The CBO has released its assessment of the health care bill that Congress will vote on this weekend. It will cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in its first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion in its second 10 years. The cost is estimated at $940 billion over 10 years.
This is good news for the Dems as they can now say that it is not only deficit neutral but a deficit reducer. Of course, this doesn't mean much for life inside the cocoon as I'm certain these figures will be ignored and cries of everyone going bankrupt will be heard all over the airwaves.
If they only stepped outside of the cocoon for a bit, they could see that we already are going bankrupt.
16 comments:
Encouraging numbers indeed. It's interesting to do a google search now and see how quickly the liberal side of the equation jumped on those numbers with a gigantic SEEEE...WE TOLD YOU SO. I wonder how many of them will accept with open minds the criticisms and corrections of the CBO numbers that have already begun to filter down. The fact that these numbers are labeled as preliminary by the very group who generated the numbers receives nary a mention in your post, M. That's sad. You can do better than that.
I find it hilarious that Republicans champion the CBO when they say something they like but poo poo it when they say something they don't like.
I find it hilarious that Republicans champion the CBO when they say something they like but poo poo it when they say something they don't like.
Is that somehow different from what the Democrats do?
I can create a deficit reduction too. Increase costs by $800 BILLION and raise taxes by $900 BILLION. Voila!
I'm happy as hell to start paying for this BS now, and not see any benefits for 3-4 YEARS. That's fantastic!
Seems the CBO is being tasked as how they are to report the numbers by the Democrats:
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion
Short term is not necessarily the big issue. Long term, this is a disaster in the making.
>If they only stepped outside of the cocoon for a bit, they could see that we already are going bankrupt.
Really? Can you point to anyone who actually said that we aren't going bankrupt? (Haha, trick question Mark, I know you can't.)
Since you are in your usual business of making up what you think your opponents say, I'll give you a clue - we are well aware that we are going bankrupt, and, given the weight of historical evidence, our claim would be that the health care boondoggle is only going to make things worse. Much worse.
Leaving aside the CBO analysis, which as 6Kings pointed out has a number of 'gaming the numbers' issues with it, can you point me to an entitlement program that is at or under its pre-program projected cost?
"given the weight of historical evidence"
I notice that you cite none so until you do, your statements and questions are not worthy of a response. Oh, and by evidence I mean something like this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z2.xls
Not like this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/
I'm quite certain, though, that if it is successful that you will just pretend that it isn't.
What, you mean other than the numerous cites given over the years at TSM?
And speaking of other things you keep ignoring (#1):
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Bonus questions: Will you admit that the House version of the bill includes a public option, and that you were wrong when you told her otherwise? WHY isn't the public option currently in the Senate version of the bill?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
Kinda makes your original statement seem outdated and, in fact, naive. I'm sure this program will stay underbudget like most gov't programs.... Or like the state-run healthcare programs of Oregon and Massachusetts.
"I notice that you cite none so until you do, your statements and questions are not worthy of a response."
Since you are intellectually lazy, I just goggled and found this on the first page. Yes, these are historical facts.
from: http://bit.ly/djPJAk
"At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."
or how about this one:
http://bit.ly/Qh02z
"In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion."
"The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress."
Now let's see the model for health care reform in Massachusetts with a much more limited test bed: http://bit.ly/d9vR4G
"Former Governor Mitt Romney sold this plan as a way to control spending. The new entitlement has failed to control costs. For fiscal 2010 the cost over budget is $47 million and in fiscal 2011 the cost is estimated at $913 million. The original estimated cost was two thirds less."
Does anyone really believe that Congress can design a health care system that will provide the best care at the lowest cost?
OK, how about in general, here are 5 programs run by the government and their projected and actual costs: http://bit.ly/aWHzac
You are a fool if you think the CBO, with manipulations driven by Democrats need for a win, has the correct numbers. In fact, you are a fool if you want government to control anything it is not mandated to do by the constitution especially since it is an inefficient, cumbersome, and corrupt beast.
So the CBO only works when it's in your favor, 6Kings? Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit.
I never said that Medicare was perfect. It's not. But it's not going bankrupt and this new legislation is going to help that. Of course then you would have to have actually read the parts in the bill that detail that. I doubt you will because your mind is already made up and any new information is going to bounce off the cocoon. If the government is involved, it's fucked up. Wait, I'm sorry it's an "inefficient, cumbersome, and corrupt beast." Hold on a second...
There...whew...I had to get the image of Jim Jones out of my head.
I spent some time the other day talking some friends of mine who are in Landmark Education. It's basically a cult--like scientology--and I was chuckling the entire time I was listening as most of what they were saying and HOW they were saying it...how they were so convinced...well, it reminded me of many who post here and at TSM with their views on health care.
Anon-your link refers to the earlier version of the bill not the current one. We'll see if they roll back the cuts. They haven't done it yet. Facts only, please.
Ed-the public option is not in the bill that the House is voting on tomorrow. It's not in the current bill because we don't have enough liberals in Congress. I would think you would be happy.
6Kings-your first link begins with a prediction of the future. Where are the facts and logic? Your second link provides no cites for me to verify the claims made in it. As I said before, let's see some actual government documents as I posted above.
"Does anyone really believe that Congress can design a health care system that will provide the best care at the lowest cost?"
I do. As do millions of people on Medicare and Veteran's benefits. Step out of your cocoon and go ask them. But wait! They don't really think that..it must be my lyin' eyes again.
It would be a gross error to believe that I think this bill is going to solve everything. It's not. But all of the things you predict will happen are already happening with private industry but you refuse to see them. Your solutions (tort reform and state portability) are laughable.
The simple fact is that you DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION because you don't think the government is the solution. It flies in the fact of all logic because the results from the actions of the insurance industry, HMOs and other health care facilities demonstrably prove that they clearly are not in the solution business either.
And now, I guess the church isn't allowed to be involved in helping people either. I wonder if you guys are going to blow a big chance to win back seats in the fall by being complete psychotics.
We'll see...
" the public option is not in the bill that the House is voting on tomorrow"
The point is that it is in the version the HOUSE PASSED. What you told the woman at the gym Was. Flat. WRONG! Just admit it.
"It's not in the current bill because we don't have enough liberals in Congress."
It's not in the SENATE version (which the House may, or may not be voting on. It's hard to tell with all the illegitimate, unconstitutional, and therefore illegal Slaughter Rules tactics) BECAUSE of the TEA Party people and conservatives that you so vilify. If it hadn't been for us, you asshole leftists would have Already. Passed. It. You were trying to reassure her (and us) that there is no intent to pass the fool thing, so we should drop our opposition, when that very opposition is WHY it hasn't passed (yet).
"Does anyone really believe that Congress can design a health care system that will provide the best care at the lowest cost?"
I do. As do millions of people on Medicare and Veteran's benefits.
Snort. Chuckle! ROTFL!!!
You obviously haven't talked to any veterans who use that "health care" lately. While some of it is very good, most of it is HORRIBLE.
For someone who doesn't listen to Glenn Beck, you sound exactly like him, Ed.
Ya know, it puzzles me - how it is that the liberal posters here always are saying that the non-liberals sound just like Beck or Rush or whoever. Y'all watch/listen to them a helluva lot more than I ever have.
What juris said.
donald,
In what way?
Post a Comment