http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

Sadly they will just say that they are "wrong" or "biased" then continue to live in there little wonderlands.

Every public and private financial organization in the country could say that the bill would cut the deficit and you'd still have people claiming that it won't.

Conservatives on this board trust bloggers more than the CBO.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Every public and private financial organization in the country could say that the bill would cut the deficit and you'd still have people claiming that it won't.

 

Conservatives on this board trust bloggers more than the CBO.

Also they don't know there math enough to figure out that spending money in the short term can reduce spending in the long-term.

I've already read the republiucan/conservative backlash to this scoring. There's nothing new to add that hasn't already been said a million times.

In fact I'll just say goodbye to this thread now.

So long thread that promises to be a huge tangled mess of people copy/pasting talking points.

I just wanted to post the score; that I've done. I'll leave the rest of this thread to spinsters and the like.

Goodbye

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

Originally posted by seabass2003

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

 

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

Yeah the numbers are preliminary, I posted to soon. I guess we'll wait

Its pretty easy to cut the deficit when you increased the federal budget by $1.6 trillion.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Its pretty easy to cut the deficit when you increased the federal budget by $1.6 trillion.

  Hummm... I wonder where that will come from.

Originally posted by seabass2003

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

 

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

My favorite analogy for how spending money can save you money is through automobiles.

Let's say you have a blown oil pan gasket. You can:

• add a quart of oil ever-so-often and keep on trucking. That is an option. Maybe you will only spend $100 dollars on oil before the engine seizes up. The vital point is, the engine will eventually seize up. You know it will happen. Adding oil is treating a symptom, by no means a cure.
  

OR

• remove the oil pan and replace the gasket. That would cost you three times more than simply adding oil would over a period of time. The vital point is, the engine never seizes up and you save the thousands of dollars. You have cured the problem instead of treating the symptom.

Originally posted by seabass2003

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

 

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

Are you married? DO you have a girlfriend? Has she ever come home from a sale and told you how much money she saved?

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by seabass2003

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

 

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

My favorite analogy for how spending money can save you money is through automobiles.

Let's say you have a blown oil pan gasket. You can:

• add a quart of oil ever-so-often and keep on trucking. That is an option. Maybe you will only spend $100 dollars on oil before the engine seizes up. The vital point is, the engine will eventually seize up. You know it will happen. Adding oil is treating a symptom, by no means a cure.
  

OR

• remove the oil pan and replace the gasket. That would cost you three times more than simply adding oil would over a period of time. The vital point is, the engine never seizes up and you save the thousands of dollars. You have cured the problem instead of treating the symptom.

I would rather you explain it how the government is going to do it. Just keep the following paragraphs in mind.

The two primary lessons of Medicare are the chronic problem of woefully underestimating program costs and the impossibility of genuine cost control. A closer look at Medicare shows why these two problems are certain to plague a government-administered universal health-care plan.

The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[42] According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007 or 16% of all federal spending and grew to $599 billion in 2008 which was 20% of federal spending.

The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare "have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run."

So tell me how the government is going "replace the gasket" when the government itself is the "gasket"?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

I am not going to say whether the CBO is right or wrong just yet. Personally I can't figure out how spending $940 billion over ten years reduces anything? Is it because we pay up front for the first 4 years without getting anything? Like I said how does spending money save money?

Anyways here is an article saying this is the preliminary findings and not the final word. Link.

 

I am going to be a wait and see person on this.

 

Are you married? DO you have a girlfriend? Has she ever come home from a sale and told you how much money she saved?

Ya it's great when she buys three outfits with my money and saved 30 dollars.  I'm always elated.

Ooooooh, okay.  So now the folks in D.C. are going to tell us about how much money they are saving us? 

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

 

The funny thing is that the Republicans  in the past were supporters of the CBO  and said it was "unbiased" and would sow "the truth behind the lies of democrats" 

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

 

I don't think the CBO are loons. They work with what the congress gives them. If they get BS numbers they have to work with the BS numbers. 

The people who are bad at math are the leftist on this site. We can't afford this since we are in debt allready. It will be a joy hearing the left squeal like stuck pigs when the tax bills start comming for this monstrocity if it gets passed.

Another thing I find funny is it says it will cover 95%. HUH?! We are going to destroy healthcare for what...nothing? It isn't even going to accomplish what it was supposed to do.

I agree with your last sentence. This has gone into some alternate universe of power grab at all cost.

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

 

 

I don't think the CBO are loons. They work with what the congress gives them. If they get BS numbers they have to work with the BS numbers. 

The people who are bad at math are the leftist on this site. We can't afford this since we are in debt allready. It will be a joy hearing the left squeal like stuck pigs when the tax bills start comming for this monstrocity if it gets passed.

Another thing I find funny is it says it will cover 95%. HUH?! We are going to destroy healthcare for what...nothing? It isn't even going to accomplish what it was supposed to do.

I agree with your last sentence. This has gone into some alternate universe of power grab at all cost.

So you support pulling our military completely out of the middle east?  Since we're in debt, we obviously can't fight a war on terror as well right?

Us being in debt is one of the main reasons for overhauling the system.  Leave it alone, and the costs will continue to rise.  With the rise in costs, the cost to treat the uninsured who need emergency medical care in ER will rise as well.

Healthcare reform is intended to drastically reduce the cost of medical care in the U.S.  The bill doesn't just give everyone the same health insurance we have now and that's it.  It changes the way things are done on every level, cutting costs here and there to hopefully stop the insane price spiraling that has gone on with current health insurance.  You seem to think that we're just calling up blue cross and ordering a few million policies with tax money. 

So who's bad at math again?

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

 

The funny thing is that the Republicans  in the past were supporters of the CBO  and said it was "unbiased" and would sow "the truth behind the lies of democrats" 

 

 

What's funny is that you think the two parties are different.

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Thrakk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html

The Democratic health care bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and cut the federal deficit over the next two decades — figures that should help ease the worries of fiscal hawks who have been reluctant about supporting the sweeping measure.

The bill would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years. It will expand coverage to 95 percent of Americans, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Thursday by House Democrats.

It collects taxes, fees, etc. for ten years to pay for six years of spending. What after the six years? No mention of the double counting either. As said by the CBO, they calculate based upon what's placed in front of them. It will, at least, add $500 billion to $1 trillion to the deficit in the next 10-15 years.

Look at SS as an example. Social security, beginning this year, will pay out more than it receives in collections. Why? Because Congress, over the years, has spent the SS trust and forced the program to live year by year. The same will happen with this craptastic bill. They will collect and collect and they will see this huge pot of money and will spend and spend.

The CBO are loons. I would also like to see which individuals sitting on the CBO suddenly gets a perk or a family member appointed to some suddenly made up government position.

You people are still batty if you think this bill is about helping people.

 

The funny thing is that the Republicans  in the past were supporters of the CBO  and said it was "unbiased" and would sow "the truth behind the lies of democrats" 

 

 

What's funny is that you think the two parties are different.

hmmm...

Democrats are pro  abortion and Republicans are not.

That is just one difference.  Its fun proving idiots wrong. it feels...vindicating