CBO scores the Senate Health Bill

[DC Tom]

Bottom line, it's the best objective estimate we have on its impact.

 

I'll give you that...I just don't think it says much. I've seen too many different ways to manipulate accounting to give a whole lot of credence to anyone's analysis, particularly when it's reduced to a ridiculous simplification like "it reduces the deficit".

[Alaska Darin]

Bottom line, it's the best objective estimate we have on its impact.

Sincerely,

 

Enron

 

Rome continues to burn and you continue to make excuses.

[erynthered]

You know, I was just about to post something similar. I probably need to take a step back away from all of this, it's definitely getting me all worked up, I just can't believe how BLATANTLY dishonest this whole process has been.

 

 

I wonder if Murder rates accross the US will rise because of this obamanation.

[Doc]

Forget "honest," when has the CBO ever given a realistic estimate on anything? And the whole "it reduces the deficit" as has been stated is bull ****, while the whole plan adds to the national debt.

[keepthefaith]

I'd say it's something to give credit to if, as the CBO scored it, it provides healthcare reform AND reduces the deficit. The opponents would have thought the CBO was accurate if it supported their claims, but now that it doesn't, the CBO is using 'fuzzy math'. Bottom line, it's the best objective estimate we have on its impact.

 

Deficit reduction in this bill is simply via tax increases. What's good about that? How much ingenuity does it take to raise taxes?

[Magox]

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.

 

If we are going to reshape 1/6th of the ENTIRE economy, lets wait until the full review of the estimate is completed thoroughly.

 

 

Also, another thing that I found that was inconsistent with what Democratic leadership is claiming today is that it will extend the life of Medicare for 9 years and reduce the deficit $130B. One little problem, CBO says

 

The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position.

 

So when Obama and Democratic leadership state "This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program."

 

They are lying through their !@#$ing teeth OR they are ignorant to the facts.

[GG]

I'd say it's something to give credit to if, as the CBO scored it, it provides healthcare reform AND reduces the deficit. The opponents would have thought the CBO was accurate if it supported their claims, but now that it doesn't, the CBO is using 'fuzzy math'. Bottom line, it's the best objective estimate we have on its impact.

 

.. and the only reason they get there is by eliminating waste in Medicare. Excuse me? How exactly is that going to be accomplished in the real world, not in the unicon farting one?

[IDBillzFan]

Remember when I said that they would have to raise taxes even more than the Presidents proposal,

 

that's exactly what they did

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...6UZrc&pos=8

I'm not sure I completely have this right, but Carl Cameron on Fox was just reporting that the Senate still needs to review the reconciliation bill and would possibly return it with modifications to the house, but I think this can only happen after the congress passes its reconciliation via the deem-n-dash process. So in other words, just because the house is sending a reconciliation bill to get the health care bill through, it doesn't guarantee that the Senate will approve it, however it DOES put the Senate bill into law while they work this out. At least I think that's what I heard him explain, and if that's true, then this puts the Deemocrats back at block 1 because the only reason they're doing deem-and-dash is because they don't trust the Senate. I guess it makes sense that the Senate has to approve the reconciliation bill, so...ummm....oh, who the hell knows what the hell these idiots are all doing.

[Magox]

I'm not sure I completely have this right, but Carl Cameron on Fox was just reporting that the Senate still needs to review the reconciliation bill and would possibly return it with modifications to the house, but I think this can only happen after the congress passes its reconciliation via the deem-n-dash process. So in other words, just because the house is sending a reconciliation bill to get the health care bill through, it doesn't guarantee that the Senate will approve it, however it DOES put the Senate bill into law while they work this out. At least I think that's what I heard him explain, and if that's true, then this puts the Deemocrats back at block 1 because the only reason they're doing deem-and-dash is because they don't trust the Senate. I guess it makes sense that the Senate has to approve the reconciliation bill, so...ummm....oh, who the hell knows what the hell these idiots are all doing.

From my understanding, as we speak the entire Senate Democrats are looking at the bill, and they will either give the thumbs ups or down, and I know some of them won't like the increased Medicare taxes, but at this stage of the game LA, they are desperate to pass this bill, so the Senate won't be an issue. There may be a few moderate Democrats that peel off, but not enough to make a difference and conveniently come election time they will get to tell their conservative constituents that they didn't vote for the bill knowing they already had the votes to get it through.

[jjamie12]

I'd say it's something to give credit to if, as the CBO scored it, it provides healthcare reform AND reduces the deficit. The opponents would have thought the CBO was accurate if it supported their claims, but now that it doesn't, the CBO is using 'fuzzy math'. Bottom line, it's the best objective estimate we have on its impact.

