Health Care Reform Bill Budget Impact “Subject to Substantial Uncertainty”

They're just as uncertain on both sides though. Therefore, the most honest thing to do is state the expected value. If they were stating the absolute best case scenario as the most likely outcome, you'd have a valid argument. They're not though.

Since when does a highly uncertain estimate become the expected value?

Uncertainty refers to the margin of error in the estimate. The estimate still produces an expected value.

The problem is that the margin of error is substantial, meaning the estimate is no good.
 
Hell, let's just continue as we are. It is such a god damned great thing about our nation to have 700,000 families a year go bankrupt because of medical bill. It is absolutely wonderful to have an infant mortality rate like a third world nation. Doesn't it make you feel great that the people in little Costa Rica have a longer life expectancy than we do here in the US. In spite of the fact that the income average is only a tenth that of the Us.

Ah yes, let's not do anything rash like denying the health insurance industry billions of dollars that they make denying the claims of the people that have been paying for health insurance.

We pay twice as much for health care on a per capita basis as most other industrial nations, and get an inferior product. Doesn't that just make you bust your buttons about good old American knowhow?

Nice strawman; I know we need to do something. Giving the government more power and control over health care will not solve this.

This isn't a gubment takeover. It's actually health insurance companies using the state to create a captive marketplace (monopoly). US taxpayers will now be forced to directly subsidize the golden parachutes of health insurance CEOs. Without government subsidies and regulations, many of these companies would go bust or drastically shrink in scope and size. This is another bailout by the political class.
 
Uncertainty refers to the margin of error in the estimate. The estimate still produces an expected value.

The problem is that the margin of error is substantial, meaning the estimate is no good.

Not really. Any estimate of events ten years in the future is going to have a high margin of error.

How many times has the CBO said their estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty? I do not believe it is very often.
 
Hell, let's just continue as we are. It is such a god damned great thing about our nation to have 700,000 families a year go bankrupt because of medical bill. It is absolutely wonderful to have an infant mortality rate like a third world nation. Doesn't it make you feel great that the people in little Costa Rica have a longer life expectancy than we do here in the US. In spite of the fact that the income average is only a tenth that of the Us.

Ah yes, let's not do anything rash like denying the health insurance industry billions of dollars that they make denying the claims of the people that have been paying for health insurance.

We pay twice as much for health care on a per capita basis as most other industrial nations, and get an inferior product. Doesn't that just make you bust your buttons about good old American knowhow?

Nice strawman; I know we need to do something. Giving the government more power and control over health care will not solve this.

This isn't a gubment takeover. It's actually health insurance companies using the state to create a captive marketplace (monopoly). US taxpayers will now be forced to directly subsidize the golden parachutes of health insurance CEOs. Without government subsidies and regulations, many of these companies would go bust or drastically shrink in scope and size. This is another bailout by the political class.

While I mostly agree with what you are saying, the government is still part of it. Giving the government more control over health care will not decrease corporate lobbying, it will likely only increase it.
 
The problem is that the margin of error is substantial, meaning the estimate is no good.

Not really. Any estimate of events ten years in the future is going to have a high margin of error.

How many times has the CBO said their estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty? I do not believe it is very often.
i'll be damned if the CBO is not an exercise in uncertainty, par exellence.
 
Nice strawman; I know we need to do something. Giving the government more power and control over health care will not solve this.

This isn't a gubment takeover. It's actually health insurance companies using the state to create a captive marketplace (monopoly). US taxpayers will now be forced to directly subsidize the golden parachutes of health insurance CEOs. Without government subsidies and regulations, many of these companies would go bust or drastically shrink in scope and size. This is another bailout by the political class.

While I mostly agree with what you are saying, the government is still part of it. Giving the government more control over health care will not decrease corporate lobbying, it will likely only increase it.

Well, the health insurance companies are using the government as an enforcement arm for their monopolization practices. Welcome to the corporate fascist state.
 
The problem is that the margin of error is substantial, meaning the estimate is no good.

Not really. Any estimate of events ten years in the future is going to have a high margin of error.

How many times has the CBO said their estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty? I do not believe it is very often.

All estimates of events ten years in the future are subject to substantial uncertainty.
 
Not really. Any estimate of events ten years in the future is going to have a high margin of error.

How many times has the CBO said their estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty? I do not believe it is very often.

All estimates of events ten years in the future are subject to substantial uncertainty.

Then it should stop being sold to the American people as certain.
 
Dems intend to bypass GOP on health compromise - Yahoo! News

The Dems are going to box the Pubs out on passage of the bill. I said this would happen if the GOP would not play. The bill passes, the GOP won't vote for it (maybe two of them), and the rest will have their feet held to the fire this fall. Good. The losers in the leadership of my party need to be replaced.

you dont feel republicans have the mandate to whip against the health bill? i think theyre going for the pontius pilate position. that might sit better with their base... even the sane ones.
 
Naw, the GOP leaders are clearly not thinking. They are very wrong if they believe that most Americans don't want a reform of the health insurance industry and the expansion of affordability and easier access to health care for those who don't have it now.
 
The American People elected him to make just these types of decisions.

It called representative government

so no one is allowed to criticize right?

Well I didn't vote for him precisely because i didn't want him making these types of decisions so I will criticize after all

[youtube]NJxmpTMGhU0[/youtube]
 

Forum List

Back
Top