Magox Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 This Bill is very deceptive, and they used budget trickery to make it "deficit neutral". It's a real sham. This is the full details from the CBO. You can read it for yourselves. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/...ment_update.pdf Go to page 6 and 7. I will outline why this Bill is very misleading and why it will add to the deficit and not bring down premiums. Why am I going to take the time to do this? Because I !@#$ing Care. That's why. This is for the one's that really care about Health Care, take a look into the Bill that was scored by the CBO. I don't expect the lemmings to read through this Score and what I have outlined, because they will blindly support what they have been told by BO and Pelosi. I don't bring up the GOP's talking points, I do my own research, and if it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. And this BILL Doesn't Make sense. Here goes By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (OUTLAYS) Insurance Subsidies and 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010/2014 Administration Exchange Subsidies 0 0 0 26 54 79 93 100 107 117 79 574 Administration of Exchanges * 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 8 31 Spending for High-Risk Pools 0 1 2 1 * 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Subtotal * 2 3 30 57 83 97 104 112 121 92 610 Total Risk Adjustment Payments to Plans 0 0 0 2 6 9 11 12 13 14 8 65 Public Health Insurance Plan Payments for Benefits and Administration 0 0 0 15 28 41 47 50 53 57 43 291 Collections of Enrollee Premiums, Exchange Subsidies, and Risk Adjustment Payments 0 0 0 -16 -29 -42 -48 -51 -54 -58 -44 -298 Start-up Costs * 1 1 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal * 1 1 * -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -5 Effects of Coverage Provisions on Medicaid and CHIP -1 -2 -3 27 43 58 66 72 79 85 64 425 Medicare and Other Medicaid and CHIP Provisions Reductions in Annual Updates to Medicare FFS Payment Rates -3 -9 -12 -15 -18 -23 -28 -34 -40 -46 -57 -228 Medicare Advantage Rates Based on FFS 0 -5 -11 -16 -19 -21 -22 -24 -26 -28 -50 -170 Selected Medicare Prescription Drug Provisions * -7 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -5 -5 -4 -21 -42 Medicaid Provider Payment Rates 3 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 29 57 Other 3 27 7 7 -15 -7 -1 -7 -11 -16 29 -13 Subtotal 3 13 -16 -23 -49 -48 -49 -64 -77 -88 -71 -396 Continued Honorable John D. Dingell Page 7 Table 2. Continued. By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Other Changes in Direct Spending Community Living Assistance Services and Supports 0 -4 -6 -9 -10 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -29 -72 Public Health Investment Fund & Prevention and Wellness Trust 0 2 4 6 7 8 5 1 * * 19 33 Other 3 5 2 1 1 1 * * -1 -1 11 11 Subtotal 3 3 * -2 -2 -2 -5 -8 -8 -8 2 -29 Total Outlays 6 17 -15 34 55 99 120 115 117 124 97 672 On-budget 6 17 -15 34 54 99 119 115 117 123 96 669 Off-budget 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * 3 CHANGES IN REVENUES Surcharge on Adjusted Gross Income 0 31 32 45 49 53 57 61 64 68 157 460 Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 33 Penalty Payments by Employers 0 0 0 6 14 18 22 23 25 27 20 135 Risk Adjustment Collections 0 0 0 3 6 9 11 12 13 14 10 69 Small Employer Tax Credit 0 0 0 -4 -8 -5 -2 -2 -2 -2 -11 -25 Other Revenues * 7 7 11 8 12 13 14 17 20 33 110 Total Revenues * 38 39 62 76 92 106 113 123 133 214 781 On-budget * 38 39 63 78 94 107 114 124 133 218 790 Off-budget * * * -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 -9 NET IMPACT ON THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES Net Change in the Deficit 6 -21 -54 -28 -21 7 14 2 -5 -9 -118 -109 On-budget 6 -21 -54 -30 -23 5 13 1 -7 -10 -122 -120 Off-budget * * * 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 11 Positive numbers indicate increases in the deficit, and negative numbers indicate reductions in the deficit. 1) Everything is backloaded as far as expenditures are concerned. If you look at the Bill closely, there is only $50 Billion spent from 2010-2013 Insurance Subsidies, Exchange Subsidies and spending for High-Risk pools. In other words, basically very very few people will get covered in the first four years. 2) Although there is very little coverage in the first four years, there is over $139 Billion in taxes collected. ANd in the first five Years it will reduce the Deficit by $122 Billion. Why? Because there is just about 0 coverage, however taxes are being collected. THIS IS VERY DECEPTIVE. It's in the numbers, just look. 3) Medicare, here is another misleading piece of data from this Bill that we don't hear about. In the first 5 years there is $107 Billion in Medicare cuts, in the LAST 5 YEARS THERE IS OVER $290 BILLION. They know damn well that these cuts will never take place. This is why the "DOC FIX" bill was introduced in another bill that was recently rejected. If those cuts weren't so heavy in the last 5 years, the Deficit numbers would explode, but just to make the bill APPEAR Deficit friendly, they recorded the largest cuts towards the end of the Bill. Very deceptive. 