View Full Version : "Latest (B S)Version of Health Overhaul to Cost $940 Billion Over Decade."

03-18-2010, 11:06 AM
"They Had to Keep It Under A Trillion So they Fudged The Numbers !"

WASHINGTON—The latest version of the Democrats' health overhaul will cost $940 billion over a decade and expand insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, according to a Congressional Budget Office report cited by Democratic aides Thursday. The formal release of the final details of the overhaul plan and the CBO analysis was expected later Thursday. That will pave the way for a climactic vote as soon as this weekend on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. The CBO report is expected to say the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years of the legislation and...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575129451183093496.html?m od=djemalertNEWS

The CBO report is expected to say the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years of the legislation and an additional $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years, two Democratic aides said.
Will the CBO tell the truth, or lie? There is no way in hell this egregious Marxist power bill will not cost big. And at the expense of the American citizen...ALL of them.
Anyone who believes this number isn’t very bright. This is ‘RAT propaganda designed and created to make it easier for the morons in this country to swallow the ObamaCare pill so he can head off to Indonesia for a celebration.
So all the climate scientists ended up at CBO?
Double it and then maybe we'll get close to it. Once its signed they will say, ooops, we forgot...


"Recently revealed federal documents show that the Bush administration estimated last year that the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit could cost almost $600 billion, more than half again as much as it publicly predicted at the time. Even worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that administration efforts to conceal this and other unflattering cost forecasts of the proposal while it was debated "appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of federal law."
The CBO came up with BS numbers to get it under a trillion.

03-18-2010, 11:10 AM
It's still $1,000,000,000,000 plan. A deficit reduction of $130B over ten years represents a reduction of only 2% as the CBO estimates a budget deficit of $9 TRILLION after 10 years. So, basically nothing.

03-18-2010, 11:39 AM
Apparently these numbers are fudged.


03-18-2010, 11:50 AM
Democrats Touting 'Unofficial' CBO Score...

House Democrats are trumpeting a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that the “reconciled” Senate version of the Obama healthcare bill will save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years, and more after that.

The Washington Post and Politico are blaring headlines about these claimed savings.

However, House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI) issued the following statement:

“The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press – and spinning for partisan gain – numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he was “giddy” about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority – in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.”

I just asked a highly-placed Senate source about the numbers, and why the Republicans weren’t talking about the bizarre assumptions – savings over time that are assumed but won’t happen, rosy scenarios about cost reductions and tax revenues and the like -- that are the only foundation on which CBO could have reached their conclusions.

The short answer is that the Republicans (at least the Senate Republicans) haven’t been allowed to see the report yet.

Maybe Pelosi deems them to have seen it.


03-18-2010, 04:31 PM
Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony

The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary “score” says the health care overhaul will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years, saving $138 billion over that time. But the CBO must assess legislation as written, rather than whether it will actually be carried out. Or, as the Economist put it, “The CBO is required to pretend to believe many impossible things before breakfast.”

1. Medicare cuts

The Senate health care bill relied heavily on unprecedented cuts in Medicare spending increases. If implemented, this would have a huge impact on seniors’ care. But Congress has always balked at Medicare cuts. (See No. 3).

2. Delayed start

To make the budget math work, Democrats plan on delaying the start of subsidies and other costly provisions for several years. (The bill spends just $17 billion through 2013). The true 10-year cost is far higher.

3. The “doc fix” is excluded

The Sustainable Growth Rate imposes automatic cuts in Medicare payment rates to doctors.

For several years, fearing a revolt by doctors — and seniors — Congress has suspended those cuts. The original draft of the House health care bill included a permanent “doc fix.” But that ballooned deficits, so Democrats dropped it, even though everyone knows Congress isn’t going to slash doctors’ rates. The CBO has estimated a “doc fix” would cost $247 billion over 10 years.

4. Student loans are included

Doctors’ payments are excluded from the health bill, but major student loan program changes are included? Yep. The reconciliation bill will end student loan subsidies to lenders. The CBO says this will save $19.4 billion over the first decade, accounting for virtually all of the $19.8 billion in deficit reduction from the health care reconciliation bill. Reconciliation bills must cut the deficit by at least $1 billion. So, without the non-health care items, the health care reconciliation bill would not pass muster.

5. It’s a CLASS act

In the Senate health bill, a new, voluntary long-term care insurance program called CLASS accounted for some $72 billion of the deficit reduction. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program is supposed to be deficit-neutral long-term. But Democrats are counting the upfront premium surplus in the short term and ignoring the significant operating deficits after 2029. Update: Democrats also are counting on projected additional Social Security revenues from payroll taxes on wages in lieu of lower health benefits. Again, those benefits have to be paid out.

But wait, there’s more! Let’s assume that the cost savings materialize as planned. It still makes the long-term fiscal outlook worse. Why? Democrats are using up a lot of tax hikes, spending cuts and upfront payment just to get barely better than deficit-neutral. That leaves future lawmakers less scope to bring the nation’s finances into order.