CBO Weighs In On Health Care Bill (in Debates)

Story -- The Actual CBO Document (WARNING: Large PDF, also very dry & boring)

Looks like it has an overall net reduction in deficits of $130 billion over ten years, and 1.2 trillion over the second ten year period. I don't know exactly about the bill itself, but all those dudes claiming it would cost more then it saved were just wrong.

What do you guys think of this thing so far? I'm surprised Obama has managed to keep this thing rolling still. I would be glad to see some reform, even if it isn't enough for everyone right now.

*massive grin*

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/03/16/obamacare-is-a-crisis-of-culture/

That basically sums it up for me.

And when this thing passes, via the Slaughter Strategy, it will be tied up in courts. Most likely the SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional starting a constitutional crisis.

All to pass something that less than 50% of the population wants. Just to get a political victory on the way to socialism.

This will be the last post I have on this subject and likely in CB.

I just hope that once this passes, those who have Medicaid now will be able to find a physican to care of them.

Most I know now have started to stop accepting new Medicaid patients in anticipation of this beast passing.

Just like Walmarts in Washington state not taking new Medicaid prescriptions.

Source?

Not that the popularity of a bill has any direct correlation to whether it's good or not, but I'd still like to see where you pull your "the people are against this" numbers from.

Blah blah blah blah blah. More of the same from Ranger.

I'd say "THANKFULLY!", but I'd like you to answer my question.

Sry not to have addressed the main post.

The CBO report is full of assumptions that the Democratic leaders forced it to use.

It does not have the "doctor fix" in it which is part of health care overhaul, at a 300B cost.

The worst is the fact it takes in 10 years of taxes for only 6 years of benefits.

However, it likely will pass. As a physician, I really do see the quality of care going down once it does with the lack of private competition. For all of us, I do hope I am very wrong.

Answer to question since you insist.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

That is it for me, I am out!

Here's a quote from page one of the report you linked above, Fex:

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.

But, seriously, who worries about disclaimers? There's a vote to ram through, ya know. As to the claim of saving a trillion dollars over the second decade, skip to page three:

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBOﾒs analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nationﾒs health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current lawﾗwith a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBOﾒs 10-year budget estimates.

I'm filled with confidence in that trillion-dollar savings quote, Fex. Next, turn to page eight and look at the chart detailing positive income from penalty payments and excise taxes. Do you really believe that the federal government will take in thirty-two billion dollars from excise taxes on high-cost insurance plans? Do you really believe that the federal government will grab fifty-two billion dollars through penalties on businesses? I, for one, don't believe that for a second.

Oh, and let's not forget that this legislation doesn't include the so-called Doc Fix, which has a projected cost in the $200-billion range, and would quickly eat away at the projected savings which you are touting above.

And don't get me started on the attempt to nationalize the student loan industry.

I have no idea, I am not the CBO, do you have special knowledge about how it will work? I think you have very good eye for what might be possibly wrong in there, but for exact specifics, I would like to know what makes you think they are really that far off.
Okay, why is that? Again, I am not the CBO, but wouldn't you think that insurance companies collect quite a bit of 'fees' right now? Do you think that the government wouldn't be able to collect fees on the same order of what insurance companies do?


I don't really know what the Doc Fix is, is this just reducing payments to doctors or something? Again, I think part of the reason why this story is important is that it is a milestone in the budgeting of a bill in congress. I hope they refine and perfect it as the legislation changes so we aren't duped by some sexy words that claim this bill does something it doesn't actually do.

Like death panels. Or rationing.

For Verifex:

The Doc Fix.

Without it, less physicians will take Medicare patients which nobody wants:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/

Sorry it has taken me so long to post a response. Work is rather hectic these days as the new semester begins.


And these are the people who are in opposition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE8GgXv3D64

Likewise, I've seen polls claiming the opposite as well. The guy from Rasmussen was on some show recently, I think it was Colbert, and they were discussing the ways these polls could be skewed to show anything anybody wanted. Polls mean crap, I don't believe any of them anyway, on either side. The bill should be passed because it's the right thing to do, not because x% of the people support it or not.

If the teabagger stuff wasn't so racist, rude and just plain stupid on so many levels, I think there would be a much more effective discussion and debate about these issues. I think the problem is that extreme views are the only thing that people understand, and subtlety is not appreciated in politics.

Which is one reason why I do like talking about this stuff with you guys, even if I don't always agree. I do feel like it isn't about the extreme views, it is about the finer points and sometimes the minutia that we can talk about and debate. I know sometimes we end up having a hard time nailing down facts that we can all agree upon. ;)

Let me clarify by paraphrasing what I said in chat so I don't sound too hateful:

"The tea party movement (TPM) has goals and objectives, and they seem to be cut government waste, but overall it seems to be a bucket for anti-government sentiment"

"So when someone in either of the 2 big parties says or does something shameful and wrong they have to say they are sorry. It keeps them from all out slandering and acting disrespectful in public at least.. for the most part. Political machinations aside.
I just don't see that kind of accountability in the tea party movement, so it just seems like they can protest anything anyone does for any reason, which makes them seem like they don't really stand for anything."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/20/michael-f-cannon-cato-cbo-health-care-reform-democrats-false/

Whenever has a government projection ever been on target without massive cost overruns?

And this from a previous head of the CBO who completely destroys the illusion that this bill will reduce deficits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?ref=opinion

Back on the issue of polls and public support:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/obama-democrats-begin-rea_n_510563.html

This is perhaps the best article about the CBO I have come across.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aEhggnpXWFT4

I suppose this estimate by the CBO is crap too, according to Ranger; that's good, because that sounds like a really bad ratio of GDP to deficit. Good thing we have been shown that we cannot trust the CBO. Phew I was worried there for a minute.

How is the CBO estimating that deficit will go both down and up at the same time?

Interesting note in that article that the total debt has gone from 6t to 8t in Obama's term so far. I thought it was much higher when Bush left (10t sticks in my head).

Whew,

For a minute I had thought you understood the CBO and how it works.

Alas you do not.

When a bill is sent to the CBO to be "scored" it has to use the assumptions sent by those giving it the bill.

When the CBO scores a budget, it is free to use real world ideas and is not constrained to what it is forced to use.

Big difference I thought you understood.

And even if the CBO underestimates the deficit, we are in doggy doodo.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

^ always good times

I didn't realize that, although that explains some oddly phrased paragraphs in the article fex just quoted.

One thing you've said recently is very true, Ranger. If nothing else, this whole debacle is educating many people, myself included, in the finer points of how our government works.

Loch - that site makes more sense, pinning the total at 12t. Why'd the article fex just quoted say 8t?

I completely agree.

It was very likely that all the back room deals, bribes and other arm twisting happened throughout history.

However, in the internet age, it makes it far easier to see the corruption first hand.

Unless the process gets fixed, which of course will not happen, the same garbage will occur no matter who is in power.

At a guess NS I'd say one is using public debt and the other is using gross debt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I think there's a point to be made that debt isn't inherently undesirable.

If I borrow money to start a business, and it does well and I pay it off, debt was clearly a good thing, as it promoted economic activity, and it got paid off and more. It was much better than letting that money just sit there.

I'm not saying the bill will necessarily pay off equal to it's cost as it probably depends on specific provisions that I've not read, but just because something increases debt doesn't mean it's bad.

IE a city spending to construct a bridge can pay off itself and then some, if it spurs economic activity.

For one, I honestly think that making it easier for everyone in the country to change jobs etc. can have a lot of unforeseen economic benefit.