• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Health Bill Totals $849 Billion, CBO Estimates

There is lots of untruths on both sides of the political process, the things is though that you cant give people all the medical care they want and make things cheaper.

You can look at Medicare and see that.

Yeh, we can’t have Medicare, after all we wouldn’t want to compete with private insurances gouging of the populace to the tune of 2.3% per capita according to the latest MedPAC survey. :roll:
 
Yeh, we can’t have Medicare, after all we wouldn’t want to compete with private insurances gouging of the populace to the tune of 2.3% per capita according to MedPAC survey. :roll:

There is no such thing as gouging, so that doesn't really make a difference to me.

From your statement you seem to assume that I support health insurance companies.
 
Don't forget your teabags!

ATTENTION AMERICANS NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND THE HOPE FOR A PROSPEROUS AND HAPPY FUTURE FOR YOU CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN

This is not over stated and we cannot wait for the 2010 to stand and be counted to put an end to the Socialist/Marxist agenda being shoved down our throats.

The cost to the Nation's economy and each and every individual is such that we may never recover once Obama, Pelosi, Read and the rest of Anti-Americans who currently occupy positions of power get their way.

If you live in a State other than California where there is no hope from our Senators because they hate the Nation and everyone in it as much as the Anti-American triad of Obama, Pelosi, & Reid, then you contact your Senator and you tell them you will work to remove them from office if they back this crazy plan.

This "troika of hate" is spending this Nation into oblivion. They have spent us into debt that is going to take generations yet unborn to pay for.
 
There is no such thing as gouging, so that doesn't really make a difference to me.

Sure there is, just check some of the states where insurance companies have a near monopoly.

From your statement you seem to assume that I support health insurance companies.

No, i assumed that you don't favor Medicare for seniors.
 
Sure there is, just check some of the states where insurance companies have a near monopoly.

Please explain how they are over changing then.

No, i assumed that you don't favor Medicare for seniors.

I don't favor third parties getting involved with individuals medical care decisions.
As history has shown both Medicare and insurance companies raise prices by inducing consumption.
 
Please explain how they are over changing then.

I,m feeling a bit lazy today Harry so i will give you this and you can do your own homework.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.


I don't favor third parties getting involved with individuals medical care decisions.
As history has shown both Medicare and insurance companies raise prices by inducing consumption.

Yeah, some of the fees for service need to be reined in. Kinda like piecework in factories....Gasp...did we actually agree on something? :shock: :mrgreen:
 
Where does fox get these numbers?

In the actual CBO report it says $848 billion for the gross cost.

A net decrease in the budget by $130 billion.

These numbers are not off by much so its not a huge deal. How does Fox get this wrong though?

I have no idea where the $650 billion came from. The CBO reported:

...CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.
 
The Senate version requires payment for abortions from fees received from everyone. That will not go over well for millions of Americans and will be a major problem for this bill.

Some people are so adamant on the subject of abortions, that I have no doubt there would be a revolution of sorts if government tells them their insurance fees must go towards other people's abortions.
 
Not much point in getting riled up until they actually release the CBO report. I don't see how this has changed much since the last bill in the Senate, except for the fact that they're adding more taxes and caving even further to the unions.

Well, remember, it is a CBO report. The same fools who argued Clinton had a trillion dollar surplus based on projections. :rofl

If there is one thing I am 100% in agreement with TD on, it's that CBO projections aren't worth the paper they are printed on. CBO analysis of historical data is entirely different though.
 
Two-Thirds Of States Would Offer Public Option: CBO

s-PUBLIC-OPTION-large.jpg
s-PUBLIC-OPTION-large.jpg
s-PUBLIC-OPTION-large.jpg


Two-Thirds Of States Would Offer Public Option

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that roughly 33 states -- or two out of every three -- would offer a national, government-run insurance option for consumers even if given the opportunity to opt out of such a system.

"Rather than trying to judge which states might opt out," the CBO wrote in a letter accompanying the Senate's forthcoming legislation, "CBO applied a probability recognizing that public opinion is divided regarding the desirability of a public plan and that some states might have difficulty enacting legislation to opt out. Overall, CBO's assessment was that about two-thirds of the population would be expected to have a public plan available in their state."

