9.1 trillion dollar deficit.

[Ame®icano]

The reason why the current health care proposal should come in close to cost is simple: at core, it's replacing costs that exist in the current system.

Pfff. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You aren't serious, are you?

Delusional.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The reason why the current health care proposal should come in close to cost is simple: at core, it's replacing costs that exist in the current system.

Pfff. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You aren't serious, are you?

You really think those people without health insurance aren't be treated today? Of course they are. It's just not until they get a lot sicker (which drives up cost) and they're receiving the treatment in the ER (which also drives up cost and the cost gets passed on to everyone else).

You really think all those millions of young and healthy folks who never need it aren't going to use their health insurance they'll now be required to get, on frivolous, unnecessary crap just to get their money's worth? Further clogging an already overburdened system?

And really, were I in Congress and a friend of "big insurance" I would probably make health insurance mandatory as well, opening up a nice new market for my buddies! 47 million uninsured? If "big insurance" gets only 40% of those it's a nice, new, billions of dollar revenue windfall!

Put your money in the stocks of the four largest health insurance providers now.... Those stocks are going to BOOM upward in the next few years.

 

[Care4all]

There was an article on MSNBC today that discussed the budget deficit. They reported that the curent budget deficit was 1.4 trillion dollars as of the end of FY 2009. Obama's 2010 budget contained a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit. That's up 300 billion or so....
Now..read this little tidbit:

The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

What the F*CK does this mean? Does Obama know that his wreckless spending will double the National Debt? Or is he setting us up for justifying a massive tax increase on all working Americans?

Where is this money going to be spent?

Federal deficit triples from year ago - More politics- msnbc.com

it isn't just his spending... the economy in the toilet and many fewer jobs means less money taken in income taxes, making the deficit bigger.

Also, our SS surplus collection is coming to an end, we passed our peak on collections of the surplus, so congress will not have the SS surpluses to disguise their spending in the budget.

Then on top of all of this, more and more people moving to medicare with the boomers and the cost of the prescription pill plan is only getting larger and larger each year, using more and more of the taxes that are collected.

and with all of the money that has been borrowed so far, with 400 billion a year now going just towards the interest payment to the chinese, japanese, saudi arabians for the money we owe them out of our busget each year and probably gonna be 600 billion a year before we know it because interest rates HAVE TO GO UP...when they do, we will owe so much more on this ever growing debt it won't even funny.

We are in a world of crapola, no question!

care

 

[Xenophon]

There was an article on MSNBC today that discussed the budget deficit. They reported that the curent budget deficit was 1.4 trillion dollars as of the end of FY 2009. Obama's 2010 budget contained a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit. That's up 300 billion or so....
Now..read this little tidbit:

The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

What the F*CK does this mean? Does Obama know that his wreckless spending will double the National Debt? Or is he setting us up for justifying a massive tax increase on all working Americans?

Where is this money going to be spent?

Federal deficit triples from year ago - More politics- msnbc.com

This was the intention all along, Barry used the weak economy as cover for the first stage massive spending (so called 'stimulous' that stimulated only people Barry was paying off).

Essentially barry is doing what his party's opposition always said they would do if they ever gained total control, tax and spend us into oblivion.

We are seeing it happen.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Also, our SS surplus collection is coming to an end, we passed our peak on collections of the surplus, so congress will not have the SS surpluses to disguise their spending in the budget.

C4A...there is no SS surplus. anything above and beyond revenues collected and benefits payed out is immediately transferred into the general fund for spending on other bullshit we don't need. Then Congress issues an IOU to the SSA.

 

[Polk]

Pfff. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You aren't serious, are you?

You really think those people without health insurance aren't be treated today? Of course they are. It's just not until they get a lot sicker (which drives up cost) and they're receiving the treatment in the ER (which also drives up cost and the cost gets passed on to everyone else).

You really think all those millions of young and healthy folks who never need it aren't going to use their health insurance they'll now be required to get, on frivolous, unnecessary crap just to get their money's worth? Further clogging an already overburdened system?

