CNN: CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit

[Dr.Traveler]

CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

-------------------------------------

(more at link above)

 

[rayboyusmc]

This can't be. That's not what Boehner and the rest of Insurance Whores are sayng.

 

[Hellokitty]

The bill collects taxes for 10 years but only is covering a small portion of the uninsured for 4 years.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll be looking forward to the full report. I'm kinda curious at the mathematics behind how taking on a new entitlement actually reduces the deficit. That should be interesting.

I'm also curious the response this report will get. Both parties are guilty of trumpeting reports by the non-partisan CBO when it fits their agenda. The Republicans have to be fuming at this one.

 

[saveliberty]

You only have to look back about 17 months and see the CBO estimated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed $25b. to fix the mortgage problem. Four months later they REVISED the figure to $300b. A 1200% error. It doesn't take much to see the health care reform could easily be off $100b. or more.

If the CBO is off 10% and the insurance industry is even 10% right the program fails to meet Obama's test and is not a deficit neutral plan, but a deficit builder.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You only have to look back about 17 months and see the CBO estimated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed $25b. to fix the mortgage problem. Four months later they REVISED the figure to $300b. A 1200% error. It doesn't take much to see the health care reform could easily be off $100b. or more.

If the CBO is off 10% and the insurance industry is even 10% right the program fails to meet Obama's test and is not a deficit neutral plan, but a deficit builder.

I imagine there will be a revision on this figure. Last I checked we're still at 5 competing bills that have to be pared down to one. As the bill changes, the numbers will too.

 

[Ravi]

Given that we already pay for 46% of health care coverage through tax dollars, it is likely that requiring everyone to have insurance (thereby enlarging the pool and lowering costs) and offering a public option will reduce the deficit.

 

[saveliberty]

Given that we already pay for 46% of health care coverage through tax dollars, it is likely that requiring everyone to have insurance (thereby enlarging the pool and lowering costs) and offering a public option will reduce the deficit.

Problems with your statement:

1. We don't require everyone to have insurance. We fine a great number of them if they
don't take coverage, but there is still 6%, by CBO figures, who will remain uninsured.
2. The pool does get larger, but you are adding pre-existing conditions from a large
number of these people. They will increase costs, not decrease.
3. You are adding a new system with the public option. It requires medical professionals
to fill out more forms for reimbursement and to follow their procedures and
regulations. This increases costs too.
4. We pay for health insurance with tax dollars.

 

[Mr. Capitalism]

"The Communist Bullshit Organization?" - Love, Crusader Frank

 

[Dr.Traveler]

"The Communist Bullshit Organization?" - Love, Crusader Frank

Frank will come by and make his own sarcastic quips. No need to jump the gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

President Obama has made serial promises that he will not sign a health-care bill that "adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period." This was never plausible, but now we can begin to understand what he meant: Democrats plan to make ObamaCare "deficit-neutral" by moving nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the books, in the fiscal deception of the century.

Later this week, or maybe next, Senate Democrats plan to vote on a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform. Rather than include the pricey $247 billion plan known on Capitol Hill as the "doc fix" as part of ObamaCare, they'll instead make this a separate contribution to the deficit, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts. Majority Leader Harry Reid explained at a press conference last week that "All we're doing is wiping the slate clean by adjusting the baseline to what is current policy. This is not new policy."

Wiping the slate is right.

Democrats Plan to Strip Sustainable Growth Rate Formula from Health-Care Reform - WSJ.com
More at the source.

They do this with smoke and mirrors.
They make "cuts" to existing programs that they will restore in subsequent Congressional sessions. They impose taxes now and start the program years from now. They make things off budget that shouldn't be.
If this were a GOP program the Dums would be screaming for an investigation. Rightly so.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Still selling more swamp land ay? No Government program in History has ever cost what they originally claimed it would cost. If they're claiming $800 Billion then just go ahead and think at least $5 or 6 Trillion. This Socialist Boondoggle is going to cost $800 Billion and i'm the Pope. Just another Socialist scam.

