quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "The bill expands the size of federal government." Actually, it doesn't. It decreases the size of the federal budget by $130 BILLION over the next ten years, and will decrease the federal deficit by a further $1 TRILLION in the ten years after that!

Shakka would disagree with you.

quote:

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.

I think the term "rework the calculus" makes it sound like a load of bullshit. But the article explains it further.

quote:

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.

I'm not sure what to believe here. Could you help me debunk this?

quote:

"This bill funds abortions!" Um, no. It simply doesn't do that. Anybody who says this doesn't know what they are talking about and can be safely disregarded in all political discussions going forward. This is a credibility wrecker.

Could you expand on this? I've been reading about how there was a ban on federal funding for abortion, but that there was a loophole where patients could receive vouchers or credits related to an abortion.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

I would love a state-issued abortion credit card. Just to show people.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I would love a state-issued abortion credit card. Just to show people.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I would love a state-issued abortion credit card. Just to show people.

Truthfully, the US needs more abortions, not less. Especially in the south.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Well it'd certainly adress poverty down there, too. Not only would there be less mouths to feed, those people eat anything.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf Shakka would disagree with you. I think the term "rework the calculus" makes it sound like a load of bullshit. But the article explains it further. I'm not sure what to believe here. Could you help me debunk this?

Hmm. Well, I have to admit that I think Douglas Holtz-Eakin is a ponce and an economist of magical realism given that he was in charge of the Congressional Budget Office that proclaimed the Iraq War would be pennies in a bucket. But given that I suppose I have to admit he knows a thing or two about the CBO making shit up.

My first reaction is that it seems unfair to add $162 billion onto a new bill if it is a pre-existing cost. Even if this cost hasn't been accounted for in the CBO analysis, the CBO is conducting a comparative estimate of deficit reduction as compared to the status quo. So you'd be adding $162 billion to each side for a net increase of zero. It still reduces the deficit in relation to the status quo.

His "Gimmick #1" strikes me as complete bollocks. It's true that revenue collection starts before subsidies are doled out. But by his logic - that 10 years of revenue is used to finance 6 years of cost, wouldn't we expect the next 10 years of implementation to be horrendous deficit spending? Why then do we have 10 years of revenue and 10 years of subsidies at a sticker price of $1 TRILLION in deficit reduction??? He's grasping at straws here.

And given the "overestimation of Medicare cost reduction" - well his math is as fuzzy or more than the CBO. Why is it somehow more plausible that putting an add-on freeze on Medicare won't stick? Skepticism doesn't make good policy rebuttal.

quote:

Could you expand on this? I've been reading about how there was a ban on federal funding for abortion, but that there was a loophole where patients could receive vouchers or credits related to an abortion.

Well, to the best of my knowledge abortion language was removed from the final version of the bill in order to get progressives back on board. The language as it read would have actually constrained government support of abortion even further than it currently is.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well it'd certainly adress poverty down there, too.

See, that would help off-set the additional costs... win:win.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Truthfully, the US needs more abortions, not less. Especially in the south.

The US needs less over weight people.

quote:

Originally posted by jester The US needs less over weight people.

the US needs less rednecks, blacks, hispanics, people with aids, people with cancer, blondes, actors, gays, and native indians. The list could go on but wipe all these people off the planet would be a good start.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

The point everyone is missing about the CBO is that although they do mostly honest reporting, they can only use the numbers Congress supplies... and Congress isn't quite the bastion of honesty and integrity. How else could the CBO say adding millions of people to a government run entitlement would save money? Just use common sense for christ's sake. How in the shit could a rational thinking person blindly accept projections a decade + out from the same government who, in 1966 projected that by 1990, Medicare would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation).... when it was $107 billion in 1990? Some people want to believe something so badly, they'll throw all economic reality and sense out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The point everyone is missing about the CBO is that although they do mostly honest reporting, they can only use the numbers Congress supplies... and Congress isn't quite the bastion of honesty and integrity. How else could the CBO say adding millions of people to a government run entitlement would save money? Just use common sense for christ's sake. How in the shit could a rational thinking person blindly accept projections a decade + out from the same government who, in 1966 projected that by 1990, Medicare would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation).... when it was $107 billion in 1990? Some people want to believe something so badly, they'll throw all economic reality and sense out the window.

I don't really know the answers to your questions, but I am just going to go ahead and blame Ronald Reagan.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.