And really, were I in Congress and a friend of "big insurance" I would probably make health insurance mandatory as well, opening up a nice new market for my buddies! 47 million uninsured? If "big insurance" gets only 40% of those it's a nice, new, billions of dollar revenue windfall!

Put your money in the stocks of the four largest health insurance providers now.... Those stocks are going to BOOM upward in the next few years.

The "young and healthy folks" still get treatment. Being young and healthy doesn't mean you never need care.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and here we have the set up for the excuses when their numbers don't add up!!!!!

In health debate, numbers are just numbers - Washington Post- msnbc.com

 

[Polk]

and here we have the set up for the excuses when their numbers don't add up!!!!!

In health debate, numbers are just numbers - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Shocker: Projections about events ten years in the future aren't 100% accurate.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

All America taxpayers are getting ready to be taken to the cleaners....
Obama wasn't kidding when he said we will have change left when he is done...he just never specified what type....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and here we have the set up for the excuses when their numbers don't add up!!!!!

In health debate, numbers are just numbers - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Shocker: Projections about events ten years in the future aren't 100% accurate.

Then why use them to sell a entitlement program that affects 1/6th of the U.S. economy.

 

[Polk]

and here we have the set up for the excuses when their numbers don't add up!!!!!

In health debate, numbers are just numbers - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Shocker: Projections about events ten years in the future aren't 100% accurate.

Then why use them to sell a entitlement program that affects 1/6th of the U.S. economy.

Why use them in any case? Because while they're not perfect, they serve the purpose of a baseline against which to measure.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Shocker: Projections about events ten years in the future aren't 100% accurate.

Then why use them to sell a entitlement program that affects 1/6th of the U.S. economy.

Why use them in any case? Because while they're not perfect, they serve the purpose of a baseline against which to measure.

That's horseshit and you know it. If Obama thinks he can get rid of fraud to pay for the new healthcare scheme he's dreaming up then why not prove to America he can do THAT first.

I'll tell you.....he plans on eliminating Medicare as we know it. He's too chicken to admit it to seniors because he knows his plan and his Presidency would both come to abrupt ends.

 

[Polk]

The criticism of the budget windows was right when the Bush administration made it and it's still right today:

The events of last year underscore the difficulty of making reliable budget estimates even one year ahead. No one expected the economic and fiscal fall-out that resulted from last September’s terrorist attacks and the onset of recession. Similarly, no one knows what types of economic or political shocks will arise in the future. The uncertainty surrounding such events should make us cautious as we attempt to formulate our budget projections.

Indeed, over the last six years, the 10 year fiscal projections have varied to a stunning degree. In the 1997 Budget, rising deficits were forecast totaling $1.4 trillion over a 10 year horizon. By the 2002 Budget steadily rising surpluses were projected over a 10 year period, totaling $5.6 trillion. Due to the events of last year, the latest projections are in between these wildly divergent estimates. Such enormous swings over a short period of time raise doubts about the usefulness of 10 year projections and lead one to conclude that the recent experiment with 10 year budget projections has been a failure. Consequently, the Administration intends to phase out the use of 10 year budget projections completely by the 2004 Budget. This year’s budget will still provide aggregate 10 year projections for those who follow and still find value in such numbers (see Summary Tables). However, agency totals and supporting detail will be limited to five year projections.

Recent Experience

It is easy to forget that 10 year budget forecasts are a relatively new phenomenon. The 1996 Mid-Session Review was the first budget document to use 10 year projections. In the prior 25 years, five year budget windows were the norm. (In fact, prior to 1971, three year budget windows were used.)

Indeed, even five year estimates are fraught with uncertainty. The average absolute errors in projecting the surplus or deficit since 1982 have been large, and they increase in each year of the five year budget window. There has been a $75 billion average absolute forecasting error for the budget year alone (i.e., 2003 for this budget). This rises steadily to $205 billion by the fourth year following the budget year (i.e., 2007 for this budget). Since the experiment with 10 year budget projections has been brief, data are not yet available to assess the average miss beyond five years. However, the rising average absolute errors over the first five years point to steadily rising errors over the subsequent five years as well. (For more information on the historical record of differences between estimated and actual surpluses, see Chapter 18 of the Analytical Perspectives volume, Comparison of Actual to Estimated Totals.)

