• 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!

CBO Numbers [have just come out]

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) just released the first set of Congressional Budget Office numbers to reporters this morning.
The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.


Here are the details, according to House Democrats:
1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years. 2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years. 3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered. 4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).​

The key here is ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS, and Democrats, as well as Republicans, are notorious for spin.

I would like to hear how others here interpret those numbers.
 
Being that I don't believe anything I hear from about 90% of politicians, I take the numbers with a grain of salt, and expect the numbers are highly unrealistic.;)
 
Being that I don't believe anything I hear from about 90% of politicians, I take the numbers with a grain of salt, and expect the numbers are highly unrealistic.;)

that causes me to wonder what data you would use to scrutinize this action
 
The key here is ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS, and Democrats, as well as Republicans, are notorious for spin.

I would like to hear how others here interpret those numbers.

Id like to see how they spun medicare costs...

I believe we are going to have health care passed whether we like it or not. That being the case I HOPE I am wrong and that Obama and the left is right. And if so...if costs come down and service stays at a high standard, I will be the FIRST to admit I was wrong.
 
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.
 
“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.1)

Conservative News: UPDATED: Democrats Touting 'Unofficial' CBO Score - HUMAN EVENTS

it's an estimate, not an official score

that's why leadership (once more, as always) won't let ANYONE SEE IT

LOL!

they're totally DESPERATE

to understand this story in its full context you must appreciate that house rules require ms slaughter to put up seventy two hours in advance of a vote the rules for floor debate---how many minutes for this side, how many for that, exactly how amendments (if any) will be submitted and decided upon, etc---the rules for floor debate

leadership must have them up and online 72 hours before a vote can go down

leadership wanted so badly to proceed on SATURDAY

but to do so they needed to be up and aready as of midnite last nite

now, the best they can do is SUNDAY

and to accomplish THAT they must have the ENTIRE RECONCILIATION, along with floor rules, up and online by midnite tonite

the fact that clyburn, who only a few days ago suggested the arm twisting would go on PAST EASTER, is touting as some great VICTORY for his party a cbo ESTIMATE---at a TIME LIKE THIS, when they're in such a HURRY---is sure sign of BIG TROUBLE (as always) on the leadership front

pieface is sposed to be on his plane to the pacific NOON SUNDAY
 
The key here is ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS, and Democrats, as well as Republicans, are notorious for spin.

I would like to hear how others here interpret those numbers.
I wonder how much they had to raise taxes/premiums before they got those numbers.
 
Frankly a CBO score of a bill which isn't even the thing in question that even the CBO acknowledges is preliminary and an estimate at best is not something I put much stock in eitehr way.
 
that causes me to wonder what data you would use to scrutinize this action

The end result.

Most people don't have the ability to look down the road at what today's actions will cause. I do have that ability, but realize that you can't fight ignorance with foresight, so I don't fight about it. I can accept that most humans must learn the hard way.
 
Last edited:
meanwhile, floor whip lynch from boston DAMNS the DEEM

Stephen Lynch calls health care vote plan ‘disingenuous’ - BostonHerald.com

if you're interested you need to know that leadership is NOW kinda backing away from the slaughter solution

i say, "kinda," because leadership keeps changing its tack every ten minutes

and when the whip says one thing the leader routinely announces the opposite

without the DEEM their only option is to vote on the SENATE BILL exactly as written

including the cornhusker kickback and gatoraid and seiu and all the other CRAP the president used to promise he'd take out until he saw he just doesn't have time

it is what it is

a party leadership desperate to move that which is stuck, desperate against a timetable that's going tick tock tick even faster than they're changing their minds, a leadership desperate to paint an ESTIMATE as a rules-qualifying SCORE, etc, etc, etc

they're moving away from DEEM this morning, they're moving back to the senate bill, they're out of time, they're misrepresenting...

it is what it is

oh, yeah, lynch said he'd "probably" vote against the senate bill, too

sorry
 
From the CBO's letter:

-Over the next four years, change in insurance status would be very minimal. Three million fewer people would be receiving Medicaid/CHIP while three million more people would be covered by employer insurance. It won't be until 2014 that there's any notable change in the number of uninsured, at which point it will ramp up to the full projected 30 million by 2016, with 21m getting insurance through the exchanges, 17m getting it through Medicaid/CHIP, and 8m dropping out of employer or nongroup insurance.

-By 2019, there would still be 23m people without insurance, and the number would have started growing again.

-Penalty payments by individuals and businesses would total $69b over the 10 year period.

-The excise tax wouldn't kick in until 2018, but would net $12b in its first year and $20b in its second.

-As to the budget savings: "Approximately $85 billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget."

-The claim that the proposal will "cut the budget by $1.2T in the second decade" is a load of ****. The CBO says that the effect of the reform, if left unchanged, will be something like 0.5% of GDP. That's as specific as they get. They project the effect of the reconciliation bill as being something "between zero and .25% of GDP," aka "something between $0 and $600b."

The only reason for such drastic savings is that once it hits the second decade, the money being collected from the excise tax skyrockets while the payments for premiums level off. If anyone actually believes that that's going to happen, I'll introduce you to the AMT and we can have a chat.

-The savings numbers being quoted also appear to include the savings from the proposed student loan bill. The reasons for that should be obvious.

-Reductions in spending would be accomplished, among other things, through:

*$11.6b in savings from "Administrative simplification" of Medicaid spending
*$39.7b in savings from cuts in payments for home health care aides
*$139.1b in savings from cuts in Medicare Advantage payments
*$10.7b in savings from eliminating Part D subsidy for wealthy people
*$25b from "temporary adjustments to the calculation of Part B premiums" (read: increased revenue from higher premiums)
*$156.6b in savings from "Revision of Certain Market Basket Updates and Incorporation of services Productivity Improvements into Market Basket Updates that do not Already Incorporate Such Improvements"
*70.2b in savings from "TITLE VIII—COMMUNITY LIVING ASSISTANCE SERVICES AND SUPPORTS"
*70.4b in savings from "Medicare Advantage interactions"

Major outlays would include:

*$56.3b to close the Medicare prescription donut hole.
*$434b on Medicaid/CHIP
*$466b on exchange subsidies
 
From the CBO's letter:

-Over the next four years, change in insurance status would be very minimal. Three million fewer people would be receiving Medicaid/CHIP while three million more people would be covered by employer insurance. It won't be until 2014 that there's any notable change in the number of uninsured, at which point it will ramp up to the full projected 30 million by 2016, with 21m getting insurance through the exchanges, 17m getting it through Medicaid/CHIP, and 8m dropping out of employer or nongroup insurance.

-By 2019, there would still be 23m people without insurance, and the number would have started growing again.

-Penalty payments by individuals and businesses would total $69b over the 10 year period.

-The excise tax wouldn't kick in until 2018, but would net $12b in its first year and $20b in its second.

-As to the budget savings: "Approximately $85 billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget."

-The claim that the proposal will "cut the budget by $1.2T in the second decade" is a load of ****. The CBO says that the effect of the reform, if left unchanged, will be something like 0.5% of GDP. That's as specific as they get. They project the effect of the reconciliation bill as being something "between zero and .25% of GDP," aka "something between $0 and $600b."

The only reason for such drastic savings is that once it hits the second decade, the money being collected from the excise tax skyrockets while the payments for premiums level off. If anyone actually believes that that's going to happen, I'll introduce you to the AMT and we can have a chat.

-The savings numbers being quoted also appear to include the savings from the proposed student loan bill. The reasons for that should be obvious.

-Reductions in spending would be accomplished, among other things, through:

*$11.6b in savings from "Administrative simplification" of Medicaid spending
*$39.7b in savings from cuts in payments for home health care aides
*$139.1b in savings from cuts in Medicare Advantage payments
*$10.7b in savings from eliminating Part D subsidy for wealthy people
*$25b from "temporary adjustments to the calculation of Part B premiums" (read: increased revenue from higher premiums)
*$156.6b in savings from "Revision of Certain Market Basket Updates and Incorporation of services Productivity Improvements into Market Basket Updates that do not Already Incorporate Such Improvements"
*70.2b in savings from "TITLE VIII—COMMUNITY LIVING ASSISTANCE SERVICES AND SUPPORTS"
*70.4b in savings from "Medicare Advantage interactions"

Major outlays would include:

*$56.3b to close the Medicare prescription donut hole.
*$434b on Medicaid/CHIP
*$466b on exchange subsidies

Not for nothing...but those cuts you described...they are only CUTS if the services go away...otherwise they arent cuts they are cost shifts...at best.
 
