CBO Numbers [have just come out]

Does anyone believe even the basic premise that anyone can predict costs for a program 10 or 20 years out.
Even if you say well we have to hve something score this my response is why. Adding an entitlement for 30 million people can't be free. Did anyone bother to ask what hapens to this score when immigration reform adds another 10 million people who will be part of this program.

As to the taxes that are going to be raised. In case folks forgot we have a $1.3 trillion deficit so who thinks taxes do not have to be raised to help offset that.

Are folks really as gullible as what I am reading here. Or do they know this is all B.S. but it is a dance we have to perform to pass this new entitlement.

washunut said:

Are folks really as gullible as what I am reading here. Or do they know this is all B.S. but it is a dance we have to perform to pass this new entitlement.

Click to expand...

Some are just plain gullible. Others have a limited scope due to limited experience.

washunut said:

Does anyone believe even the basic premise that anyone can predict costs for a program 10 or 20 years out.

Click to expand...

its like any financial forecasting
assumptions are made. being unable to predict the future, that is the best that can be expected. when comparing the actual outcomes with the pro forma, the variance typically increases over time

Even if you say well we have to hve something score this my response is why.

Click to expand...

that's how budgets are prepared. the associated predictable costs and revenues are compiled to determine if the spending will yield a predictably positive or negative result

Adding an entitlement for 30 million people can't be free.

Click to expand...

i agree with you here. but also recognize that many of these 30 MM were already costing public monies in the form of health care received from emergency rooms. the most expensive form of care available. providing them lower cost alternatives will generate a savings

Did anyone bother to ask what hapens to this score when immigration reform adds another 10 million people who will be part of this program.

Click to expand...

why only 10 MM? but would that not be something which would be estimated when the congress was actually examining the costs of immigration reform. to assess the federal fiscal exposure expected to result if we would add more eligibles to our nation's rolls receiving public assistance. and it is my understanding those illegal aliens are now enjoying the benefit of tax dollars when they receive care at emergency rooms where that care is paid for by the feds

As to the taxes that are going to be raised. In case folks forgot we have a $1.3 trillion deficit so who thinks taxes do not have to be raised to help offset that.

Click to expand...

having such a deficit is a massive drag on our economy. just as is nation building and war in the middle east and the excessive amount of federal resources given over to defense. there are better places to extract economy than in our citizens' health

Are folks really as gullible as what I am reading here. Or do they know this is all B.S. but it is a dance we have to perform to pass this new entitlement.

Click to expand...

i haven't seen the numbers but i give more credibility to the data generated by the CBO/OMB than mindless rants posted without any factual basis to support the opposition

Very happy to see such a large deficit reduction measure could be passed.

"Democrats are calling it the "biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years"--that is, since the 1993 Clinton budget.

This news should ease the anxiety of reform critics, both in Congress and beyond, who worry that health care reform will bankrupt the government or the country. CBO projections are not an exact science, but they're as reliable as anything we have. If anything, their projections err on the side of excessive caution."

Dems Get The CBO Score They Want | The New Republic

It does seem to have long term cost saving potential, but I want to hear other estimates before I celebrate. In general, it looks promising.

Orion said:

It does seem to have long term cost saving potential, but I want to hear other estimates before I celebrate. In general, it looks promising.

Click to expand...

What have they even measured? NOBODY knows what this monstrosity will cost. Nobody.

The Democrats are basically calling this a very early rough draft for healthcare anyway. Again, what are we measuring?

Erod said:

What have they even measured? NOBODY knows what this monstrosity will cost. Nobody.

The Democrats are basically calling this a very early rough draft for healthcare anyway. Again, what are we measuring?

Click to expand...

Uh... the cost breakdown and the future cost benefits (within the next two decades) were clearly stated in the OP. So yeah, estimates exist. Are they accurate? Now that's another question. Like I said, I'm waiting to hear other sources weigh in on this. We know the Republicans will overstate the cost, and the Democrats will understate it; so now, let's see what third parties have to say.

Erod said:

As the entire nation inhales and exclaims a simultaneous "BULL****!"

LOL

I mean, does ANYONE actually believe this will reduce the deficit? Really? LOL

This changed not a single mind from their previous position.

Dems, vote for this at your own peril. Republicans may have 90 votes in the Senate by 2012.

Click to expand...

Republicans aren't scoring high on public relations either. The moderate consensus building up goes something like Democrats can't govern and Republicans are crazy. The most likely result of such opinions is a decline in voter turn out.