The calculation seems drawn entirely out of thin air, as Time magazine's Karen Tumulty notes. And there are reasons to believe it could be either higher or lower than 66.7 percent.

The CBO estimates that only one out of every eight consumers would likely choose the public option. It's a modest, if not low, number but it is large enough to make a governor or state legislature think long and hard about removing that choice of coverage from the state exchange.

On the flip side, however, is the likelihood that by the time the public option becomes operational, statehouses in the country won't lean as Democratic. The public plan, a Senate aide confirms, would not start until 2014. And once it does become operational, states could opt out immediately.

Finally, the CBO estimates that a public plan with negotiated reimbursement rates might end up charging higher premiums than private insurers. This, of course, would make it less attractive to consumers and, by extension, state governments. But the public plan would likely attract riskier consumers -- including those who are elderly or sick or have a pre-existing condition -- which would make it all the more cruel for a governor to upend.

s-PUBLIC-OPTION-large.jpg
 
Well, remember, it is a CBO report. The same fools who argued Clinton had a trillion dollar surplus based on projections.

Yeah! They're all a bunch of idiots! Some guy on the internet knows so much more than they do!
 
Yeah! They're all a bunch of idiots! Some guy on the internet knows so much more than they do!

I got a hard time accepting projections from an organization that is generally wrong. Furthermore, I've DONE projections. Anything more then a few years (read two) is pretty much voodoo. There are far too many assumptions that underlie the projection that can be changed.

Besides, the fools argued we'd see a trillion dollar surplus on Clinton's budget.

lol. It's one thing to project and another to analyze historical data. The CBO is good for analyzing. Projections are another story.
 
I,m feeling a bit lazy today Harry so i will give you this and you can do your own homework.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

The government allowed them to be excluded from anti trust laws.

The problem is that government got in the way on this and instead of fixing things like this they go off on a wild tangent and do things that don't fix problems but create more.



Yeah, some of the fees for service need to be reined in. Kinda like piecework in factories....Gasp...did we actually agree on something? :shock: :mrgreen:

I disagree that fee for service is bad.

Shielding customers from the fee is the main problem.
Insurance both private and government do this.
 
I got a hard time accepting projections from an organization that is generally wrong.

CBO is usually pretty accurate. More than other leading government forecasters.

This will interest you. CBO assessing it's past accuracy:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3277&type=0&sequence=6

Furthermore, I've DONE projections. Anything more then a few years (read two) is pretty much voodoo. There are far too many assumptions that underlie the projection that can be changed.

Fine. That applies to yours too.
 
Last edited:
Dems won the debate starts after thanksgiving. The vote was 60 to 39 they got just enough I guess Lieberman was what they needed.
 
Posted this in another thread....It should've gone here-

Looks like that "$130 billion surplus" this bill is suppose to generate has been wiped out-


Republicans assail US health care bill, Democrats set first vote in Senate Saturday night

Thu Nov 19, 9:56 PM
By David Espo, The Associated Press

--------------

Given the political stakes, there was disagreement even about the bill's cost.


Democrats put the price tag at $979 billion, higher than the $849 billion figure they had cited Wednesday as the cost of expanding coverage to 31 million who now lack insurance. Republicans calculated it at more like $1.5 trillion over a decade, and said even that was understated because Reid decided to delay implementation of some of the bill's main features until 2014.

----------
 
CBO is usually pretty accurate. More than other leading government forecasters.

This will interest you. CBO assessing it's past accuracy:
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2003-2012

Did you read the bottom?
If those averages were applied to CBO's current baseline, the actual surplus or deficit could be expected to differ in one direction or the other from CBO's projections by about $50 billion in 2002, $130 billion in 2003, and over $350 billion in 2007.

Furthermore, did you check the date on that? Seriously. OLD DATA.

Fine. That applies to yours too.

I know projections beyond a few years are voodoo.

Look at the CBO's projections for Clinton. Not worth the paper it was printed on.
 
Did you read the bottom?
If those averages were applied to CBO's current baseline, the actual surplus or deficit could be expected to differ in one direction or the other from CBO's projections by about $50 billion in 2002, $130 billion in 2003, and over $350 billion in 2007.

Furthermore, did you check the date on that? Seriously. OLD DATA.

I didn't care enough to find better.

I know projections beyond a few years are voodoo.

I don't dispute that.
 
Back
Top Bottom