Just so we're clear. The CBO has a specific purpose, and that purpose is to score what's put in front of them. "They" (meaning the CBO) aren't using fuzzy math, they're doing what they're supposed to. Our representatives are the ones using the 'fuzzy math'. This bill starts taxing in year 1, and doesn't start paying off (for the most part) until year 4. No matter what the CBO says about deficit neutral and whatever changes this fact. Of COURSE it's deficit neutral. It taxes for 10 year and only pays for 6. Why do we do this? Because the President made a promise that "Health Care" reform would be deficit neutral. Since he made that promise, congressional members have to jump through 1,000 hoops to make it seem as though that is real. People aren't complaining that the CBO doesn't do its job. They're comlaining about the actual job they're asked to do by the people who are dishonestly peddling fabrications of reality.

[Magox]

Just so we're clear. The CBO has a specific purpose, and that purpose is to score what's put in front of them. "They" (meaning the CBO) aren't using fuzzy math, they're doing what they're supposed to. Our representatives are the ones using the 'fuzzy math'. This bill starts taxing in year 1, and doesn't start paying off (for the most part) until year 4. No matter what the CBO says about deficit neutral and whatever changes this fact. Of COURSE it's deficit neutral. It taxes for 10 year and only pays for 6. Why do we do this? Because the President made a promise that "Health Care" reform would be deficit neutral. Since he made that promise, congressional members have to jump through 1,000 hoops to make it seem as though that is real. People aren't complaining that the CBO doesn't do its job. They're comlaining about the actual job they're asked to do by the people who are dishonestly peddling fabrications of reality.

Exactly, but there is no use explaining it to one of the lemmings. He will never come back and dispute what you or I have been saying.

[Adam]

Exactly, but there is no use explaining it to one of the lemmings. He will never come back and dispute what you or I have been saying.

Who cares what the lemming think.....oh wait- they are the majority. Houston, I think we have a problem.......

[Chef Jim]

Who cares what the lemming think.....oh wait- they are the majority. Houston, I think we have a problem.......

 

They are?

[Magox]

More details, there will also be $58.8B in fees for health insurers between 2014 to 2018, with adjusted levies afterward.

So let me get this straight, you want to tax the health insurers, yet you want to drive down premiums? Idiots

 

They are also going to tax the pharmaceutical industry, beginning 2011 there will be a $2.3 B tax and will gradually increase to $4.2B by 2018 then drop to $2.8B in 2019 and hold steady from there. Same concept, if you want to drive down pharmaceutical costs, you don't freaking tax them.

 

Medical device makers, they are also going to face an excise tax of 2.9%, who do you believe is going to pay for that? You think they are going to eat the cost? It will get passed to the hospitals which in turn will pass it off to the insurers.

 

Payroll tax, I talked about this earlier, those who make $200,000 a year or households of more than $250,000 will get taxed and for the first time, a tax of 3.8% would be added on unearned income from items such as interest, dividends and royalties that are estimated to generate over $200 B over the next 10 years.

 

Also the legislation includes the student loan program. Basically funding for Sallie Mae will cease, which btw analysts believe as a result of this decision 35,000 jobs will be lost, the measure would cut subsidies by $61B over the next 10 years, in which some of that money will go to Pell grants and the government will become the direct lender. In other words the size of government will expand even further.

 

CBO says that the Democrats are relying on the savings generated by cutting federal subsidies to student loan providers to help make up for the cost of the health-care provisions enough to produce the required savings.

[IDBillzFan]

Basically funding for Sallie Mae will cease, which btw analysts believe as a result of this decision 35,000 jobs will be lost...

 

Well, the good news is that almost half those jobs will be picked up by the IRS; needed to handle all the new taxes.

[Magox]

Well, the good news is that almost half those jobs will be picked up by the IRS; needed to handle all the new taxes.

I guess that was to be expected.

[IDBillzFan]

I guess that was to be expected.

You know, I've been reading through the preliminary CBO report, and I haven't seen anything stating how much premiums are going to drop. Weren't they supposed to drop something like 3000%? I don't see anything like that in the report. In fact, I don't see ANY mention of premiums dropping in the report, did you?

[Magox]

You know, I've been reading through the preliminary CBO report, and I haven't seen anything stating how much premiums are going to drop. Weren't they supposed to drop something like 3000%? I don't see anything like that in the report. In fact, I don't see ANY mention of premiums dropping in the report, did you?

It didn't address that part, it was purely budgetary. They would have to do another analysis for that one, in which of course we can't wait because, people are dying and dropping their mortgage payments to keep their health insurance and bla bla bla bla bla

[Doc]

And congress people are still exempt from this bill, right?

[IDBillzFan]

It didn't address that part, it was purely budgetary. They would have to do another analysis for that one, in which of course we can't wait because, people are dying and dropping their mortgage payments to keep their health insurance and bla bla bla bla bla

Thought you'd appreciate this link.