4) According to the Bill, the coverage will max out between 94-96 % of all people covered, and it maxes out in 2015. Congress has told us over and over that this will bend the cost curve. According the CBO, they recently said that this wasn't true. The proof is in their numbers. The subsidies for coverage from 2015 to 2019 are increasing at almost 10% a year on average. Here are some thoughts from the Bipartisan group Concord Coalition: http://www.concordcoalition.org/tabulation...are-reform-bill 1)It does not appear that this bill would alter the unsustainable trend of federal health care spending, often referred to as “bending the cost curve.” [1] According to CBO, “On balance, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the bill would increase both federal outlays for health care and the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to the amounts under current law.” [2] 2)CBO does not make a projection of national health care expenditures (public and private) and it’s unclear if the bill would have a major impact on lowering private costs. All the usually discussed efforts to accomplish that are present in the bill, (accountable care demonstration project; medical home pilot, comparative effectiveness research and wellness,) but these score as a cost in the first 10 years. CBO does not include a specific analysis of how these initiates might play out over time and it would, in fact, be very difficult to do so. Thus, the long-term effect of these policies is highly uncertain, at best. This is the risk of expanding coverage before testing cost containment strategies. 3)The claim of 10-year deficit reduction is largely based on excess Community Living and Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act premiums (69 percent of the total) that do not represent a “savings.” It’s a repeat of the Social Security cash surplus “raid.” In other words, the CLASS provision does not reduce costs, but instead lays a foundation for future costs. 4)The long-term deficit reduction estimated by CBO is hardly of curve-bending proportions (0 to 0.25 percent of GDP) and highly dependent on maintaining aggressive Medicare provider payment restrictions (including a 21 percent cut for doctors under the sustainable growth rate) and a surtax on wealthy taxpayers (5.4 percent at $500,000 AGI for individuals; $1,000,000 for joint returns). 4A)The first of these is unlikely to happen, particularly in the absence of a Medicare Commission (such as that contained in the Senate Finance bill) to monitor costs and recommend new savings with an up-or-down vote in Congress. 4B)The second is a simple tax increase, which unlike the Finance Committee’s surtax on high-cost health care plans is unrelated to health care costs. It would bring in revenue ($461 billion over 10-years) but do nothing to encourage lower spending on health care (i.e., no curve-bending potential). 5)Additional savings come from shifting more people to Medicaid than in the original proposal and having the states pick up some of the tab for the new enrollees (9 percent instead of nothing). 6)The deficit reduction path is hardly a smooth one. The entire 10-year deficit reduction of $104 billion comes in the first five years. After that it is a wash, which does not bode well for the longer-term outlook. 7)There would be no deficit reduction if they still included the Medicare “doc fix” (SGR). Including that provision, the bill would have a deficit of $141 billion. THIS IS for those that want to read what the DOC FIX is about http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-rele...-should-be-paid 8)As noted above, the absence of a Medicare commission is a large and costly omission. Given the uncertainty of savings, some monitoring mechanism is essential. The failure of the House to include any such mechanism makes it all the more important for the Senate to include one in its bill and fight for it in conference. 9)The bottom line is that there is reason to be skeptical of the deficit-neutrality claims and, as we often point out, deficit-neutrality is not enough. More importantly, the bill certainly does not do enough, if it does anything, to bend the cost curve. Adding a commission would help, as would adopting the Senate’s surtax on high-cost health care plans. Alot of the factors that they talk about are things that I found. It's right there to find. This Bill is very deceptive, and will do nothing to bring down premiums, and MOST CERTAINLY WILL ADD TO THE DEFICIT. Both the PResident and COngress are Misleading us by telling us that this will bring down costs and wont add a dime to the deficit. I will go as far to say that they are LYING to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Well, I for one am going to be proactive. I'm headed down to the city parks here in Syracuse, looking for a nice spot to build my Obamaville-Syracuse wooden shack. National bankruptcy here we come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 This Bill is very deceptive, and they used budget trickery to make it "deficit neutral". It's a real sham. This is the full details from the CBO. You can read it for yourselves. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/...ment_update.pdf Go to page 6 and 7. I will outline why this Bill is very misleading and why it will add to the deficit and not bring down premiums. Why am I going to take the time to do this? Because I !