da evilz is back...

[Bonestorm]

Think about what Rove claims the director of the non-partisan CBO testified to regarding the impact of the Baucus bill on health insurance premiums. This is Rove's claim:

Under questioning at a Senate hearing Tuesday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes in the Baucus bill would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums.

Rove is saying that the CBO director testified that the Democratic plan would increase health insurance premiums. If that happened it would have been a huge fucking deal, particularly in light of the facially ridiculous report produced by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the insurance industry making that exact same claim that PWC had to walk back very very quickly.

Rove is making shit up. Unquestionably.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I know the author and source will immediately be attacked by those who don't wish to discuss the information contained within the article. For the rest of you, I would suggest reading this as it contains valid points that should be discussed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473372635087870.html


"One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits."

Yea you're right. Karl Rove has a huge crediblity gap. My first response is to disregard anything he has to say. I'm about to go eat my lunch and would like a hearty apetite so I'll read this later and comment.

 

[zappasguitar]

Like I said, you attack the author rather than discuss the point...

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Is that wrong? Yes or no?

Side note... don't ever post anything that comes from Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, or for that matter any politician again. Oh, and you can leave out the huffington post, moveon.moron, the NY Times, the LA Times etc... as well.

Because there is no way anything any of them state can be valid given their past history.

You post an editorial piece from Karl Rove filled with speculation, presumptions and baseless conclusions and then you get upset when others ask for some factual verification to back up the points Mr Rove "made" in his little EDITORIAL?

Who pee'd in your Cheerios this morning?

 

[Damocles]

No, he's full of shit. The onus isn't on me to prove him wrong. Let your buddy prove his case that Karl Rove raises "valid points." Show me something that supports the "valid points" that Rove allegedly makes in his op-ed.

The CBO report itself supports his first point, that it uses accounting tricks to attempt to make it appear it won't add to the deficit. They clearly begin taxing long before they begin spending, and count the taxing (not spending) years as part of their 10 years.


The CBO report itself only talks about the provisions that "expand health care coverage" and this is an important distinction. Things that it simply doesn't cover in cost in the bill include the $11 Billion for Doctors so their pay doesn't go down too much with the cuts (that won't be happening, cuts in medicare are absolutely fought by Ds) and $21 billion to make the Medicare drug benefit more generous. These increases that were not included in the CBO estimate total about $75 billion. So before we start in on applying a test of realism, the bill's actual cost is just over $900 Billion, to cover about 4 to 7 percent more Americans. Don't forget that it also adds $33 Billion in unfunded state mandates, shoving portions of the cost on "other" and making it so it appears less bloating to the budget.

Here is an article that speaks to the CBO report, and speaks on how the numbers I have provided here come directly from that report.

http://dmarron.com/2009/10/07/the-real-cost-of-the-baucus-bill/


Then you can start in on the idea that the cuts and tax increases begin three years before the program begins (2015), and figure that the estimate only covers the 10 years from the beginning of cuts in spending and tax increases to 7 years after the program actually begin... extending it just three more years... just three (actually 10 years of the program), changes the estimates immensely.

The report assumes “sustainable growth rate” cuts included in the bill in physician payments that have been blocked repeatedly by congress will magically make it into the bill. Congress has objected to and blocked the medicare cuts consistently, it is hogwash to even include that $200 Billion in the estimate. It's like saying, "If the sun starts setting in the East in 2012, this bill will be deficit free! "

Adding back in that 200 Billion brings us over 1.1 trillion right away, CBO didn't want to do that... And that STILL doesn't include the 47% increase in mandated spending on the states as part of the medicare program.

The CBO's head dude lately admitted that tax increases on insurance programs would pass on to the consumer as premium increases. Yet such increases are not included in the cost. In Mass. 60% of the cost of their Health Insurance program was in the cost of private sector mandates, such costs don't even make the page in the CBO report.

 

[Damocles]

No, he's full of shit. The onus isn't on me to prove him wrong. Let your buddy prove his case that Karl Rove raises "valid points." Show me something that supports the "valid points" that Rove allegedly makes in his op-ed.

The CBO report itself supports his first point, that it uses accounting tricks to attempt to make it appear it won't add to the deficit. They clearly begin taxing long before they begin spending, and count the taxing (not spending) years as part of their 10 years.


The CBO report itself only talks about the provisions that "expand health care coverage" and this is an important distinction. Things that it simply doesn't cover in cost in the bill include the $11 Billion for Doctors so their pay doesn't go down too much with the cuts (that won't be happening, cuts in medicare are absolutely fought by Ds) and $21 billion to make the Medicare drug benefit more generous. These increases that were not included in the CBO estimate total about $75 billion. So before we start in on applying a test of realism, the bill's actual cost is just over $900 Billion, to cover about 4 to 7 percent more Americans. Don't forget that it also adds $33 Billion in unfunded state mandates, shoving portions of the cost on "other" and making it so it appears less bloating to the budget.

Here is an article that speaks to the CBO report, and speaks on how the numbers I have provided here come directly from that report.

http://dmarron.com/2009/10/07/the-real-cost-of-the-baucus-bill/


Then you can start in on the idea that the cuts and tax increases begin three years before the program begins (2015), and figure that the estimate only covers the 10 years from the beginning of cuts in spending and tax increases to 7 years after the program actually begin... extending it just three more years... just three (actually 10 years of the program), changes the estimates immensely.

The report assumes “sustainable growth rate” cuts included in the bill in physician payments that have been blocked repeatedly by congress will magically make it into the bill. Congress has objected to and blocked the medicare cuts consistently, it is hogwash to even include that $200 Billion in the estimate. It's like saying, "If the sun starts setting in the East in 2012, this bill will be deficit free! "

Adding back in that 200 Billion brings us over 1.1 trillion right away, CBO didn't want to do that... And that STILL doesn't include the 47% increase in mandated spending on the states as part of the medicare program.

The CBO's head dude lately admitted that tax increases on insurance programs would pass on to the consumer as premium increases. Yet such increases are not included in the cost. In Mass. 60% of the cost of their Health Insurance program was in the cost of private sector mandates, such costs don't even make the page in the CBO report.

 

[Bonestorm]

The CBO report itself supports his first point, that it uses accounting tricks to attempt to make it appear it won't add to the deficit. They clearly begin taxing long before they begin spending, and count the taxing (not spending) years as part of their 10 years.


The CBO report itself only talks about the provisions that "expand health care coverage" and this is an important distinction. Things that it simply doesn't cover in cost in the bill include the $11 Billion for Doctors so their pay doesn't go down too much with the cuts (that won't be happening, cuts in medicare are absolutely fought by Ds) and $21 billion to make the Medicare drug benefit more generous. These increases that were not included in the CBO estimate total about $75 billion. So before we start in on applying a test of realism, the bill's actual cost is just over $900 Billion, to cover about 4 to 7 percent more Americans. Don't forget that it also adds $33 Billion in unfunded state mandates, shoving portions of the cost on "other" and making it so it appears less bloating to the budget.

Here is an article that speaks to the CBO report, and speaks on how the numbers I have provided here come directly from that report.

http://dmarron.com/2009/10/07/the-real-cost-of-the-baucus-bill/


Then you can start in on the idea that the cuts and tax increases begin three years before the program begins (2015), and figure that the estimate only covers the 10 years from the beginning of cuts in spending and tax increases to 7 years after the program actually begin... extending it just three more years... just three (actually 10 years of the program), changes the estimates immensely.

The report assumes “sustainable growth rate” cuts included in the bill in physician payments that have been blocked repeatedly by congress will magically make it into the bill. Congress has objected to and blocked the medicare cuts consistently, it is hogwash to even include that $200 Billion in the estimate. It's like saying, "If the sun starts setting in the East in 2012, this bill will be deficit free! "

Adding back in that 200 Billion brings us over 1.1 trillion right away, CBO didn't want to do that... And that STILL doesn't include the 47% increase in mandated spending on the states as part of the medicare program.

The CBO's head dude lately admitted that tax increases on insurance programs would pass on to the consumer as premium increases. Yet such increases are not included in the cost. In Mass. 60% of the cost of their Health Insurance program was in the cost of private sector mandates, such costs don't even make the page in the CBO report.

1) His first point is not true. In fact, the CBO analysis shows both outlays and revenues beginning in 2010. Moreover, the CBO did an assessment over a 20-year period in addition to the ordinary 10-year period and the Baucus bill actually would result in additional decreases to the deficit over the 20-year period.

2) The additional analysis you provide would be interesting were it's main premise true. The claim that "the CBO report itself only talks about the provisions that 'expand health care coverage'" is simply not true. Here is the text of the CBO analysis:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
$81 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1).

As is clear from the text of the CBO report, the analysis is not limited to provisions that expand health coverage but is an analysis of the entirety of the Baucus bill, as amended. The CBO does indeed provide a break down for those provisions that expand health care coverage, but the bottom line figure includes an analysis of the entirety of the bill.

 

[Damocles]

1) His first point is not true. In fact, the CBO analysis shows both outlays and revenues beginning in 2010. Moreover, the CBO did an assessment over a 20-year period in addition to the ordinary 10-year period and the Baucus bill actually would result in additional decreases to the deficit over the 20-year period.

2) The additional analysis you provide would be interesting were it's main premise true. The claim that "the CBO report itself only talks about the provisions that 'expand health care coverage'" is simply not true. Here is the text of the CBO analysis:



As is clear from the text of the CBO report, the analysis is not limited to provisions that expand health coverage but is an analysis of the entirety of the Baucus bill, as amended. The CBO does indeed provide a break down for those provisions that expand health care coverage, but the bottom line figure includes an analysis of the entirety of the bill.

Mentioning them then not including them in the bottom line is not the same thing as "providing a full accounting of all the costs."

I'll also note that you did not even cover the costs I mentioned that are not even included in the CBO report, nor the fact that it relies on a political fantasy.

I'll add that costs passed to consumers is a regressive form of taxation that will hurt those that most need the money.

 

[Bonestorm]

Mentioning them then not including them in the bottom line is not the same thing as "providing a full accounting of all the costs."

I'll also note that you did not even cover the costs I mentioned that are not even included in the CBO report, nor the fact that it relies on a political fantasy.

I'll add that costs passed to consumers is a regressive form of taxation that will hurt those that most need the money.

Before we take this any further, I'd just note for the record that you haven't substantiated any of the ridiculous claims Rove made in his op-ed that SF claims are "valid points." I take it that you concede that Rove is full of shit, no?

 

[Damocles]

Before we take this any further, I'd just note for the record that you haven't substantiated any of the ridiculous claims Rove made in his op-ed that SF claims are "valid points." I take it that you concede that Rove is full of shit, no?

No, I simply substantiated my own opinion, giving a cite (as that seemed to be the reason you reject all of Rove's article). The bill's cost is being hidden in accounting gimmicks and I don't know why the CBO is toting Baucus's bath water to our detriment, but it is.

 

[blackascoal]

If you're willing to take that guys word on anything you need to have your head examined. Given that you probably just read the thing off of Real Clear Politics, you have no idea whether the shit Karl is peddling is true or not. Claiming that he makes "valid points" is laughable.

My favorite part is this:



That's hilarious. Think about it for a minute. If that were true, you wouldn't have unified Republican opposition to the bill. The Republicans would more than happily step aside that let the Democratic lemmings vote for the bill, lose their majority allowing the Republicans to take back Congress.

Turd Blossom is full of shit, knows the bill is close to passing and is desperately trying to prevent it from happening because he knows that an Obama victory here would be devastating to the Republican minority. With that in mind, anyone who believes Karl's view of the bill is seriously deluded.

 

[Canceled1]

You're touchy today. You post an op-ed by Turd Blossom and get upset when I point out that he's full of shit. I'm not sure what your story is. Do you have any evidence to substantiate the "valid points" you claim Turd Blossom raises in the op-ed or are you just going to throw a temper tantrum because your boy lied to you and you took it hook, line and sinker?


Edit: And here's thing, it doesn't take more than a few second to figure out if what Rove says is true. Try it sometime. You're old enough to know that just because someone says something doesn't make it so and you should have a more highly developed bullshit detector than you apparently do.

Go look at the archived video yourself. I looked and Rove is accurately depicting what was said.

You're hurling the accusation he's FOS. Prove he's FOS.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Like I said, you attack the author rather than discuss the point...

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Is that wrong? Yes or no?

Side note... don't ever post anything that comes from Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, or for that matter any politician again. Oh, and you can leave out the huffington post, moveon.moron, the NY Times, the LA Times etc... as well.

Because there is no way anything any of them state can be valid given their past history.

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Of course it would be deficit neutral. All income and very little expenses to 2015 and 2017 should be a no brainer. Then they will sock it to us, which in MO is deceitful.

 

[Bonestorm]

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Of course it would be deficit neutral. All income and very little expenses to 2015 and 2017 should be a no brainer. Then they will sock it to us, which in MO is deceitful.

Of course this ignores both the CBO projections on revenues and expenditures as well as the fact that the CBO performed not only the traditional 10-year projections but also conducted a 20-year analysis as well which actually showed an additional decrease in the deficit over the 20-year span.

Who is being deceitful here?

 

[Bonestorm]

Go look at the archived video yourself. I looked and Rove is accurately depicting what was said.

You're hurling the accusation he's FOS. Prove he's FOS.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm

Uh, since Rove is the one making the initional observation that no one else anywhere in the world has made notwithstading lots and lots of writing about the Senate Finance Committee hearing I don't think the onus is on me.

You watch the video if you like. I believe the exchange that Rush is apparently referring to came in response to questioning from Orinn Hatch. That ought to narrow down your viewing time considerably.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Of course this ignores both the CBO projections on revenues and expenditures as well as the fact that the CBO performed not only the traditional 10-year projections but also conducted a 20-year analysis as well which actually showed an additional decrease in the deficit over the 20-year span.

Who is being deceitful here?

Ummmm, perhaps you didn't know that Mr. Elmdorf cautioned the Senate and pointedly stated that the Baucus bill can't be fully scored without legislative language, which is still missing.

Perhaps YOU are the one being deceitful or maybe just plain ignorant of the facts.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ummmm, perhaps you didn't know that Mr. Elmdorf cautioned the Senate and pointedly stated that the Baucus bill can't be fully scored without legislative language, which is still missing.

Perhaps YOU are the one being deceitful or maybe just plain ignorant of the facts.

Well, lucky for me I read the CBO report and it's caveats and he actually didn't say that it can't be fully scored without the legislative language. Instead he said:

The Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been converted into
legislative language. The review of such language could lead to significant changes in the estimates of the proposal’s effects on the federal budget and insurance coverage.

He isn't saying the Chairman's mark can't be fully scored. Rather, he is saying the actual legislative language could lead to significant changes in the estimates, which is something else entirely.

And his last name is Elmendorf.