the real cost

[millerx]

Import doctors, as I said before. Easy for us to do.

 

Following your point to it's logical conclusion, how come other countries with their evil government health care have doctors? Shouldn't they all have quit by now?

Why are you always on the attack?? where did I say "evil government health care"? do they have longer waits to see docs in other countries? can this scenario happen in the America? Just placing some questions to see some possible answers.... my assumption, from your response, is that the docs will just go along happily getting paid much less.

[The Mucca]

Why are you always on the attack?? where did I say "evil government health care"? do they have longer waits to see docs in other countries? can this scenario happen in the America? Just placing some questions to see some possible answers.... my assumption, from your response, is that the docs will just go along happily getting paid much less.

 

A lot will quit. Most will stay. It will be harder to get in to see a Doctor, longer waits. It will cost more. Your taxes will go up.

But hey, who cares, the messiah now has his legacy, until people figure out just what he did anyway.

[Ursa Majoris]

Why are you always on the attack?? where did I say "evil government health care"? do they have longer waits to see docs in other countries? can this scenario happen in the America? Just placing some questions to see some possible answers.... my assumption, from your response, is that the docs will just go along happily getting paid much less.

I'm not attacking, I'm just saying that other countries seem to have doctors and they have government health care. Some countries do have longer waits but it depends what for.

 

Then again, I gave up bothering with a GP years ago when I couldn't get an appointment for over two weeks. They asked me what the problem was, I said it really doesn't matter given the wait time as I'd either be dead or cured by then.

[Azazello1313]

so, it would be sort of like if somebody passed tax cuts with a sunset provision in them knowing full-well that it would be likely that at least some portion of the tax cuts would be extended in the future... right?

 

well a 10 year sunset wouldn't effect the CBO score, would it? my recollection is they put the sunset provision in there in order to attract more democratic support, but I could be wrong about that.

 

but let's say you're right. is your argument here that bush did it so it's ok now? if it was a shell game to hide the true costs....that's a bad thing, right? or it was bad then but it's good now? what exactly are you arguing?

 

and would you like to offer any meaningful response to the comments from holtz-eakin or mankiw? or is "bush did it too" about as deep as you're gonna go on this one?

Edited March 23, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

I (we) are more than capable of repsonding to the point...if it were proven to be fact.

 

But since it was written by a right-wing editorialist, and not an economist who's viewpoint I actually give a damn about....

 

the "right-wing editorialist" is the former director of the CBO.

[wiegie]

well a 10 year sunset wouldn't effect the CBO score, would it? my recollection is they put the sunset provision in there in order to attract more democratic support, but I could be wrong about that.

 

but let's say you're right. is your argument here that bush did it so it's ok now? if it was a shell game to hide the true costs....that's a bad thing, right? or it was bad then but it's good now? what exactly are you arguing?

my point is that you have selective outrage

 

I also am not sure that I trust Holtz-Eakin's analysis to be correct.

[wiegie]

the "right-wing editorialist" is the former director of the CBO.

and more recently he was the chief economic advisor to the McCain campaign.

[whomper]

Just take fish oil

[Azazello1313]

my point is that you have selective outrage

 

and you don't?

 

I also am not sure that I trust Holtz-Eakin's analysis to be correct.

 

way to be specific.

 

there are probably details to be quibbled with, but the broad brushes of his argument are undeniable: this bill gets a hugh chunk of its revenue from medicare "savings". let's break it down. there is $950 billion in new spending. $600 billion or something in new taxes. that leaves a gap of several hundred billion that is paid for with medicare cuts. the exact same kind of cuts that have always been written into the law, and always been changed by congress on an ad hoc basis to avoid reductions in coverage, etc. critics of the bill (and even the CBO itself) question whether those savings can materialize without either cutting benefits or raising taxes again substantially.

 

in other words, the only way this bill actually DOES cut the deficit is IF future congresses make the really difficult, painful decisions this congress is putting off. if you, have something that suggests that this is not the case, wiegie, I'd love to see it. but don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

[evil_gop_liars]

This thread is starting to make me feel a warm tingly inside.

[Duchess Jack]

Anyone else think that the revolution is coming? Not a left wing / right wing thing but a movement to toss out all politicians and start over?

see, maybe the bill isn't so bad

[millerx]

This thread is starting to make me feel a warm tingly inside.

ohhhhh boyyyy me too... a questionable bill passed into law, what fun not taking the time to look at all the repercussions of it.... woohoo! warm and tingly all over, indeed!

[i_am_the_swammi]

the "right-wing editorialist" is the former director of the CBO.

 

 

and more recently he was the chief economic advisor to the McCain campaign.

 

so, he's a guy writing editorials who is a former advisor to a rightie Presidential candidate.

 

Gotcha.....unbiased it is!

 

You guys are getting funnier (and tangibly more depserate) with each post.

[evil_gop_liars]

[WaterMan]

so, he's a guy writing editorials who is a former advisor to a rightie Presidential candidate.

 

Gotcha.....unbiased it is!

 

You guys are getting funnier (and tangibly more depserate) with each post.