History suggests that the current projections could be off by an enormous margin. A 90 percent confidence range around the current projections stretches from plus $480 billion to –$480 billion around the 2007 surplus estimate. Based on the trend seen in the first five years, this confidence range would be expected to widen further beyond 2007.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has made similar calculations and has estimated even larger uncertainty bands.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Budget Implications of the War

 

[Care4all]

Then why use them to sell a entitlement program that affects 1/6th of the U.S. economy.

Why use them in any case? Because while they're not perfect, they serve the purpose of a baseline against which to measure.

That's horseshit and you know it. If Obama thinks he can get rid of fraud to pay for the new healthcare scheme he's dreaming up then why not prove to America he can do THAT first.

I'll tell you.....he plans on eliminating Medicare as we know it. He's too chicken to admit it to seniors because he knows his plan and his Presidency would both come to abrupt ends.

What would be the purpose of him eliminating medicare if he knew it would kill his career
? and isn't it republicans that want to end entitlement programs and the dems that want to keep them? WHY are you now saying the opposite? that Repubs want to save and keep all of our entitlement programs and Dems don't ,when Dems are the ones who created them?

it just doesn't make sense to me? This is getting confusing with all the 'role' turnabouts?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

He doesn't care about a second term...his palce in history is already set.

Obama made a statement to that fact in his campaign, specifically, that he would end Medicare...or has everyone forgotten the days of heady speeches and million people marches after reality set in.

 

[Care4all]

He doesn't care about a second term...his palce in history is already set.

Obama made a statement to that fact in his campaign, specifically, that he would end Medicare...or has everyone forgotten the days of heady speeches and million people marches after reality set in.

I admit that i did not follow him too closely during the primary. but i did follow him fairly closely since i was supporting his opponent and NOT ONCE do I remember Obama ever taking the stand on him wanting to end medicare and it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he ever made such campaign claim to fame, because if he had, he would not be our president today....if I am understanding you correctly?

And as far as him not running....again for a second term because he already made his mark in History and THIS is why he is going to kill Medicare, AGAIN that makes no sense? why would he want to screw all of his Party members for the next Century?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm seaching my old posts for the link...I did find this on Google though...
Obama Proposes Eliminating Medicare Advantage, Ousting 9 Million Seniors from Their Health Plans | Cato @ Liberty

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and Obama said he will make significant cuts in Medicare/Medicaid to pay for his healthcare reform.

Obama: Cut Medicare, Medicaid for Health Care

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:55 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday he wants at least $200 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid spending over the next decade to help pay for overhauling the nation's health care system and providing coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.


The reductions in the programs would come on top of the $300 billion in cuts already proposed in his budget.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

A 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare funding. What do you think that means for seniors? After Obama PROMISED to let people keep their current coverage.

 

[The Rabbi]

and Obama said he will make significant cuts in Medicare/Medicaid to pay for his healthcare reform.

Obama: Cut Medicare, Medicaid for Health Care

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:55 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday he wants at least $200 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid spending over the next decade to help pay for overhauling the nation's health care system and providing coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.


The reductions in the programs would come on top of the $300 billion in cuts already proposed in his budget.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

A 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare funding. What do you think that means for seniors? After Obama PROMISED to let people keep their current coverage.

Could be why seniors are solidly against his program. And why he is now proposing a $250 bribe for their acquiescence.

 

[ba1614]

He doesn't care about a second term...his palce in history is already set.

Obama made a statement to that fact in his campaign, specifically, that he would end Medicare...or has everyone forgotten the days of heady speeches and million people marches after reality set in.

I don't believe he doesn't care about a second term. I think that is exactly why none of this HC bullshit they're pushing through comes into effect until 2013.