@#$ing Care. That's why. This is for the one's that really care about Health Care, take a look into the Bill that was scored by the CBO. I don't expect the lemmings to read through this Score and what I have outlined, because they will blindly support what they have been told by BO and Pelosi. I don't bring up the GOP's talking points, I do my own research, and if it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. And this BILL Doesn't Make sense. Here goes By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (OUTLAYS) Insurance Subsidies and 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010/2014 Administration Exchange Subsidies 0 0 0 26 54 79 93 100 107 117 79 574 Administration of Exchanges * 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 8 31 Spending for High-Risk Pools 0 1 2 1 * 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Subtotal * 2 3 30 57 83 97 104 112 121 92 610 Total Risk Adjustment Payments to Plans 0 0 0 2 6 9 11 12 13 14 8 65 Public Health Insurance Plan Payments for Benefits and Administration 0 0 0 15 28 41 47 50 53 57 43 291 Collections of Enrollee Premiums, Exchange Subsidies, and Risk Adjustment Payments 0 0 0 -16 -29 -42 -48 -51 -54 -58 -44 -298 Start-up Costs * 1 1 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Subtotal * 1 1 * -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -5 Effects of Coverage Provisions on Medicaid and CHIP -1 -2 -3 27 43 58 66 72 79 85 64 425 Medicare and Other Medicaid and CHIP Provisions Reductions in Annual Updates to Medicare FFS Payment Rates -3 -9 -12 -15 -18 -23 -28 -34 -40 -46 -57 -228 Medicare Advantage Rates Based on FFS 0 -5 -11 -16 -19 -21 -22 -24 -26 -28 -50 -170 Selected Medicare Prescription Drug Provisions * -7 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -5 -5 -4 -21 -42 Medicaid Provider Payment Rates 3 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 29 57 Other 3 27 7 7 -15 -7 -1 -7 -11 -16 29 -13 Subtotal 3 13 -16 -23 -49 -48 -49 -64 -77 -88 -71 -396 Continued Honorable John D. Dingell Page 7 Table 2. Continued. By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Other Changes in Direct Spending Community Living Assistance Services and Supports 0 -4 -6 -9 -10 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -29 -72 Public Health Investment Fund & Prevention and Wellness Trust 0 2 4 6 7 8 5 1 * * 19 33 Other 3 5 2 1 1 1 * * -1 -1 11 11 Subtotal 3 3 * -2 -2 -2 -5 -8 -8 -8 2 -29 Total Outlays 6 17 -15 34 55 99 120 115 117 124 97 672 On-budget 6 17 -15 34 54 99 119 115 117 123 96 669 Off-budget 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * 3 CHANGES IN REVENUES Surcharge on Adjusted Gross Income 0 31 32 45 49 53 57 61 64 68 157 460 Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 33 Penalty Payments by Employers 0 0 0 6 14 18 22 23 25 27 20 135 Risk Adjustment Collections 0 0 0 3 6 9 11 12 13 14 10 69 Small Employer Tax Credit 0 0 0 -4 -8 -5 -2 -2 -2 -2 -11 -25 Other Revenues * 7 7 11 8 12 13 14 17 20 33 110 Total Revenues * 38 39 62 76 92 106 113 123 133 214 781 On-budget * 38 39 63 78 94 107 114 124 133 218 790 Off-budget * * * -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 -9 NET IMPACT ON THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES Net Change in the Deficit 6 -21 -54 -28 -21 7 14 2 -5 -9 -118 -109 On-budget 6 -21 -54 -30 -23 5 13 1 -7 -10 -122 -120 Off-budget * * * 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 11 Positive numbers indicate increases in the deficit, and negative numbers indicate reductions in the deficit. 1) Everything is backloaded as far as expenditures are concerned. If you look at the Bill closely, there is only $50 Billion spent from 2010-2013 Insurance Subsidies, Exchange Subsidies and spending for High-Risk pools. In other words, basically very very few people will get covered in the first four years. 2) Although there is very little coverage in the first four years, there is over $139 Billion in taxes collected. ANd in the first five Years it will reduce the Deficit by $122 Billion. Why? Because there is just about 0 coverage, however taxes are being collected. THIS IS VERY DECEPTIVE. It's in the numbers, just look. 3) Medicare, here is another misleading piece of data from this Bill that we don't hear about. In the first 5 years there is $107 Billion in Medicare cuts, in the LAST 5 YEARS THERE IS OVER $290 BILLION. They know damn well that these cuts will never take place. This is why the "DOC FIX" bill was introduced in another bill that was recently rejected. If those cuts weren't so heavy in the last 5 years, the Deficit numbers would explode, but just to make the bill APPEAR Deficit friendly, they recorded the largest cuts towards the end of the Bill. Very deceptive. 