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