[


i haven't seen the numbers but i give more credibility to the data generated by the CBO/OMB than mindless rants posted without any factual basis to support the opposition[/QUOTE]

Not sure why you have to use a personal insult. Shows the level of discourse and civility that too many use in this "forum".

Erod said:

Again, what are we measuring?

Click to expand...

As is customary, the CBO rated the draft legislation provided to them

Orion said:

so now, let's see what third parties have to say.

Click to expand...

What third parties are there that are more unbiased and accurate than the CBO?

Catawba said:

As is customary, the CBO rated the draft legislation provided to them



What third parties are there that are more unbiased and accurate than the CBO?

Click to expand...

It's not the CBO that I have major doubts about. It's the information given to the CBO by congressional members.

Orion said:

Uh... the cost breakdown and the future cost benefits (within the next two decades) were clearly stated in the OP. So yeah, estimates exist. Are they accurate? Now that's another question.

Click to expand...

In this country, government-run programs rarely cost what is estimated- it may even be safe to say they never cost what is projected. There will be a huge bureaucracy because it's a government-run program. They basically have unlimited resources as long as there are enough American taxpayers to pay the bills (which is not looking certain by any means). Government programs do not have to run efficiently because they don't have anyone to answer to. There are no stockholders, no profit margin to be made, and no need to run it like a legitimate business. It will be fraught with waste, abuse, and most likely, fraud.

Catawba said:

As is customary, the CBO rated the draft legislation provided to them

Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well --- the CBO cannot investigate or guess at the amount they just go with what is in front of them. If the bill in front of them is deceptive, the dollar amount they provide reflect that deceptive bill.

Paul Ryan was interviewed this evening by Mark Levin - who's definately not for this health care bill nor for the Slaughter amendment and is planning on a lawsuit as soon as it's used this weekend (if in fact it is used). Basically Ryan is claiming double dipping and double counting of Medicare cuts, Doctor Fix, SS taxes, etc... to the tune of approximately $900 billion is fake savings.

Sounds great... certainly worth an airplane ride. [/sarcasm]

Here's some interesting information as of tonight:
Mark Levin

Ockham said:

Here's some interesting information as of tonight:

Click to expand...

"parliamentary experts of both parties said the tactic has been used with increasing frequency in recent years by Democrats and Republicans alike, usually earlier in the legislative process. And political analysts wrangled over whether the use of the "self-executing rule," also known as a "deem and pass," would further antagonize an electorate whose enthusiasm for Democrats has dimmed in the past year.

Legal scholars disagreed about whether it would be a constitutional way to pass the legislation. Yet even critics said they doubt that the procedure would put the measure at risk of being struck down by the courts."
washingtonpost.com

Catawba said:

Very happy to see such a large deficit reduction measure could be passed.

"Democrats are calling it the "biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years"--that is, since the 1993 Clinton budget.

This news should ease the anxiety of reform critics, both in Congress and beyond, who worry that health care reform will bankrupt the government or the country. CBO projections are not an exact science, but they're as reliable as anything we have. If anything, their projections err on the side of excessive caution."

Dems Get The CBO Score They Want | The New Republic

Click to expand...

See the above posts. Most of the benefits don't kick in until 2014, but taxes go up sooner. These estimates rely on the government following the bill to the letter, which almost never happens. Government projects have a history ballooning costs. Being deficeit neutral relies on the future Medicare cuts that probably won't happen. In other words there is no way that government can increase its scope this much and still cut costs.

I heard reports of a lot of double counting of savings. Evidently there is more than a Trillion dollars of it: Medicare savings, off bill doctor payments, Social Security cuts...

What a load of crap this bill is.

Catawba said:

"parliamentary experts of both parties said the tactic has been used with increasing frequency in recent years by Democrats and Republicans alike, usually earlier in the legislative process. And political analysts wrangled over whether the use of the "self-executing rule," also known as a "deem and pass," would further antagonize an electorate whose enthusiasm for Democrats has dimmed in the past year.

Legal scholars disagreed about whether it would be a constitutional way to pass the legislation. Yet even critics said they doubt that the procedure would put the measure at risk of being struck down by the courts."
washingtonpost.com

Click to expand...

I don't care how many times it's been used. It throws checks and balances out the window.

Erod said:

As the entire nation inhales and exclaims a simultaneous "BULL****!"

LOL

I mean, does ANYONE actually believe this will reduce the deficit? Really? LOL

Click to expand...

