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.
More kids are dying from getting bit by the family dog than lack of insurance. Get real.
Please work on your reading comprehension. I already explained in a previous post that I will illustrating the absurdity of the numbers and scenarios Congress is posing if we don't pass this bill by being absurd.
If he will then he shouldn't "promise" not to sign it if it adds to the deficit... he should of said, I will sign it regardless of the deficit but I guess that wouldn't go over well with voters... I don't like deceit... but I also think there are a LOT of things that can be done to make it deficit neutral... so it isn't a done deal yet... I figure he will push to strip some of those "special deals" or raise taxes... the senate doesn't want to raise taxes but we will see what happens...
Did Obama say that Congressional business would be transparent? Did he say they would do all the major business on C-SPAN? Why believe that he won't sign anything they come up with? Sure he will sign it so he can lay claim to the "signature" law of his administration. He doesn't care about how good it is or how bad it is, just that it is.
CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.
And
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.
If, in fact, this is what they were talking about on TV this morning, [1] there's no change in the CBO forecast through 2019, and [2] from 2020 on, the health care legislation would not reduce the federal deficit as much as previously projected ... meaning it would still reduce the federal deficit.
saw the story on CNN so dotn go to the fox hate and is not news
Its a figure of speech... it doesn't literally mean they are dying in the streets... it means they are dying from lack of insurance which does happen albeit cobolt is exaggerating a bit in that there are that many dying... however, I agree that even one child dying from lack of insurance is too much... especially in America, regardless of the bad parents some of them have... we can't choose our parents...
How many children aren't insured these days. Didn't the Congress recently pass a law to provide for all up to 19? Surely there aren't any dying from lack of insurance. Figures of speech that make people believe something are just what we have going here.
From my understanding, if passed, the children's portion of this bill would kick in very soon. It's the adult benefits of the bill that will be put off 4 years while we haul in revenue to pay for it.
Am I wrong in saying that in that 4 years Medicare will pay about $200 billion? Am I wrong in saying that in Reid bookkeeping you count that $200 billion as taken from Medicare and then spend it when it hasn't been appropriated? If not then instead of gaining $200 billion they really are losing since you can't spend money twice.
What the CBO said is that they wanted to spent the $500 billion of Medicare money twice which just can't be done. Instead of coming out over $132 billion ahead they will actually be about $370 billion in the hole. Deficit neutral, hell.
CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.
And
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.
If, in fact, this is what they were talking about on TV this morning, [1] there's no change in the CBO forecast through 2019, and [2] from 2020 on, the health care legislation would not reduce the federal deficit as much as previously projected ... meaning it would still reduce the federal deficit.
I heard what is being said here from the mouth of the head man from CBO this morning. Yes, he was on Fox but the words came out of his mouth.
Please work on your reading comprehension. I already explained in a previous post that I will illustrating the absurdity of the numbers and scenarios Congress is posing if we don't pass this bill by being absurd.
That's the default position and it's been that way for decades.
While it's a shame that in 2020 and beyond, the health care reform legislation won't reduce the deficit as much as originally projected, it will still help reduce the deficit - both prior to and after 2020 - and that's a good thing, right?
While it's a shame that in 2020 and beyond, the health care reform legislation won't reduce the deficit as much as originally projected, it will still help reduce the deficit - both prior to and after 2020 - and that's a good thing, right?
With Obama-math, it sure does. With real math double-counting is a big no no.
While it's a shame that in 2020 and beyond, the health care reform legislation won't reduce the deficit as much as originally projected, it will still help reduce the deficit - both prior to and after 2020 - and that's a good thing, right?
However, Ehlmendorf said that the planners had been counting the $500 billion twice which amounts to spending it twice. They were talking about saving up to $132 billion and the CBO now says that that savings will actually be about $370 deficit. This is, of course, for the first 10 years, 4 of which nothing goes out but lots come in plus the Medicare money counted twice.
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.
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.