 

[Oddball]

You only have to look back about 17 months and see the CBO estimated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed $25b. to fix the mortgage problem. Four months later they REVISED the figure to $300b. A 1200% error. It doesn't take much to see the health care reform could easily be off $100b. or more.

If the CBO is off 10% and the insurance industry is even 10% right the program fails to meet Obama's test and is not a deficit neutral plan, but a deficit builder.

I imagine there will be a revision on this figure. Last I checked we're still at 5 competing bills that have to be pared down to one. As the bill changes, the numbers will too.

So, there's no bill in actual reality, yet the CBO can make a judgment about its costs and/or effect on the deficit?

Doesn't speak to any credibility of the CBO in my world.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Go with Dr. Paul on this one. In his 25yrs in Congress he has never seen a Government spending program that ended up costing what they originally claimed it would cost. If they're claiming it will cost $900 Billion than just go ahead and think at least $5 or 6 Trillion. Just another scam in the end.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You only have to look back about 17 months and see the CBO estimated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed $25b. to fix the mortgage problem. Four months later they REVISED the figure to $300b. A 1200% error. It doesn't take much to see the health care reform could easily be off $100b. or more.

If the CBO is off 10% and the insurance industry is even 10% right the program fails to meet Obama's test and is not a deficit neutral plan, but a deficit builder.

I imagine there will be a revision on this figure. Last I checked we're still at 5 competing bills that have to be pared down to one. As the bill changes, the numbers will too.

So, there's no bill in actual reality, yet the CBO can make a judgment about its costs and/or effect on the deficit?

Doesn't speak to any credibility of the CBO in my world.

My understanding is that they're evaluating this particular bill with this particular option.

Who knows if this bill will still exist in current form in a week.

The report is interesting, but its an attempt to hit a moving target.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'll be looking forward to the full report. I'm kinda curious at the mathematics behind how taking on a new entitlement actually reduces the deficit. That should be interesting.

I'm also curious the response this report will get. Both parties are guilty of trumpeting reports by the non-partisan CBO when it fits their agenda. The Republicans have to be fuming at this one.

Me too.

I am witholding comment till I have more facts. I get that weird "How does spending money reduce the defecit" thought in my head too.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's called Al Gore Fuzzy Math. If they're claiming this spending will cost $900 Billion than just go ahead and think $5 or 6 Trillion. No Government spending program ever ends up costing what they originally claimed it would cost. Just another Socialist sham in the end.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's called Al Gore Fuzzy Math. If they're claiming this spending will cost $900 Billion than just go ahead and think $5 or 6 Trillion. No Government spending program ever ends up costing what they originally claimed it would cost. Just another Socialist sham in the end.

Thats like when the wife comes home from shopping and says "Honey I just saved us $500.00, all this stuff I bought was 20% off"

To her she saved 500 bucks to me she just spent $2500 bucks .

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It's called Al Gore Fuzzy Math. If they're claiming this spending will cost $900 Billion than just go ahead and think $5 or 6 Trillion. No Government spending program ever ends up costing what they originally claimed it would cost. Just another Socialist sham in the end.

Thats like when the wife comes home from shopping and says "Honey I just saved us $500.00, all this stuff I bought was 20% off"

To her she saved 500 bucks to me she just spent $2500 bucks .

I thought that only happened to me

There are some cases where spending $$$ = savings, but I'm curious how this is one of them. I recall seeing 20 years back or so a study, with some sound math behind it, that showed that if the Feds completely shut down the Tobacco industry and agreed to continue paying the salaries of all the employees that ended up unemployed, they'd come out ahead in the long run simply because of the health care costs.

I'm not seeing that here. When a person can't pay, its not usually picked up by the Fed. Its passed along to those of us with Insurance in the form of higher hospital costs. If the report had said in the long run taxpayers would save money, I'd buy it, but as is, I'm really curious how it works.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually the country would be better off financially if we encouraged people to smoke. Maybe we should start subsidizing cigarettes instead of taxing them.