CBO says they don't know net effect of healthcare

[Modelworks]

I have been watching cspan today to see what the people are saying before the vote takes place. One very interesting part was when talking to the CBO. They asked Douglas Elmendorf about the total cost and I was expecting him to say something like $700 billion or some figure. Instead he said "We don't know!" . He said that it was too complex and that he apologized for not being able to give exact figures because they could not give a total what the cost would be" .

They tried to corner him several times by using figures from the report to make him say that the net effect would be a cost of xxxx dollars. Again he said that people have taken the numbers out of context , that those are figures for individual aspects , but they are also offset in other ways, and that again they could not figure out a way to come up with a total cost.

To me this says a lot . If the CBO is having a hard time even figuring out what it will cost and who is spending what then the bill is too convoluted and should not be passed. If your own accountants can't figure it out then how can a senator ?

 

[MikeMike]

dont worry, the left will pass the bill, then sometime in the future, the right will be in power when all hell breaks loose... allowing the left to blame the right... and the blame game starts allll over

 

[rudder]

The senate committee passed it... and no people do not know what will happen. But when insurance companies begin taking people with pre-existing conditions and when there is no mechanism to ensure the younger population is paying into the system... that means only one thing... premiums will go up.

And don't start shouting public option. Sure the government buying power can lower prices... but you will be paying about 10X the amount of money for health care due to sheer numbers.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I have been watching cspan today to see what the people are saying before the vote takes place. One very interesting part was when talking to the CBO. They asked Douglas Elmendorf about the total cost and I was expecting him to say something like $700 billion or some figure. Instead he said "We don't know!" . He said that it was too complex and that he apologized for not being able to give exact figures because they could not give a total what the cost would be" .

They tried to corner him several times by using figures from the report to make him say that the net effect would be a cost of xxxx dollars. Again he said that people have taken the numbers out of context , that those are figures for individual aspects , but they are also offset in other ways, and that again they could not figure out a way to come up with a total cost.

To me this says a lot . If the CBO is having a hard time even figuring out what it will cost and who is spending what then the bill is too convoluted and should not be passed. If your own accountants can't figure it out then how can a senator ?

Doesn't necessarily mean that at all. Just means that there are unpredictable elements, such as what Private Insurance Corps do and/or what Employers do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Title: CBO says they don't know net effect of healthcare

This is honest.

To me this says a lot . If the CBO is having a hard time even figuring out what it will cost and who is spending what then the bill is too convoluted and should not be passed. If your own accountants can't figure it out then how can a senator ?

They are not expected to understand the price, they merely demand that we pay for it. Not their money they play with.

 

[BarrySotero]

It was fascinating to watch how easily people got suckered in by the bogus CBO report (and lets not forget Rahm and Obama called Doug Elmendorf to WH. Probably threatened everything form his pets to his mom). There was no final bill to assess. They assessed what they were told the billl was about - and not what it would actually be about. Not only will it change in negotiations but the neo-Marxists get to fill in the blanks months after any passage.

 

[b0mbrman]

Ah, I remember when people loved the CBO after they scored initial bills' gross costs over $1 trillion

 

[TheSkinsFan]

It is disturbing that even the CBO can't give us a rough estimate or range. Seriously, that's pretty fucked up.

The cable news folks are going to have a field-day with this if the CBO doesn't come out with something soon.

/popcorn

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I have been watching cspan today to see what the people are saying before the vote takes place. One very interesting part was when talking to the CBO. They asked Douglas Elmendorf about the total cost and I was expecting him to say something like $700 billion or some figure. Instead he said "We don't know!" . He said that it was too complex and that he apologized for not being able to give exact figures because they could not give a total what the cost would be" .

They tried to corner him several times by using figures from the report to make him say that the net effect would be a cost of xxxx dollars. Again he said that people have taken the numbers out of context , that those are figures for individual aspects , but they are also offset in other ways, and that again they could not figure out a way to come up with a total cost.

To me this says a lot . If the CBO is having a hard time even figuring out what it will cost and who is spending what then the bill is too convoluted and should not be passed. If your own accountants can't figure it out then how can a senator ?

Can link a transcript? I'm not sure what he'd be referring to...

 

[JS80]

I wonder how many people the Obama admin had to fire until they got someone who's answer was "I don't know."

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman


Can link a transcript? I'm not sure what he'd be referring to...

No transcript I am aware of but the cspan link to the video is here, around the 1 hour mark is where it starts and continues for about 20-30 minutes.

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2...+care+legislation.aspx

Watching that video again it really makes you understand that nobody has any idea WTF is going on.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: rudder
The senate committee passed it... and no people do not know what will happen. But when insurance companies begin taking people with pre-existing conditions and when there is no mechanism to ensure the younger population is paying into the system... that means only one thing... premiums will go up.

And don't start shouting public option. Sure the government buying power can lower prices... but you will be paying about 10X the amount of money for health care due to sheer numbers.

Most people with pre-existing conditions and no insurance get treated anyway in our current system. The cost or that treatment is borne by everyone else via higher costs for medical services (to subsidize the under/uninsured), higher taxes to fund public medical facilities, and lower profits for the creditors of those who declare bankruptcy because of medical bills they can't afford to pay.

Yes, costs will overall be higher with UHC since there will be more demand for medical services from the formerly uninsured and under-insured. But the cost of any given procedure should go down when that cost doesn't need to subsidize the under/uninsured. There should be less need for public facilities. And creditors (who won't just be providers of medical services) will experience greater profits in an environment of far, far fewer medical-cost-induced bankruptcies.

I don't know if the CBO analysis looked at the TOTAL financial costs + benefits to society (= government + private) of implementing UHC. I suspect not.

The bottom line is that UHC will spread the moderate pain of increased cost across the broader society, but the very desirable benefit will be a system where a significant segment of society will no longer need to bear the extreme pain of financial hardship and deficient health care.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Ah, I remember when people loved the CBO after they scored initial bills' gross costs over $1 trillion

We all know that nobody knows what the price of healthcare will be.

However, we do know from history that government estimates are nearly always on the low side... buy a lot. So if the government estimates $1 trillion, one expects the costs to be like $1.5 trillion!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I suspect the CBO is trying to delflect scrutiny, anybody with a mediocre understanding of finance and projections understands that projecting with any accuracy the financial impact and effects of such sweeping systemic change is absolutely impossible. It quickly becomes a maze of conflicting variables, and change a variable here and tweak a constant there and you can produce an extremely wide range of results. And of course the people who pay for the study chooses a combination of variables (all substantiated mind you) that produces the outcome that best suits their goals, and thus it becomes a political tool over and above any mathematical value.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I suspect the CBO is trying to delflect scrutiny, anybody with a mediocre understanding of finance and projections understands that projecting with any accuracy the financial impact and effects of such sweeping systemic change is absolutely impossible. It quickly becomes a maze of conflicting variables, and change a variable here and tweak a constant there and you can produce an extremely wide range of results. And of course the people who pay for the study chooses a combination of variables (all substantiated mind you) that produces the outcome that best suits their goals, and thus it becomes a political tool over and above any mathematical value.

I hope you realize that doing so is one of the primary functions of the CBO, and the "people who pay for" their studies are you and I -- the taxpayers.

They also didn't seem so hesitant to do so three months ago. Something tells me they got their little peckers slapped sometime between then and now. Who might have gone and done something like that? hmm...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Ah, I remember when people loved the CBO after they scored initial bills' gross costs over $1 trillion

We all know that nobody knows what the price of healthcare will be.

However, we do know from history that government estimates are nearly always on the low side... buy a lot. So if the government estimates $1 trillion, one expects the costs to be like $1.5 trillion!

