costing at $3.2 trillion, however, they don't mention that its replacing programs that already cost $2 trillion dollars.
    Where are you getting these numbers from, and will it really replace all current Government expenditure on healthcare?

    That fact alone cuts the cost of GND, based on their crude estimate, by 31%. Much of the GND provides means to produce more and spend more. All of those translate to paying more taxes and generating economic activity.
    How will it generate economic activity.

    Are you aware Cortez plans to fund this by printing money, likely causing hyperinflation leading to a Venezuela situation?
    Last edited by Aexodus; March 13, 2019 at 08:59 AM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I'm afraid of both far-right terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism. I'm not afraid of conservatives or Muslims.

  2. #122

    Default Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Baffling Idiotic "Green New Deal," and why it will harm efforts to combat Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    A tax credit is not money you invest. A tax credit is money that you agree not to collect in order to incentivize someone else to invest. The $3 billion would have been a reduction of the $30 billion in tax revenue the deal was projected to generate, thus netting the state $27 billion. The state could afford the $3 billion because it was getting $30 billion.
    As de Blasio pointed out:
    Money that does not exist and will not exist, does not exist. I feel like this is a fairly elementary concept. It's not a partisan position, it's more matter of reality. The mayor, a Democrat, apparently not a moron, understands this, even without an economics degree from Boston University.
    I used to think disputes like this reflected a difference in priorities, but now I see, in this case anyway, that the problem is something different.
    Sigh... Seems like you could not come up with any addressing of what I actually said, hence, you're clinging to a fallacy. Not much I can when you merely repeat what you claim without addressing what's said about that claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    If I’m wrong, then what is the true cost of the GND.
    Edit: Investopedia which supports GND cites a study that put the total cost at 93 trillion dollars, which is more than the combined GDP of the entire planet. https://www.investopedia.com/the-gre...lained-4588463
    Where are you getting these numbers from, and will it really replace all current Government expenditure on healthcare?
    How will it generate economic activity.
    Are you aware Cortez plans to fund this by printing money, likely causing hyperinflation leading to a Venezuela situation?
    I don't know the true cost of GND. I have not seen a proper analysis. They all assume a total and instant implementation while never taking any details into account. In reality, GND aims for a focus in a particular direction, not wielding a magic wand to change everything over a day. How it could create economic activity should have been obvious as it first and foremost envisions an overhaul of infrastructure overall USA which in itself creates a lot of jobs, in turn, income taxes. More jobs, more money, more sales, more tax generating income. All of that is done at a time when USA already requires extensive amount of infrastructure improvement.

    The U.S. Treasury prints money all the time. Just like any economic process if not handled properly it can lead to disaster. That doesn't mean it will always lead to disaster. Especially with a stable currency like dollar USA is in a much better place compared to other states to print money. The idea that printing money will cause inflation is not exactly an accurate idea. However, Cortez didn't really say that printing money would be how the cost would be handled. She proposed taxes, deficit spending, bonds, etc. Funny enough, printing money to pay debt was Trump's idea back in 2016...

    I can't remember where I got the $2 trillion number, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services puts the health care expenditure at $3.5 trillion in 2017. Existing programs like Medicare and Medicaid alone total about $1.3 trillion. With out-of-pocket spending the total number goes up to $1.65 trillion.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #123
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Baffling Idiotic "Green New Deal," and why it will harm efforts to combat Global Warming

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/th...icare-for-all/
    Or, as Blahous told us via email, achieving a 40 percent reduction in reimbursement rates is an “unlikely outcome” and “actual costs are likely to be substantially greater.”
    “To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”
    The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.
    Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”
    M4A is falling down with a basic flaw that is the equal of stating that if all schooling were publicly funded and all private funded schooling were to disappear, then the costs of universal publicly fund schooling would be cheaper than the current system.

    The flaw is what happens if the private funding disappears is not explained. In the case of M4A, there is a significant chance that many professionals nearing retirement age will leave sooner rather than later and thus expenditures will be less because there are fewer people to provide the services. The obvious 'solution' would then be to increase government funding to attract more providers. But M4A assumes a static model so this is brushed aside.

    In fairness, part of the problem is also the problem of taking a 10 year cost projection and dividing by 10 for an annual projection. Often the projection includes escalating costs over time so the annual cost in year 10 is substantially higher than in year 1.If you look at the actual report: The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” and read table 2 you will see this escalation from 2.5 trillion in 2022 to 4.2 trillion in 2031. I have used the sin of rounding, so use the figures in the table if you want greater precision on the estimates. They are still estimate though and .04 trillion is still real money of 40 billion.

    The paper also notes that there would be an increase demand due to broadening of services not covered in existing plans as well as increased utilization (polite phrase for doing things not already being done on any plan). These increases are not even reflected in table 2.

    For example, how many people get a root canal today? If this were to be a government program, how many more root canals would need to be performed to meet the new demand? This is not saying that those root canals are not needed, but there is no means to translate such increased demand when currently the existing demand over and above the current use of root canals is unknowable.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •