U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2009, 08:46 AM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,737,971 times
Reputation: 6163

Advertisements

Bad news?
CBO found that the House tri-committee bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In its July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years."

NY Times quadruples cost of House health bill | Media Matters for America


The chart bottom line in the CBO letter:

Total, Changes in Direct Spending [...] 2010-2019: -219.3 Billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2009, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,584,906 times
Reputation: 7107
Uh...delu, The COST of the current plan would be well over a trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lth-care-refo/

Quote:
In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.

Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.
Must try for a more unbiased source.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/1...on-to-deficit/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 09:47 AM
 
6,899 posts, read 6,580,268 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Bad news?
CBO found that the House tri-committee bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In its July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years."

NY Times quadruples cost of House health bill | Media Matters for America
The chart bottom line in the CBO letter:

Total, Changes in Direct Spending [...] 2010-2019: -219.3 Billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Del..
The right ONLY support CBO claim when it suits their purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 09:48 AM
 
6,899 posts, read 6,580,268 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Uh...delu, The COST of the current plan would be well over a trillion.

PolitiFact | Carnahan misquotes CBO about cost of health care reform plan



Must try for a more unbiased source.

Hot Air Blog Archive CBO: House version of ObamaCare adds $239 billion to deficit

More unbias? Why do some on the right use CBO when the claim was 1 trillion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:38 AM
 
Location: South Fla
9,644 posts, read 8,610,171 times
Reputation: 1942
Since when is a billion not a lot of money
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,359 posts, read 19,612,643 times
Reputation: 7860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex View Post
Since when is a billion not a lot of money
When it is less than a trillion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:49 AM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,737,971 times
Reputation: 6163
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
very funny

"Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO."

So the total is $239B, not a trillion! and that's just what's anticipated now - further cuts and savings are certainly possible! Get lunch! Cheer up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,584,906 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
More unbias? Why do some on the right use CBO when the claim was 1 trillion?
You see, delu's thread, title and post are misleading, to say the least. As you can see by the fact checker, the $239 billion deficit over 10 years is what it would cost if congress made the changes they asked the CBO to score. That does NOT include the $800+ billion the plan would actually cost - to be paid for on the backs of the "rich".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,584,906 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
So the total is $239B, not a trillion!
Can you not read and comprehend what you are reading?

The COST is well over $1 trillion.

Quote:
In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.

Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.
I know it is difficult to believe/deny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,147,825 times
Reputation: 22373
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
very funny

"Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO."

So the total is $239B, not a trillion! and that's just what's anticipated now - further cuts and savings are certainly possible! Get lunch! Cheer up!
Honey, that refers to only part of what the legislation covers. And this ain't just my opinion. You really need to do better research. Not only that, it all depends on what fiscal assumptions one is making.

And . . . as you are so fond of noting, "there is no bill." These figures have been compiled from assumptions from legislation that has changed since the last time it was submitted to CBO.

No one has a clue how much this is gonna cost us. But seeing as how the Medicaid and Medicare funds are already running in the red, whatever it is gonna cost - it is gonna be TOO MUCH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top