CBO numbers, "Savings" Myth Crumbles...

[Damocles]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ed_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN#ixzz0XQ43beHU

SENATE Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate's latest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don't kick in until the fifth year of that "10-year" period. The true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.

The Democrats cite the bills' projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 -- versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first 10 years," only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

And that's even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run "public option" wouldn't cost a cent.

More at link....

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ed_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN#ixzz0XQ43beHU

SENATE Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate's latest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don't kick in until the fifth year of that "10-year" period. The true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.

The Democrats cite the bills' projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 -- versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first 10 years," only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

And that's even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run "public option" wouldn't cost a cent.

More at link....

Classic statistical misrepresentation. In reality, the CBO makes abundantly clear that the bill reduces the deficit in both the 10-year and post-10-year windows, with the net effect on the deficit in 2019 alone being an $8 billion reduction in the deficit.

And the $1.8 trillion figure is total horseshit. The author gets to that number by adding the revenues raised under the bill to the outlays included in the bill. In the real world, the cost of the bill is only the outlays.

 

[Damocles]

Classic statistical misrepresentation. In reality, the CBO makes abundantly clear that the bill reduces the deficit in both the 10-year and post-10-year windows, with the net effect on the deficit in 2019 alone being an $8 billion reduction in the deficit.

And the $1.8 trillion figure is total horseshit. The author gets to that number by adding the revenues raised under the bill to the outlays included in the bill. In the real world, the cost of the bill is only the outlays.

Except they do not. They make it clear it will cost twice what the "budget neutral" price that is being advertised says it will. From supposed slight savings to massive taxes for increased debt in just one report....

Awesome. The Democrats are outdoing themselves.

 

[Bonestorm]

Except they do not. They make it clear it will cost twice what the "budget neutral" price that is being advertised says it will. From supposed slight savings to massive taxes for increased debt in just one report....

Awesome. The Democrats are outdoing themselves.

You're just making shit up, as expected. From the CBO report:

n the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.

It's right there in the report. Both the 10-year window and 20-year window show deficit reduction under this bill. And, in fact, the CBO found that beyond the 10-year window the government would spend the same amount in healthcare expenditures as under current law:

CBO expects that, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out, so that there would be no significant change in that commitment."

I understand that you don't like the bill but why lie?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're just making shit up, as expected. From the CBO report:



It's right there in the report. Both the 10-year window and 20-year window show deficit reduction under this bill. And, in fact, the CBO found that beyond the 10-year window the government would spend the same amount in healthcare expenditures as under current law:



I understand that you don't like the bill but why lie?

LMAO... the LIE is in pretending the 10 year window starts in 2010. The ten year cost window begins in 2014 when the COSTS actually START occurring. THAT was the point of the NY Post piece.

That said, we are quite understanding that after consuming the kool-aid and being spoon fed your talking points from moveon.moron that you are incapable of being shown why it is your masters are lying to you. You are an apologist for the administration and a stooge. You cannot help it as the brainwashing was 100% successful.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ed_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN#ixzz0XQWmnvHU
"

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit."


You can try to push the lie Reid is cramming down your throat, but anyone who looks at the numbers can see the gimmick the Dems are using in their attempt to distort the truth.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... the LIE is in pretending the 10 year window starts in 2010. The ten year cost window begins in 2014 when the COSTS actually START occurring. THAT was the point of the NY Post piece.

Well, that's why I posted the part that deals with the impact on the deficit from 2019-2029. The Post piece pretends that the CBO did no analysis beyond the 10-year window when if fact it did. And it found that in the 2019-2029 period the bill would reduce the deficit by about one-quater of one percent of GDP.

The point of the Post piece was to mislead people. And it apparently succeeded.

That said, we are quite understanding that after consuming the kool-aid and being spoon fed your talking points from moveon.moron that you are incapable of being shown why it is your masters are lying to you. You are an apologist for the administration and a stooge. You cannot help it as the brainwashing was 100% successful.

Uh, see the above. On my side I've got the figures from the non-partisan CBO. On your side you have an op-ed written by a former Bush Administration official that now works at a right-wing think tank appearing in the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid N.Y. Post. And you say I'm drinking the kool-aid? Not. Even. Close.