4) According to the Bill, the coverage will max out between 94-96 % of all people covered, and it maxes out in 2015. Congress has told us over and over that this will bend the cost curve. According the CBO, they recently said that this wasn't true. The proof is in their numbers. The subsidies for coverage from 2015 to 2019 are increasing at almost 10% a year on average. Here are some thoughts from the Bipartisan group Concord Coalition: http://www.concordcoalition.org/tabulation...are-reform-bill 1)It does not appear that this bill would alter the unsustainable trend of federal health care spending, often referred to as “bending the cost curve.” [1] According to CBO, “On balance, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the bill would increase both federal outlays for health care and the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to the amounts under current law.” [2] 2)CBO does not make a projection of national health care expenditures (public and private) and it’s unclear if the bill would have a major impact on lowering private costs. All the usually discussed efforts to accomplish that are present in the bill, (accountable care demonstration project; medical home pilot, comparative effectiveness research and wellness,) but these score as a cost in the first 10 years. CBO does not include a specific analysis of how these initiates might play out over time and it would, in fact, be very difficult to do so. Thus, the long-term effect of these policies is highly uncertain, at best. This is the risk of expanding coverage before testing cost containment strategies. 3)The claim of 10-year deficit reduction is largely based on excess Community Living and Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) Act premiums (69 percent of the total) that do not represent a “savings.” It’s a repeat of the Social Security cash surplus “raid.” In other words, the CLASS provision does not reduce costs, but instead lays a foundation for future costs. 4)The long-term deficit reduction estimated by CBO is hardly of curve-bending proportions (0 to 0.25 percent of GDP) and highly dependent on maintaining aggressive Medicare provider payment restrictions (including a 21 percent cut for doctors under the sustainable growth rate) and a surtax on wealthy taxpayers (5.4 percent at $500,000 AGI for individuals; $1,000,000 for joint returns). 4A)The first of these is unlikely to happen, particularly in the absence of a Medicare Commission (such as that contained in the Senate Finance bill) to monitor costs and recommend new savings with an up-or-down vote in Congress. 4B)The second is a simple tax increase, which unlike the Finance Committee’s surtax on high-cost health care plans is unrelated to health care costs. It would bring in revenue ($461 billion over 10-years) but do nothing to encourage lower spending on health care (i.e., no curve-bending potential). 5)Additional savings come from shifting more people to Medicaid than in the original proposal and having the states pick up some of the tab for the new enrollees (9 percent instead of nothing). 6)The deficit reduction path is hardly a smooth one. The entire 10-year deficit reduction of $104 billion comes in the first five years. After that it is a wash, which does not bode well for the longer-term outlook. 7)There would be no deficit reduction if they still included the Medicare “doc fix” (SGR). Including that provision, the bill would have a deficit of $141 billion. THIS IS for those that want to read what the DOC FIX is about http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-rele...-should-be-paid 8)As noted above, the absence of a Medicare commission is a large and costly omission. Given the uncertainty of savings, some monitoring mechanism is essential. The failure of the House to include any such mechanism makes it all the more important for the Senate to include one in its bill and fight for it in conference. 9)The bottom line is that there is reason to be skeptical of the deficit-neutrality claims and, as we often point out, deficit-neutrality is not enough. More importantly, the bill certainly does not do enough, if it does anything, to bend the cost curve. Adding a commission would help, as would adopting the Senate’s surtax on high-cost health care plans. Alot of the factors that they talk about are things that I found. It's right there to find. This Bill is very deceptive, and will do nothing to bring down premiums, and MOST CERTAINLY WILL ADD TO THE DEFICIT. Both the PResident and COngress are Misleading us by telling us that this will bring down costs and wont add a dime to the deficit. I will go as far to say that they are LYING to us. Oh, they are lying. The dems will capaign next year that it actually reduces the deficit. Just wait and see. If you're willing to raise taxes enough you can keep it deficit neutral forever. Just turn that dial anytime the ink is red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Deficit neutral my ass, it's a shell game and they are trying to pull a fast one on everyone. Here's a letter by the CBO that was written today. Remember when the House said that their bill the HR 3962 would reduce the Deficit by $109 Billion? Look what they passed today, the HR 3961 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10732/HR3961_HonRyan.pdf The Budgetary Impact of Enacting Both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 Under current law, including the new rule, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in January 2010, and CBO estimates those payment rates will be reduced by about 2 percent annually for several subsequent years. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and restructure the SGR beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost $210 billion over the 2010–2019 period. CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period You also asked about the long-term effects on the federal budget of enacting both bills. CBO has therefore developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 10-year budget window. The agency estimates that the two bills together would cost about $32 billion more in 2019 than H.R. 3962 alone and that the combination of the two bills would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law. Those increments would grow during the following decade. As stated in its October 29, 2009, letter to Congressman Charles B. Rangel, “CBO expects that [H.R. 3962] would slightly reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP [gross domestic product].” If both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 were enacted, CBO expects that federal budget deficits during the decade following the 10-year budget window would increase relative to those projected under current law— with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP. So what did the House do today? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...2LR_M&pos=8 The U.S. House approved spending $210 billion over 10 years to avert cuts in federal reimbursements to doctors participating in the Medicare program. While the House health-care plan is estimated to cut the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years, combining it with the Medicare payment change would raise the deficit by $89 billion over 10 years, said a letter released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “They’re trying to pass this health-care bill and suggest that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee. “It breaks the president’s pledge” that health-care reform won’t add a dime to the deficit, Ryan said. “It adds more than many dimes to the deficit.” Since then, lawmakers have intervened each year to boost payment rates in an effort to prevent doctors from leaving the program. As a result, the scheduled cuts have accumulated so that unless Congress acts, payments would be cut next year by 21 percent. The CBO said today that a health-care plan released yesterday by Senate Democrats would cut the deficit by $130 billion. The agency said the plan could end up costing much more if lawmakers later rescind some of their cost-savings plans. The CBO pointed to lawmakers’ history of blocking the payment cuts to doctors, saying its calculations assume the provisions “remain unchanged through the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation.” The bill is H.R. 3961 This is deceitful. The House just passed a bill that was touted as reducing the deficit a couple weeks ago, and today they pass another bill that more than nullifies that claim. Yet, nobody gives a !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Deficit neutral my ass, it's a shell game and they are trying to pull a fast one on everyone. Here's a letter by the CBO that was written today. Remember when the House said that their bill the HR 3962 would reduce the Deficit by $109 Billion? Look what they passed today, the HR 3961 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10732/HR3961_HonRyan.pdf The Budgetary Impact of Enacting Both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 Under current law, including the new rule, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in January 2010, and CBO estimates those payment rates will be reduced by about 2 percent annually for several subsequent years. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and restructure the SGR beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost $210 billion over the 2010–2019 period. CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period You also asked about the long-term effects on the federal budget of enacting both bills. CBO has therefore developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 10-year budget window. The agency estimates that the two bills together would cost about $32 billion more in 2019 than H.R. 3962 alone and that the combination of the two bills would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law. Those increments would grow during the following decade. As stated in its October 29, 2009, letter to Congressman Charles B. Rangel, “CBO expects that [H.R. 3962] would slightly reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP [gross domestic product].” If both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 were enacted, CBO expects that federal budget deficits during the decade following the 10-year budget window would increase relative to those projected under current law— with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP. So what did the House do today? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...2LR_M&pos=8 The U.S. House approved spending $210 billion over 10 years to avert cuts in federal reimbursements to doctors participating in the Medicare program. While the House health-care plan is estimated to cut the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years, combining it with the Medicare payment change would raise the deficit by $89 billion over 10 years, said a letter released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “They’re trying to pass this health-care bill and suggest that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee. “It breaks the president’s pledge” that health-care reform won’t add a dime to the deficit, Ryan said. “It adds more than many dimes to the deficit.” Since then, lawmakers have intervened each year to boost payment rates in an effort to prevent doctors from leaving the program. As a result, the scheduled cuts have accumulated so that unless Congress acts, payments would be cut next year by 21 percent. The CBO said today that a health-care plan released yesterday by Senate Democrats would cut the deficit by $130 billion. The agency said the plan could end up costing much more if lawmakers later rescind some of their cost-savings plans. The CBO pointed to lawmakers’ history of blocking the payment cuts to doctors, saying its calculations assume the provisions “remain unchanged through the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation.” The bill is H.R. 3961 This is deceitful. The House just passed a bill that was touted as reducing the deficit a couple weeks ago, and today they pass another bill that more than nullifies that claim. Yet, nobody gives a !