Has Fox “News” reported that the H.R. 3962 health reform bill reduces the deficit by 104 billion?

11 User Comments : Share your thoughts

1. 

   Snowman July 18, 2010 at 8:26 am

   B/n 2013-2023 it adds 1.8 trillion.

   Don’t you think it’s unethical (read: sleezy) that they don’t give you a full 10 year estimate of the program?

   It doesn’t go into play until 2013/2014.

   Don’t you also think it’s unethical (read: sleezy) that the news stations you’re tuning into don’t bring that well-known fact to light?

   Guess they’re not quite done w/ those white house supplied knee-pads and non-existent gag reflex.

   You should ask yourself — Is a 10 year estimate satisfactory and sufficient to make a decision based upon a program that is proposed to have an infinite life?

   This won’t end good for the Democrats — some people are slow, but most of them aren’t dumb.

   Edit:
   “So the CBO is wrong Snowman?”

   No, just selective. The CBO presents what the White House asks for and that’s what they delivered…financial wizardry. One more reason you can’t trust the current Administration — they actually believe people are dumb enough to swallow their garbage…and they’re attempting to exploit that ignorance to get what they want — quickly. (Can you read ~2000 pages of legal jargon in 5 days?)

   I’d personally be offended if I were in your shoes. If they want the government run health care reform, they should sell it on its merits…not package it to make it look better than it is (read: lie to people.). It’s the ol’ foot in the door. They know the government doesn’t operate in reverse — all they have to do is pass “something” to attain their goal. It’s my humble opinion that they’ll end up passing legislation that does more harm than good just for the sake of passing something.

   “Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition explains: “Every year, you lose ground. It’s likely after 10 years, we fall off a cliff.”

   We all want reform — what we don’t want is another unfunded program leveraged on the premise that the rich don’t do enough. When status quo or class warfare is introduced into any argument, tread carefully. It’s a hot-button issue that detracts from the issue at hand. “Soaking the rich” always comes back to haunt the lower/middle class…it’s the nature of the beast.

   Edit:
   “Obviously Snowman, if this bill will save tax payers money in 10 years, don’t you think it will save them over 20,30, and 40 years as well, possibly?”

   Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security…we can go down the list if you’d like.

   When you collect revenues for 10 years and only spend in 6, it’s likely going to show a “savings” which is exactly what the CBO report does. That’s how they got the Baucus bill out of the finance committee.

   “Reality is that health care currently costs 16% of the GDP while in other nations with universal health care, it costs no more than 10% on average.”

   Those stats are likely correct but contain different variables — so comparing is apples to oranges. The U.S. provides the world’s technological advance, they provide the research and experimental treatments, they offer the extreme regulations one must jump through before putting drugs onto the market, they offer the best specialized treatment in the world (cancer centers, heart hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc.) etc. etc….

   R&D is expensive, drug manufacturing is expensive, drug formulation is expensive, keeping the best docs is expensive, specialized treatment is expensive…

   The comparison should be made but it should be made apples-to-apples. Running regressions against each other for primary care (effectiveness and cost) for instance. Or a comparison of specialized treatment (survival and cost).

   Throwing static numbers out makes your case but it also makes the case that you’re willing to sacrifice legitimacy.

   For example, s lot of people throw around WHO’s ratings (U.Srank = 37th) — yet every time I have asked for the criterion for that ranking, they go silent. Nobody knows how the ratings are calculated — nobody has access to the raw data to confirm the ranking — nobody can identify if there are “lurking variables” unaccounted for…they just run with it b/c it supports their case.

   An honest discussion on health care and the method of reform shouldn’t be a partisan issue — it should be one where all of the facts are laid on the table and we work towards a common goal. That’s currently not taking place.

   My two cents.

   Edit:
   Capitalgainsand…com.

   Unfortunately, the outlays were due in large part to TARP. However, what this article doesn’t address is Obama’s 2010 budget and the outlays he’s now placed on our shoulders for the next 10+ years. It’s self-serving to concentrate on 2009 alone…a goal for this author I’m sure. Obama has committed us to adding 9.3+ trillion dollars (minimum) to our national debt. And what happens after 2019? Seems to me the trend is clear.

   http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

   The numbers in the graph come from both the CBO and the White House and you can confirm them there. The White House has since come out and admitted their numbers were wrong (the projections for GDP growth were too lofty…a frequent complaint at the time from those racists right-wingers).