Comparing healthcare reform to historical spending on previous govt projects is not a valid comparison. The current reform efforts appear to have two main goals 1. Dramatically increase the number of insured Americans 2. Reduce and curtail the spiralling cost of per capita healthcare spending. These dual financially opposing goals make this legislation unique and very different than general govt funding.

IMHO the two seperate goals should be dealt with seperately but I understand this would be politally unpaletable becuase no one would want bear the price tag for goal 1. on its own. And goal 2. alone would get united opposition because of the huge haircut to insurers and healthcare providers without the promise of increased volume from 1.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
2. Reduce and curtail the spiraling cost of per capita healthcare spending.

What gives you the impression that anything in the current proposals addresses that concern?

 

[rchiu]

How many more hints do you need to see that all the figures are cooked up by Obama admin?

Obama said he will spend 900 billion on healthcare and the bill magically cost 70 billion less.

Obama said there will be no deficit, the bill magically come up with bunch of "savings" that you "may" get if certain things happens and these saving magically equaled spending (or if u wanna be exactly, ~8billion net per year)

Obviously somebody is working the number based on political promises and if you believe this is a realistic number, you'd have to be real naive.

 

[Xellos2099]

To beat it ALL, even if the bill pass it won't come into effect till 2013..... after the next election.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
To beat it ALL, even if the bill pass it won't come into effect till 2013..... after the next election.

Are they then scoring this till 2023 or 2019?
Is this estimate for 7 years of implementation, or is this one of those accounting tricks where they don't show the true cost for the 10 years?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
2. Reduce and curtail the spiraling cost of per capita healthcare spending.

What gives you the impression that anything in the current proposals addresses that concern?

Maybe becauase I'm not wearing GOP isued goggles

Reducing costs and eliminating waste IS one of the stated objectives of the current reform efforts, whether or not you believe it is acheiveable is another subject but the fact that is is one of the goals is undeniable.

I guess winning the war in Afganistan wasn't one of the original objectives? According to your logic, obviously not because nothing we have done for the last 8yr have addressed that concern.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
2. Reduce and curtail the spiraling cost of per capita healthcare spending.

What gives you the impression that anything in the current proposals addresses that concern?

Maybe becauase I'm not wearing GOP isued goggles

Reducing costs and eliminating waste IS one of the stated objectives of the current reform efforts, whether or not you believe it is acheiveable is another subject but the fact that is is one of the goals is undeniable.

I never said that it hasn't been stated as a goal, nor did I say that it is not "achievable." I would simply like you, or anyone else, to point out where it is addressed in the current proposals, in black and white.

From what I've seen in the proposals thus far, and I've studied them pretty intensely, there is absolutely no indication that the proposals will do anything at all to "Reduce and curtail the spiraling cost of per capita healthcare spending."

I guess winning the war in Afganistan wasn't one of the original objectives? According to your logic, obviously not because nothing we have done for the last 8yr have addressed that concern.

I know it's tough for some of the faithful to understand, but saying and doing are two different things.

Btw, I voted for Obama, and I do support reform -- so no "GOP goggles" here. I just don't believe that we're going to get the type of reform we really need. In fact, I think Congress has lost sight of the real objectives altogether.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
To beat it ALL, even if the bill pass it won't come into effect till 2013..... after the next election.

In addition, the front end gets loaded on this bill. Tax increases start ramping up right away, fees, etc., too. Anyone who thinks that this money is going to get squirreled away for future health care costs is dreaming. It will do the DC disappearing act. It's a rob peter to pay paul act on a grandiose scale.

New folks will be in office, with mandates for health care to abide by and the money will not exist to do it. This whole thing just reeks. It will be political suicide to reverse it, but the cookie jar will be empty.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

In truth, it's too early to get excited about this, because the final bill is months away. It is the time to contact your representative to let him or her know what will get them re-elected. Forget telling them your thoughts about the bill, just grab them by the throat and let them know what the future holds for them. They're going to draft the bill whatever way they damned well please anyway.