@#$. FAR TOO FEW are paying attenion. Far too few that are paying attention are making enough noise. I recall that Bush had an approval rating of under 20% during his last year or so in office. The point is this, those numbers say that even Republicans didn't like the job he was doing. At what point do Democrats look at what the heck is going in with this Congres and the White House and start voicing objection and disapproval? How bad does it have to get before poll numbers reflect disapproval across party lines? Certanly any thinking Democrat has to look at all the spending and start wondering (out loud) what the heck they're doing. Right? The Doc fix bill is a blatant piece of deceit and shows that the house Dems will stop a nothing to pass this ugly and bloated health care reform. It's outrageous. Looks to me that the party of "It's OK as long as I don't have to pay for it" cares not about the cost or the trickery used to get it done. It's simply about winning, winning at all cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 FAR TOO FEW are paying attenion. Far too few that are paying attention are making enough noise. I recall that Bush had an approval rating of under 20% during his last year or so in office. The point is this, those numbers say that even Republicans didn't like the job he was doing. At what point do Democrats look at what the heck is going in with this Congres and the White House and start voicing objection and disapproval? How bad does it have to get before poll numbers reflect disapproval across party lines? Certanly any thinking Democrat has to look at all the spending and start wondering (out loud) what the heck they're doing. Right? The Doc fix bill is a blatant piece of deceit and shows that the house Dems will stop a nothing to pass this ugly and bloated health care reform. It's outrageous. Looks to me that the party of "It's OK as long as I don't have to pay for it" cares not about the cost or the trickery used to get it done. It's simply about winning, winning at all cost. The Senate Bill is even more deceitful, not only does it cut out roughly the same amount in Medicare as the House Bill and not include the "Doc Fix" provision in the Bill, but the expenditures for subsidies and services don't include until the fifth year in 2014 and even in that year it is only implemented at %50. Take a look for yourself, page 3 and page 5 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/...er_11_18_09.pdf It's a farce, they start collecting taxes in 2010, but don't FULLY implement the subsidies until 2015. If you were to start the 10 year budget analysis from 2015 to 2025 and you added the "Doc Fix" provision (in other words only cut $200 Billion) the deficit number would explode, and that is if everything goes according to plan in which we all know that wouldn't happen. It's absolutely disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 It's absolutely disgusting. Yes, but it's historical. And that is all that matters to these idiots. They're making history. Consequences be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yes, but it's historical. And that is all that matters to these idiots. They're making history. Consequences be damned. So did Pol Pot. How'd that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 So did Pol Pot. How'd that work out? I take it you've used up your Hitler quota? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I take it you've used up your Hitler quota? Poorly, apparently. Pol Pot didn't "make history" as much as just kill a bunch of people. A Hitler reference would have been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/11...9904bbbc20.html A review of contracting at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showed “pervasive deficiencies” that could lead to billions of dollars in improper payments and waste, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday. In 2008, the agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid programs dedicated $3.6 billion to contracts for a range of services, such as auditing Medicare claims and running the Medicare telephone help line. “GAO estimates that at least 84.3 percent of fiscal year 2008 contract actions contained at least one instance where a key control was not adequately implemented. GAO also estimates that at least 37.2 percent of fiscal year 2008 contract actions had three or more instances in which a key control was not adequately implemented,” the report said. Something like this could never happen to the Health Reform. Stuff like this isn't even factored in when the CBO does it's scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts