This has gone beyond embarassing, Pelosi says to pass the bill so they can read it later.
She may have mis-spoke on that one, but definitely a WTF, LOL moment.
CBO: $940 billion health bill would help cut deficit over 10 years
All good news, except they have to kill grandma… or something.
I am sure President Thug reminded the nonpartisan CBO that he knows where they all live.
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen, it makes Bernie Maddoff seem like a petty thief.
The Dems are already saying they will get support in November on other issues like a another terrorist attack between now and then. WTF?!? Get ready for another 9-11 I guess.:gotme:
Do people really feel this way?
I think this is called cognitive dissonance.
The last time the WHO ranked the healthcare of all countries we came in 37th.
America’s actual treatment / care is first rate, the problem is that our access and costs are so horrible compared to everywhere else. Hence this is heathcare reform, not Obama telling doctors how to do a procedure in a new way.
There are alot of “ifs” built into that document.
First, the presumption is that people want insurance coverage enough to pay for it, with the subsidy the government is providing. Then again, if it costs $7k/year for a stand-alone policy, even with a $6k subsidy, it’s more expensive to pay for insurance than a $750 fine. That also applies to employers who might hire a part-time worker. So ultimately, the plan becomes a “regressive” tax, costing more to those on the lower end of the wage scale.
Conversely, part of the reform is paid for by a tax on “Cadillac plans”. This creates an incentive to reduce the cost of the plan (by opting out of certain coverage) to avoid the tax, reducing the revenue from this tax. However, the “Congressional Budget Office is not allowed to project these behavioral changes” as part of its estimates, because they are in essence too hard to predict.
And finally, part of the reform will be paid for by Medicare cuts. As it stands, the government has for decades tried to cut waste, and I’m not sure it has the ability to cut more. Therefore, the only way to make the cuts stick is to pay less. Congress and President Obama have already put off the yearly correction to the Medicare “Sustainable Growth Rate” formula that is preventing a 21% paycut to doctors. The CBO calculations are made with that paycut in place, and presume no access changes will occur from doctors dropping Medicare because they can’t afford to care for those poor-paying patients.
So all things being equal, the reform will either a) cost more, b) insure fewer, or c) improve access less than projected - or more likely a mix of everything.
Looks like it’s a go, like it or not.
Lets bump this thread in 10 years. :tup:
Just saw this - posted in the NY Times no less …
ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.
Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?
The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion…
…Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.
And for those that don’t think he knows what he’s talking about"
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.
But Fry said cost is one of the things we can’t talk about because it’s “proven” this will be good for our economy. :roll2:
I’ll do it well prior to that, once we begin to default on our debt obligations and our credit rating is crap. I say 6 years…
All you have to do is look at the Massachusetts. They were supposed to be a pilot program for socialized medicine on the national level. They are way over their proposed budget and it is rapidly bankrupting that state. All you need to know about this thing being crap is the fact that they need to hire 17,000 IRS agents to enforce it.
Yep - vote’s 219 for, 212 against. Now the question is when are we going to see the tax bill for it.
And there’s still that question for those 9.8% who are unemployed - how are they going to pay for coverage if they don’t have a job?
Hiring 17000 IRS people to enforce this financial mandate on families is one of the scariest things I have ever heard in this country. No, it IS the scariest thing, seriously.
I believe the student loan takeover is also in this bill.
What’s next, car loans, home loans? Will you have to go to the Feds for ANY money you need/want?
That’s in next months proposals.
What about student loan takeover? Info please? I have not been following this much. Trying to bury my head in the sand for a little bit hoping it all goes away.
I’m here for the gangbang…