 

It's good reading.

[gbpfan1231]

Why don't you numnuts actually add something. Do you guys really think this bill is going to reduce the deficit? Explain that.

 

Let's add 30 million people - hmm added cost

 

No more denying people for any conditions - added cost

 

Are we going to add iRS workers to go out and collect these fines - added cost

 

Will these fines and cuts that are not taking place for x number of years cover all this? Oh yea I forgot we got a lot of extra money right now. My bad.

[Kid Cid]

Anyone else think that the revolution is coming? Not a left wing / right wing thing but a movement to toss out all politicians and start over?

Hell no. If there is one thing that history has taught us is that the masses will not act in their own best interest until either gov't interference has become truly crushing on their daily existence (e.g. the French Revolution) or something catastrophic happens (e.g. Pearl Harbor). Until then, the gov't can and will continue to subsume tiny little parts of their lives. Remember, the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

[Ursa Majoris]

Hell no. If there is one thing that history has taught us is that the masses will not act in their own best interest until either gov't interference has become truly crushing on their daily existence (e.g. the French Revolution) or something catastrophic happens (e.g. Pearl Harbor).

French Revolution.....check.

 

Pearl Harbor.....nope. Any attack on any nation serves to rally the people to the existing government whatever it's stripe and prior popularity.

[Brentastic]

Anyone else think that the revolution is coming? Not a left wing / right wing thing but a movement to toss out all politicians and start over?

You need people to committ to something like that. Would you become part of that group if I start it? Seriously. I'll head one up if I can get 100 huddlers to start the revolution.

[westvirginia]

You need people to committ to something like that. Would you become part of that group if I start it? Seriously. I'll head one up if I can get 100 huddlers to start the revolution.

 

You're wasting your breath - I've been on the huddle for 12 plus years preaching 3rd parties and though some folks have/are coming to my way of thinking, I'm not sure I've made a damn.

 

I'll still tilt at my windmills though, as my anger would explode otherwise...

[Azazello1313]

and more recently he was the chief economic advisor to the McCain campaign.

 

dude, is this all you've got here? he's one of the more recent former CBO directors, they don't exactly put fierce partisan ideologues in that position, and if anyone would be able to offer intelligent analysis of how CBO works and how congress can manipulate CBO's reporting to their own advantage, I would think a recent former director would be pretty high on that list. if you think holtz-eakin is some sort of right-wing hack, you ought to read this:

 

What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost.

 

and wiegie, seriously, I think you ought to try to bring a little more to these kinds of threads than "Az is a hypocrite". I'm not even criticizing CBO, I'm just pointing out how their statutory mandate is being exploited to say a bill that creates a lot more in new spending than it does in new revenue is going to reduce the deficit. because it simply isn't, unless future congresses implement massive specific medicare cuts that the current congress is happy to promise will take place to get a good score, but unwilling to deliver on.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Azazello1313

[bushwacked]

I think you ought to try to bring a little more to these kinds of threads than "Az is a hypocrite".

 

You started threads putting a lot of weight on CBO projections and acted like a doosh by admonishing people discussing anything but the CBO projections . Now you like to start threads by posting right wing blogs that minimize CBO projections when you don't like what they say; the hypocritical tag is more than justified. Maybe you ought to stop whining about those of us not taking your kowtowing seriously. It's obvious you are trying to defend your side regardless, and you look desperate doing it.

Edited March 23, 2010 by bushwacked

[bpwallace49]

Why don't you numnuts actually add something. Do you guys really think this bill is going to reduce the deficit? Explain that.

 

Let's add 30 million people - hmm added cost

 

No more denying people for any conditions - added cost

 

Are we going to add iRS workers to go out and collect these fines - added cost

 

Will these fines and cuts that are not taking place for x number of years cover all this? Oh yea I forgot we got a lot of extra money right now. My bad.

 

I am pretty sure that in return for having 30 million new customers, the pharmacutical industry, medical device makers and insurance companies are agreeing to pay a very large tax. Which is why they are supporting it . . . they are guaranteed more customers.

 

Do you know how many people evade taxes every year? The IRS agents will pay for themselves over tenfold in recovering tax cheats . . . (arent you AGAINST tax cheats??? )

[Jimmy Neutron]

Perhaps Az has learned, as I recently have, that the CBO does not analyze bills against reality. I previously thought they acted as a 3rd party auditing party like those I deal with in business. They don't - their analysis is limted to the parameters outlined in any one piece of legislation. If cost assumptions or tax revenue collected are off in the proposed bill, the CBO analysis will be off in like measure.

 

Sadly, this means we shouldn't place much stock in numbers coming from the CBO in any case. Garbage in, garbage out.

[bushwacked]

Sadly, this means we shouldn't place much stock in numbers coming from the CBO in any case.

 

What forecasts should we put stock in?

 

No-one is saying that CBO's economic projections are set in stone, but that doesn't justify ignoring something that has an accurate track record because its politically convenient or simply because you and some bloggers want to believe otherwise.

Edited March 23, 2010 by bushwacked