It's weird how the right regards CBO numbers as gospel when they support right wing points -- not so much when they don't.
Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 01:47 PM-
"Government spending on the Medicare drug benefit has also been lower than expected and is one of the rare federal programs to come in under budget. The program cost $40 billion in 2007, less than the projected $66 billion, the report said."
Further, I apologize for my mislabeling of the joke punchline that this heretofore prestigious award USED to have... but no longer does.
Posted by: hinton on October 9, 2009 02:29 PMThanks for making my point.
Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 02:43 PMThere are several stories out today from a variety of stories on just how much Baucus is lying about his plan, and how his restrictions on the CBO's means of scoring the bill led to the "surplus".
In reality, it'll have several hundred billions in deficits over 10 years, and that does NOT include the trillions of dollars of hidden funds that are mandated to be spent by States and private citizens.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 9, 2009 08:04 PMThis is wrong. The Baucus bill does not contain spending growth cuts nor does it "commit" to them. What the WSJ is talking about is already statue.
Point 3 & 4 are valid. Point 3 in particular should be addressed since it's plainly stupid. But that statue wouldn't apply after the first few years as revenues grow.
Scottd is right. This bill is simply more responsible in terms of the deficit than Medicare Part D. Believe me, we'd have a lot less difficult choices to make if we just irresponsibly spent into the deficit for all eternity like Part D does. Unfortunately for the politics of it all, but fortunately for America, we actually raise enough revenue to pay for our plans. Not a single dime is added to the deficit over the next 10 years or even the next 20, according to the CBO. In fact, over both timeframes there is a reduction in the deficit.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 10, 2009 10:52 AMWhat the WSJ is talking about is already statue.
And every year the Congress - by pressure of the progressives in Congress - has waived implementing those statutes. But you'll count them for your CBO estimate anyway, right?
And earlier this year you stated explicitly that you would NOT support any health bill that doesn't cover everyone and doesn't cut the deficit.
You support this bill from Baucus?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 10, 2009 06:08 PMSeriously, why should ANYONE buy insurance? The penalty is LESS than the cost of insurance, and with the mandated "no pre-existing condition" exclusion, well, why carry insurance? I can - in 8 years from now - pay $750 for the penalty, and about $150 twice a year for doctor visits. Less than I pay today.
Yes, this kind of plan may "save the Government money" but it WILL bankrupt the insurance companies, meaning more people going to the public plan, well beyond the participation the CBO estimated.
So yes, my entitlement will be free, because if this does pass I fully intend to take advantage of this loophole to its full extent, and get everyone here to pay for my insurance (unless you're also planning to use this loophole). So thanks, especially to scottd, John Jensen, and their fellow leftists! Glad you like to pay for me...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 11, 2009 08:19 AM1. That entitlement isn't exactly free. As you noted, you'll be paying $750 a year and you won't be getting anything for it. That money will probably go to lowering premiums or taxes for people like me. Thanks, dan!
2. Who said it's only going to be $750? Earlier drafts had a larger penalty. Baucus lowered it to $750 in a futile attempt to gain Republican support. Now that we know that's impossible, Democrats might wise up and raise the penalty. They'll have plenty of support from the insurance industry once they realize that reform is going to happen and they are about to get stuck with a huge moral hazard problem if they don't push for a stronger individual mandate.
3. And, dan, because I care about you, I want to point out that while you're going without insurance, you'll be exposed to the risk of catastrophic costs from accidents or sudden illness because you'll be too busy in the ER or ICU to fill out insurance applications when the hammer falls. All I can say is, I'll be glad that I'm not paying those bills.
4. Once you finally get around to applying for insurance, it might be a while before you get coverage and you'll be paying your own bills in the meantime. That can really add up and I'll be thankful you're not passing those costs on to me. At the very least, it's likely you will have to wait until the start of the following month. More likely, the insurance industry will probably adopt an open enrollment convention (like Medicare) where new members are only admitted during a few months each year. Not that that's a problem, as long as you don't mind having that newly discovered cancer eat away at you for eight months while you wait for your treatment to be covered. At least I won't be paying for the expensive tests that discovered the good news for you, nor for the expensive early phases of treatment. With any luck, you'll put off treatment and lower the ongoing costs for the rest of us along with your expected lifespan.
Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2009 11:10 AM1. For the first year, it's free (no penalty). And what do I get for paying for insurance at $100+ per month, versus the $60 per month penalty? Coverage IF something happens. Since I can sign up the very day something happens (see 3) there is nothing I gain. I save money, actually...
2. Baucus said it's so. That's the bill as put forth. Or are you saying the bill will change? Then why trumpet the CBO "scoring" of the bill if it's going to change?
3. Power of Attorney, my friend. I can have someone with power of attorney sign me up if I'm incapacitated. What a deal!
4. Per Baucus' bill, no. I cannot be excluded, and coverage starts when I apply. So at most it'll be one day (maybe) of coverage that I'd miss.
So how is this plan going to actually increase coverage and control costs? I don't see it doing either, and there are nice big loopholes for people to not participate, meaning those who do will end up paying even more (the pool won't be as big as expected).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 11, 2009 01:08 PMPS: I don't think Baucus' bill says coverage starts when you apply. It says you can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions. Those are two different things.
Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2009 01:55 PMDo you understand now why debating the trivial faults of HR3200 was never too interesting to me, because I realized there was another four months of work ahead? As per usual, life is more complicated than you allow it to be.
I said I would oppose a bill that didn't significantly expand coverage or added to the deficit. This mark easily fulfills these requirements. I do hope for even more coverage expansions, sure. But getting one out of every ten Americans health insurance coverage they don't have today is a huge deal to me.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 01:57 PM- A bill that still doesn't have final language but a "score" you like is OK.
- A bill that leaves 25 million uninsured (meaning it covers just 5 million people) is OK.
Got it. Basically if it has a "DEMOCRAT" stamp you're happy as a clam! Enjoy, zombie...
Oh, and John?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 12, 2009 04:57 PM