Not for nothing...but those cuts you described...they are only CUTS if the services go away...otherwise they arent cuts they are cost shifts...at best.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I thought I made it pretty clear that the programs in question were not being canceled, but that the amount of money being spent on them was being "cut" by X.
 
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I thought I made it pretty clear that the programs in question were not being canceled, but that the amount of money being spent on them was being "cut" by X.

Are the cuts 'real' cuts or cost shifting? Are the services simply no longer offered? Have they found a magic way to pay for them? Or were they simply fraudulent costs in the first place?

Im not questioning you or the numbers. I have this inherent distrust of the federal government and their numbers game. PROBABLY has something to do with that 13.5 trillion dollar debt.
 
Are the cuts 'real' cuts or cost shifting? Are the services simply no longer offered? Have they found a magic way to pay for them? Or were they simply fraudulent costs in the first place?

Im not questioning you or the numbers. I have this inherent distrust of the federal government and their numbers game. PROBABLY has something to do with that 13.5 trillion dollar debt.

Some of them are cuts via a decrease in the reimbursement rate. Where they used to pay $100 for X, now they'll only pay $95.

Some of them are cuts via redefinition of program qualifiers. Where they used to subsidize the Part D premiums of everyone, now they'll only do that for non-high income people.

Some of them are cuts via increased efficiency. Where they used to waste lots of money, now they'll supposedly put an end to that waste and save billions.
 
Some of them are cuts via a decrease in the reimbursement rate. Where they used to pay $100 for X, now they'll only pay $95.

Some of them are cuts via redefinition of program qualifiers. Where they used to subsidize the Part D premiums of everyone, now they'll only do that for non-high income people.

Some of them are cuts via increased efficiency. Where they used to waste lots of money, now they'll supposedly put an end to that waste and save billions.
If this is possible, why was it not done long ago?

.
 
If this is possible, why was it not done long ago?

I asked the same thing about how we'll supposedly save $90b with no negative effects by cutting the middle man out of student lending, and I didn't get an answer there either.

To some, the old adage of "too good to be true" doesn't apply when discussing the government.
 
I asked the same thing about how we'll supposedly save $90b with no negative effects by cutting the middle man out of student lending, and I didn't get an answer there either.

To some, the old adage of "too good to be true" doesn't apply when discussing the government.

those congressional gifts to banking (using federal funds to make student loans) and the insurance (no negotiation payments) industries are being rescinded ... at least in part

see, it is about change
 
those congressional gifts to banking (using federal funds to make student loans) and the insurance (no negotiation payments) industries are being rescinded ... at least in part

see, it is about change

So the theory is that those were simply tens of billions being handed out in exchange for absolutely no benefit? If that's the case, then why were those things enacted in the first place?
 
Also, it's worth noting that the new health care bill includes all of the savings from the student loan proposal. What was projected to be approximately $90b in savings just a few months ago turns out to be $19.8b in savings. Oops.
 
Being that I don't believe anything I hear from about 90% of politicians, I take the numbers with a grain of salt, and expect the numbers are highly unrealistic.;) >>

It would be more productive if it were compared with the costs (both social and economic) of doing nothing over those same ten years.

ricksfolly
 
Being that I don't believe anything I hear from about 90% of politicians, I take the numbers with a grain of salt, and expect the numbers are highly unrealistic.;) >>

It would be more productive if it were compared with the costs (both social and economic) of doing nothing over those same ten years.

ricksfolly

Off topic, but I wish you would quit breaking the quote tags.
 
Some of them are cuts via a decrease in the reimbursement rate. Where they used to pay $100 for X, now they'll only pay $95.

Some of them are cuts via redefinition of program qualifiers. Where they used to subsidize the Part D premiums of everyone, now they'll only do that for non-high income people.

Some of them are cuts via increased efficiency. Where they used to waste lots of money, now they'll supposedly put an end to that waste and save billions.

Yikes...thats not exactly going to inspire a lot of providers to jump on board...
 
Back
Top Bottom