 

[Bonestorm]

"As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ed_books_loFmlm5OEIdYuzuJySXBaN#ixzz0XQWmnvHU
"

Hilarious. You know how the author reaches the $1.8 trillion figure? By adding revenues raised under the bill to pay for the costs to the actual costs. That's like saying that my house costs $300,000 because I bought it for $150,000 and took out a $150,000 loan to pay for it. It's just not true.

 

[Bonestorm]

"The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit."


You can try to push the lie Reid is cramming down your throat, but anyone who looks at the numbers can see the gimmick the Dems are using in their attempt to distort the truth.

Hilarious. Here's the CBO report again in case you missed it the first time:

In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

if I charge my tenants rent for five years before I start paying my mortgage payments I can cash flow almost any investment property.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious. Here's the CBO report again in case you missed it the first time:

Again... you are sucking down the koo-aid. I understand that the CBO report stated that the first ten years would 'reduce the deficit'. The point you moron is that for the first FIVE years, the costs don't take affect. Thus, it is smoke and mirrors.

Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
"As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), the CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater.

And Jessica Simpson will probably show up at my house tonight to give me a blowjob!

The CBO can only estimate projected cost over a 10-year period, because that is as far out as they can reasonably estimate the GDP with any accuracy. Liberals are smart enough to know, hide the real costs down the road, after this 10-year window, and then you can claim it doesn't cost as much.

It's also a good time to point out, the CBO has no crystal ball, they can't predict what else might happen as a result of this nightmare. When Clinton supposedly 'balanced the budget' it was because the CBO included the Social Security Trust Fund in the General Budget, and calculated an estimate based on what was the current growth rate of our GDP. The growth proved to be artificial, because the dot coms crashed, and the housing bubble burst, so the GDP estimated by the CBO never came to fruition. This goes back to precisely why the CBO doesn't estimate past 10 years, it can't.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again... you are sucking down the koo-aid. I understand that the CBO report stated that the first ten years would 'reduce the deficit'. The point you moron is that for the first FIVE years, the costs don't take affect. Thus, it is smoke and mirrors.

The CBO report says that from 2019-2029 the bill reduces the deficit by one-quarter of one percent of GDP. Thus, your fucking point is completely irrelevant. Over the next 20 years, significantly reduces the deficit and covers 96% of Americans.

Moreover, the $1.8 trillion figure is bunk for the reasons I stated.

Lastly, I see you conveniently ignored the fact that you are regurgitating horseshit fed to you by a former Bush Administration official who now works for right-wing think-tank appearing in the Rubert Murdoch-owned NY Post.

 

[Damocles]

You're just making shit up, as expected. From the CBO report:



It's right there in the report. Both the 10-year window and 20-year window show deficit reduction under this bill. And, in fact, the CBO found that beyond the 10-year window the government would spend the same amount in healthcare expenditures as under current law:



I understand that you don't like the bill but why lie?

You didn't read the article, Nigel. You have made it clear with this post. It clearly points out where in the CBO report the numbers begin to diverge from reality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The CBO report says that from 2019-2029 the bill reduces the deficit by one-quarter of one percent of GDP. Thus, your fucking point is completely irrelevant. Over the next 20 years, significantly reduces the deficit and covers 96% of Americans.

Moreover, the $1.8 trillion figure is bunk for the reasons I stated.

Lastly, I see you conveniently ignored the fact that you are regurgitating horseshit fed to you by a former Bush Administration official who now works for right-wing think-tank appearing in the Rubert Murdoch-owned NY Post.

No, the CBO doesn't say what you claim. The CBO can't even tell us with accuracy, how much the program will cost the first year. They make a projection, an estimate based on other data, a best-guess. This is formally calculated out over the course of the next decade, based on current trends and growth rates, and presuming they will continue for at least the next decade. Beyond that, they may entertain a speculative idea of what MIGHT happen, but as for calculations, it is pointless to do them because too many factors will change between now and then. Historically, the CBO almost always underestimates the cost of a program, I can't think of an example where they ever over-estimated something.

Here is another factor... don't you wonder how the CBO can determine this stuff when the bill has not yet been finalized or passed? They are still adding shit to this 2000-page monstrosity, and I don't know that anyone has fully read the entire thing, including the CBO. However, I think a 5th grade math flunky could figure out, you can't provide health care for 30 million extra people, and reduce the deficit. The idea itself, is a contradiction of logic, and is based on ignoring the inevitable consequences which will derail cost estimates along the way.