Even setting aside the fact that $727b =/= $1T, can you think of a reason why the projections for expenditures from 2009-2018 are entirely non-responsive to the claim that the program, which was passed in 2003, cost $549b over the first 10 years of expenditures?
I asked you for evidence from this letter showing that the current bill will result in savings of $1.2T over the second decade.
You responded with a quote from an October 2009 letter analyzing a different bill and discussing spending in the program's first decade.
I think he thinks that spamming random blocks of text will just confuse people enough to make them think he knows what he's talking about.
So I ask, how can we go by a CBO score that is only a small part of a bigger plan to come? (They already found another $371 billion additional cost this morning, btw)
No one should think this is the end of it either way. More reform, including a public option, might actually do more to reduce costs than what we have now. So, what they are voting on now is what is proposed now, but no one considers it the end of this. More work will need to be done, as there is with most such efforts. Rarely is it a perfect product with no more work done once passed.