Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!
Started by CraigStern, March 21, 2010, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Pylons on April 27, 2010, 10:34:45 PMHealthcare for 11 million is a drop in the bucket even if all the same rights are extended to illegal immigrants.
Quote from: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/Amnesty-Will-Cost-US-Taxpayers-at-Least-26-TrillionMedicaid and Medicare costs are likely to rise faster than the rate of general inflation. To project the future governmental costs of amnesty recipients during retirement, this paper has used the current net governmental costs for elderly immigrants with skill levels similar to the amnesty population. These net governmental costs amount to $17,000 per person per year in 2004; half of this cost was medical care expenditures under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The cost of government Medicaid and Medicare benefits has tended to escalate rapidly both because medical cost inflation has been greater than the general rate of inflation in the economy and because the range of medical services provided by these programs has expanded. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid services is likely to continue to increase more rapidly than inflation for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, the actual retirement costs for amnesty recipients will almost certainly be greater than $2.6 trillion, even after adjusting for general inflation.
Quote from: CraigStern on April 28, 2010, 10:02:08 AMSure, having more citizens available for government benefits will increase costs. What the author fails to mention, however, is that by bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, the government will also have a new source of tax revenue to pay those costs. Many undocumented immigrants are currently paid "under the table," dodging federal income taxes and payroll taxes on money they earn working. Amnesty gives them an incentive to start paying into the system (and, by the same token, removes much of the incentive employers have to hire them in place of citizens, since employers will have to start paying taxes for them as well).
QuoteThe study used modeling to look at ten "representative states" as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered prior to Obamacare are compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the exchanges. Consumers in three states – Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio – could see their premiums increase by as much as 43%, while in the final two states – Louisiana and New Mexico – consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable.
Quote from: CraigStern on March 23, 2010, 11:14:22 AMQuoteThere isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?It's one thing to be philosophically opposed to government involvement in health care. That's a personal belief, not susceptible to proof. But you can't just walk up and say "government is always inefficient, therefore this program will be poorly managed and wasteful." That's a factual assertion, and you need to have a factual basis for making it.
QuoteThere isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?