Explain why it won't, Mr. Expert, in detail.

Catawba said:

"parliamentary experts of both parties said the tactic has been used with increasing frequency in recent years by Democrats and Republicans alike, usually earlier in the legislative process. And political analysts wrangled over whether the use of the "self-executing rule," also known as a "deem and pass," would further antagonize an electorate whose enthusiasm for Democrats has dimmed in the past year.

Legal scholars disagreed about whether it would be a constitutional way to pass the legislation. Yet even critics said they doubt that the procedure would put the measure at risk of being struck down by the courts."
washingtonpost.com

Click to expand...

Let's let the courts decide. Can't wait for the passage and Obama to sign his and the Democrats own execution orders. Something about chickens and roosting comes to mind.

And let me be clear...(lol) Deem and pass has been used before however, as a joint resolution/ bill. This means it passes with and without legislation and the joint resolution is "deemed" to have passed. Then if the Senate approves it, it goes the President who signs and it's done. But that's not what's happening with Health Care. That's been done using a joint resolution and one bill - many times and it's a ****ty process to use.

Slaughter Solution isn't pushing one joint resolution but two legislative measures in a single vote, Health Care and Reconciliation. That's never been done before - or if it has, I wish someone would post it. It goes to the Senate but any amendments taken by the Senate would have to go back to the House for again, approval and an up/down vote so we know that's not going to happen and all amendments will ultimately be rejected. (It the House can't pass it with a vote now, they won't with amendments).. I digress.... Obama then signs the HC bill but DOESN'T specifically sign the Reconciliation bill that the House deemed.

The Slaughter motion stipulates only some of the legislative stuff that the House approved gets to be signed into law the remainder doesn't. That's why it's Un-Constitutional, per the Section 1 Article 7.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I don't care how many times it's been used. It throws checks and balances out the window.

Click to expand...

Not really. It's just an indirect vote, for the rule instead of the bill. Everyone will know that anyway and vote up or down on the rule as if it were the bill.

reefedjib said:

I heard reports of a lot of double counting of savings. Evidently there is more than a Trillion dollars of it: Medicare savings, off bill doctor payments, Social Security cuts...

What a load of crap this bill is.

Click to expand...

Wow, you heard it. It must be true then.

If it is, then this defeats the purpose of the motion.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

See the above posts. Most of the benefits don't kick in until 2014, but taxes go up sooner. These estimates rely on the government following the bill to the letter, which almost never happens. Government projects have a history ballooning costs. Being deficeit neutral relies on the future Medicare cuts that probably won't happen. In other words there is no way that government can increase its scope this much and still cut costs.

Click to expand...

No one said deficit reduction would be easy. I suppose we could have just put a trillion dollars on the tab as Bush did with his prescription card program, and the other trillion the Republicans put on the tab for the tax cuts for the wealthy, but I prefer paying for programs up front. CBO estimates are usually conservative.

Its kind of funny seeing how in 1998, the Republicans threatened to cut budget funding of the CBO because they thought their cost estimates were too conservative.

Catawba said:

No one said deficit reduction would be easy.

Click to expand...

What deficit reduction?

Catawba said:

I suppose we could have just put a trillion dollars on the tab as Bush did with his prescription card program, and the other trillion the Republicans put on the tab for the tax cuts for the wealthy, but I prefer paying for programs up front. CBO estimates are usually conservative.

Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly what happened already... without the health care bust.

National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Catawba said:

Its kind of funny seeing how in 1998, the Republicans threatened to cut budget funding of the CBO because they thought their cost estimates were too conservative.

Click to expand...

The times they are a changin'.

half the "deficit reduction" comes from "savings" supposedly found in school loans

there is a quarter tril doc fix, not paid for

House passes Medicare 'doc fix,' 243-183 - TheHill.com

there is a double counting of another quarter T, says cbo

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

there's 10 years of taxes vs 6 of benefits

RealClearPolitics - Senator Ben Nelson on the Senate Health Care Bill

cbo scored what leadership put in front of it, naturally

meanwhile, bay state treasurer tim cahill, overseer of romney-care, says america will go bankrupt if it passes this bill

Tim Cahill slams Barack Obama, Dems on health care - BostonHerald.com

pretty much all america knows it

you can't expand m and m by tens of millions while simultaneously trimming it massively

as certain as gravity

the only reason to pass this monstrosity is to try to rescue obama's dead presidency

and even that won't work

party on, progressives

rapidly o'er the precipice