GSO/Guilford Pols

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    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      

« Hey, I know that guy | Main | Still not as good as Question Time »

Nov 19, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0120a6b7649e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hagan and Burr on health bill:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kim

10 years of revenues, and only six years of pay outs. Sounds like for fuzzy math from inside the beltway.

Fred Gregory

Kim,

Fuzzy math indeed. You got that right.

Reform bill's true cost is twice advertised price


"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate’s newest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don’t kick in until the fifth year of that “10 year” period. And the true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 billion.

The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s 'first 10 years,' only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill’s real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill’s costs to be $1.8 trillion — double the price Reid is advertising.

And that’s even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run 'public option' wouldn’t cost a cent."

Kim

Medicare fix not included, a payroll tax with 10% unemployment, and the revenues will not be set aside. Also the public option premiums will be higher than private insurance.

Fred Gregory

Why I voted no on the healthcare bill, by a Democrat

"Supporters of the House bill have argued that it is fiscally responsible because it does not add to the federal deficit. While this is true, there is a big difference between not adding to the deficit and bringing down health-care costs. The House bill pays for itself primarily by raising taxes, not by making the fundamental reforms necessary to bring down the cost of health care.

We cannot simply add tens of millions of uninsured people into today's inefficient health-care system and expect that it will yield different results. Absent the necessary systemic reforms, this approach would only compound our nation's budgetary problems and do little to make health care more affordable for families and businesses."


bubba

"Sounds like for fuzzy math from inside the beltway."

Is there any other type coming from this Administration and the majority party in Congress?

I can't wait to hear about how many "jobs created or saved" this thing has already created.

The comments to this entry are closed.