First Numbers From The CBO

[Apocalypse]

CBO numbers

March 18, 2010

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) just released the first set of Congressional Budget Office numbers to reporters this morning.

The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.

Here are the details, according to House Democrats:

1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.

3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/CBO_numbers.html

#$%^

[swirling_vortex]

Sure, let's add another entitlement program! What could possibly go wrong?

[PoliCon]

These numbers from the CBO are leaked - and unofficial.

http://house.gov/budget_republicans/...318cboleak.pdf

[Nubs]

For this to reduce the deficit by $130 Billlion, they need to spend $940 billion. Does this not mean it need to save $1.07 Trillion? Or are we spending $940B to save $130B?? If it is the latter, oh shit are we in trouble. This is like my wife going to the store and saving $200 in coupons but paying $1800 to save the $200. Why spemd the $1800 in the first place???

[Articulate_Ape]

To me it's moot. Can anyone name one government program or project that hasn't cost significantly more than projected? One would have to suspend all disbelief to think that it will be any different and even worse with this monstrosity.

[PoliCon]

To me it's moot. Can anyone name one government program or project that hasn't cost significantly more than projected? One would have to suspend all disbelief to think that it will be any different and even worse with this monstrosity.

The prescription drug benefit that Bush Co. instituted is supposed to have come in under projections . . . .

[Articulate_Ape]

The prescription drug benefit that Bush Co. instituted is supposed to have come in under projections . . . .

Huh? Do you have something to back that up? Because that's news to me.

[PoliCon]

Huh? Do you have something to back that up? Because that's news to me.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=51311

Foster testified that the 10-year cost projection for the Medicare prescription drug benefit is 37% lower than projected in 2003 when Congress approved the law that created the benefit. He added that the projected costs are 17% lower than Medicare analysts estimated a year ago. According to Foster, about 11% of the lower projection could be attributed to greater-than-expected competition among drug plans, 19% stemmed from lower estimates of national prescription drug spending and seven percentage points stemmed from lower-than-expected Part D enrollment.

[Articulate_Ape]

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=51311

Nice, I did not know that. Thanks, Poli. That said, I still don't trust the CBO's projections on Obamacare.

[PoliCon]

Nice, I did not know that. Thanks, Poli. That said, I still don't trust the CBO's projections on Obamacare.

Neither do I! Even a broken clock is right twice a day.