wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.


Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them
policy/law
statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about
numbers.

True but Congress knows what number will come out of CBO when they
frame the question and CBO is not allowed to question the scenario
congress sends them.

?? They "frame" the question by using the language of the law. The CBO can't
question the scenario because it's not within their purview to do so.

As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of
Medicare and what actually happened.

In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It
was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of
magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being
less generous a lie.

Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much
detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964.

Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already
at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as
passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows
what deals have to be made to pass that.
I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will
show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself.
Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even
find.

This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That
requires a different effort to clean up.

There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi
with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would
vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to
wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the
process works.

I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually looking.
It'll get easier as time passes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 22/03/2010 9:33 PM, wrote:

The problem is "the law" can easily change and make the projection
wildly wrong. That is what happened to Medicare. Once they got the
framework in place it became a Christmas tree that everyone could hang
ornaments on. That is the fear with this bill. The congress is already
saying they are going to "fix all the problems" that were created to
get it passed in the first place. I am sure all of the cost saving
devices will be the first things to go, like the Medicare cuts, the
tax increases and the limits on what they grant the states.

Good annology. And he reason they don't want it in a seperate fund is
so they can hide the skiming as they ask for more, and more taxes. Foot
is now in the door, going to be hard now to stop.

As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of
Medicare and what actually happened.

In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It
was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of
magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being
less generous a lie.

Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much
detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964.

... and the plan is broke.

Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already
at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as
passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows
what deals have to be made to pass that.
I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will
show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself.
Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even
find.

This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That
requires a different effort to clean up.

There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi
with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would
vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to
wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the
process works.

I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually looking.
It'll get easier as time passes.


Wanna bet? Entitlements are already bankrupting the country and they
just added a huge new one.

They will. When the tax bill arrives people will be ****ed to no end.
It will not be just income tax, sin taxes, utilities, gas and like EVERY
other nation with a statism government VAT, a national sales tax. At
some point government will go for a national sales tax.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:43:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the
Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.


Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them
policy/law
statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement
about
numbers.

True but Congress knows what number will come out of CBO when they
frame the question and CBO is not allowed to question the scenario
congress sends them.

?? They "frame" the question by using the language of the law. The CBO
can't
question the scenario because it's not within their purview to do so.

The problem is "the law" can easily change and make the projection
wildly wrong. That is what happened to Medicare. Once they got the
framework in place it became a Christmas tree that everyone could hang
ornaments on. That is the fear with this bill. The congress is already
saying they are going to "fix all the problems" that were created to
get it passed in the first place. I am sure all of the cost saving
devices will be the first things to go, like the Medicare cuts, the
tax increases and the limits on what they grant the states.

Well, true, but by that logic, the costs could be a whole lot better too.
There's always fear. That's what the right plays on. Read what the bill (and
reconcilliation) will do. It's pretty good. Not perfect, things need to be
speeded up, but it's not bad.


As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of
Medicare and what actually happened.

In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It
was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of
magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being
less generous a lie.

Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much
detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964.

... and the plan is broke.

It's not unfixable. I think that's the point. It's not broken in the sense
that people want to give it up. It's broken in the sense that it needs to be
financed properly.


Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already
at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as
passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows
what deals have to be made to pass that.
I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will
show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself.
Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even
find.

This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That
requires a different effort to clean up.

There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi
with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would
vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to
wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the
process works.

I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually
looking.
It'll get easier as time passes.


Wanna bet? Entitlements are already bankrupting the country and they
just added a huge new one.

There's nothing wrong with most entitlements other than financial issues,
and those can be resolved. I was talking about the press actually doing its
job. I wish they would.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.


Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.

How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things
they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion
dollar lobbyists.
That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They
are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like
cutting a half trillion out of Medicare.
Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the
original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government
programs always get bigger, not smaller.


Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the
system as they want.

The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it.

Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans
called
that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers
willing to give up the benefits.

--
The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.

How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

It's more about cutting fraud/abuse than cutting benefits, although for the
rich that should certainly happen. I believe Sen. Coburn rightly pointed
this out (reducing fraud/abuse), during the Healthcare summit with Obama.

Fixing the donut hole will probably help in the long run, since lots of
people in that situation stop buying the meds they need, they get sick, and
end up having more expensive procedures.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:18:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on
the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they
will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by
eliminating the cuts.

How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

It's more about cutting fraud/abuse than cutting benefits, although for
the
rich that should certainly happen. I believe Sen. Coburn rightly pointed
this out (reducing fraud/abuse), during the Healthcare summit with Obama.

They have been trying to cut fraud and abuse in government since
George Washington and the scammers always manage to stay one step
ahead of the cops.

So that justifies giving up on the problem? There will always be crime.

In the case of Medicare, in the 80s Medicare did tighten up on fraud
and doctors stopped taking Medicare patients because the paperwork was
too cumbersome and Medicare was "slow pay".
When they streamlined the payments, fraud soared again.
Right now they call Medicare "pay and chase". They pay out
questionable claims and chase the guy after it is proven to be fraud.
By then the crook is long gone.

And, it can be addressed, but there's no absolute cure. Doesn't mean we
should sit on our hands.


Fixing the donut hole will probably help in the long run, since lots of
people in that situation stop buying the meds they need, they get sick,
and
end up having more expensive procedures.

Personally I think most seniors are over medicated in the first place.


Fortunately, you're not the one prescribing in the dr. office.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:




How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill...

the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5
weeks.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:




How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill...

the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5
weeks.




That doesn't count. He's a Marxist.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 23/03/2010 6:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:




How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher
percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the
drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs?

incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill...

the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5
weeks.


Market always moves in advance. Look at last Friday.

But you know squat of investing, so quite the liberal BS. Go back to
you naitivity and Obama worship.

Debt, who would have thought America would be at war from within with
debt mongers.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:50:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:50:37 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill...

the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5
weeks.

Yup the insurance company stocks are up 50% since they passed the
Senate bill.
United HC and Aetna both went from the low 20s to the mid 30s.
We really got even with those *******s huh?
This will go down as the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical
conglomerate stimulus package of 2010.

gee. the dow includes more than insurance companies

but that's a fact. and right whiners dont do facts. only liberals do