>>>>>>>In 2008 enrollment in Medicare was 44 million people.
>>>>>>>In 2008 Medicare was budgeted $325 billion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's $7386 per participant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Extrapolated to include all 300 million Americans would mean that the 2008 budget requirement would need to be $2.2 trillion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Medicare doesn't come close to covering all health costs and this simple calculation doesn't include medicaid nor private supplemental plans which are concurrently used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can someone please explain to me how gullible we citizens are supposed to be to believe that State-sponsored universal coverage will not bankrupt this nation? Mind you our entire 2008 budget was $2.66 trillion with a deficit of $240 billion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll bite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Extrapolating Medicare costs to the entire population is misleading because Medicare covers only the oldest (65+) group of Americans who, on average, are much higher consumers of health care. In fact, 27% of Medicare costs are consumed in the final year of life of Medicare patients.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are at the beginning of the baby boomers entering the later stages of life and due to the profound advances in this country's health care people are living longer than ever. As such, I'd suggest that my estimate is on the low side.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Total health care expenditures in the US in 2007 was 2.1 trillion. (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/proj2007.pdf)
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. So using the rhetorical device of "50 million" uninsured we can assume that the $2.1 trillion is being consumed by 250 million insured people at $8400/person. We can then extrapolate that adding those "50 million" to the system will result in a total cost of
>>>>>$2.52 trillion. Not much better.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The 2 trillion cost for universal health care is not in addition to todays cost. It is a shift from 'premium' to 'tax'.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is a forced shift from the private sector to State control. IE freedom lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree, on our present course healthcare costs are going to bankrupt the country. I'm ready to try something else.
>>>>>
>>>>>We agree. However, that something else should not take us down the path of historical failures. There are other, better, private sector solutions.
>>>>
>>>>A nice VAT tax would handle the load nicely.
>>>
>>>Perfect. Another tax.
>>>
>>>On that front, I certainly wouldn't want to be successful in New York.
>>>http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm
>>
>>
>>:)) I knew someonewould jump if I said that. The Liberals introduced a VAT tax called the GST or goods and services tax. It's a growing sales tax. Here's how it works: Say you mine iron. When you sell it, it gets taxed. The buyer makes it into steel and sells it and it get's taxed again. The next buyer makes a car from the iron and when he sells it to the dealer it is taxed again. Then you come and buy the car and in the price are ALL the accrued taxes that were paid along the route to you owning it. England has a VAT tax too. That might finance medicare eh?
>
>Except it was introduced by Brian Mulroney who to the best of my knowledge has never been a liberal. In fact, the liberal dominated senate refused to pass it into law, so Mulroney temporarily appointed 8 more conservative senators to get it passed. The liberals then filibustered to delay it, but that's all they could do - delay it. Sorry, you can't lay that one on the grits.

You may be right, but I must say that Brians effect on the country was certainly produced a 'liberal' result. He and Trudeau are not well liked in this area.