   Party Politics aside — I personally would be in favor of a balanced-budget initiative. If’ it’s not balanced annually, nobody on the hill gets paid and the spending amounts of each representative are published online for voters to browse through.

   This idea of Government secrecy and spending billions w/o any accountability or obligation to answer to those spending initiatives is getting old.

   Once we start losing value in the dollar, it will be the lower/middle class who gets pounded as they lose their purchasing power.

   Something to mull over.

2. 

   RonJon July 18, 2010 at 9:19 am

   How does anyone even know exactly what it does? They just released it yesterday and it is 1990 pages long. The only people that could say how much it cost are the people that wouldn’t critique it honestly anyway.

3. 

   Bill G IV July 18, 2010 at 9:51 am

   I have a lovely bridge to sell you

4. 

   andy g July 18, 2010 at 9:56 am

   And it cost 900 billion. Common sense overrules this one!!!!

5. 

   Greg July 18, 2010 at 10:37 am

   I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

6. 

   DAR July 18, 2010 at 11:14 am

   Because they start taxing for it in year one and don’t pay benefits until year 5. Meanwhile you are still paying for your own insurance. Try looking 20 years out….

   But it doesn’t matter, because the numbers are so cooked. They took the last CBO accounting and ‘backed into’ these numbers with things like promised enforced cuts to doctors for services that everyone knows will not occur. Which is why they tried to pass the piece changing that separately, last week.

   Regardless, the federal government has no constitutional right to say 300 million people have to purchase sucky insurance they don’t want that was designed by government closeted with special interests to meet THEIR concerns, never ours.

7. 

   Anti ACORN (COI) protestor July 18, 2010 at 11:44 am

   I don’t know the answer I am sure they have mentioned since they are quite good at reporting the News.
   Do you know if MSLSD or CNN have?

8. 

   Shovel Ready July 18, 2010 at 12:17 pm

   The CBO was scoring an imaginary bill. It did not have the text in front of it.

9. 

   RitchWilliams July 18, 2010 at 12:20 pm

   So, is the before or after the Obama administration called in the head of the CBO and read him the riot act?

   You believe this White Elephant won’t crap all over you, you can sit behind it, but such elephants exist today and are crapping all over the world.

   As to the public option, you are absolutely right! No one will force anyone to take the ‘public option’. Boy, you’ve got it! But here’s the deal. Billy Bob elects the public option and boy howdy! His insurance only costs him $10 a month. Ain’t that great! Now, me? I buy private insurance since no one is forcing me to take the mean old public option and I spend $1,000 a month. Boy! Am I a sap?! I’m an even bigger sap because not only do I spend $1,000 a month for my insurance, but the reason Billy Bob only pays $10 is because I’m paying the other $1,500 in new, higher taxes that will be required to subsidize Billy Bob’s sweet new insurance plan. And look at him! Isn’t he healthy and happy! You’re welcome Billy Bob. But wait!! Why do I pay more in taxes for Billy Bob than I do even for my own insurance? That’s because the government, by Obama’s own admission, is inefficient as hell. Medicare today costs 9 times more than was projected back in the 60′s. Of course that won’t happen with Obama’s public option, will it? I’m sure it won’t. So, rather than continue to pay $1,000 AND the $1,500 in added taxes for health care I don’t use, I’ll drop my private insurance and accept the medicare the government offers. Pretty clever, Barry! We’re now paying $1,500…$2,000…heck $3,000 for our government medical care and supporting a system that is, despite my exorbitant taxes is going bankrupt! Look at my smile!! I’m so happy!

   How do I know this will happen? Because it is happening all over the world. I’ve lived it, I’ve seen it and I think we can do better.

10. 

    Aleksey July 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Did MSNBC report that the reduction in deficit comes from penalties imposed on individuals and employers? I didn’t see that report either, however according to the same CBO report: “those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers.”

11. 

    mopar Mike aka tea party mobster July 18, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Probably not. They don’t report on speculation about what liberals claim a piece of legislation will do. They are to familiar with liberal claims of what legislation of the past was ” suppose ” to do and did not deliver. God bless.