PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CBO Report in on health care bill...


petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:30 AM
Health Bill to Cost $940 Billion, Reduce Deficit, Democrats Say

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will cost $940 billion over 10 years and reduce the federal budget deficit, meeting a target set by Democrats, party leaders said.

The House is “on track” to vote on the bill on March 21, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters today. With new taxes, industry fees and savings in the Medicare program, the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and $1.2 trillion in the next, said another House leader, Representative Chris Van Hollen.

Democratic leaders had been waiting on cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office before moving forward and unveiling legislative language. They want to put the language up on the Internet and give Americans 72 hours to read it before voting on the bill, which all Republicans oppose.

The analysis comes a day after President Barack Obama scored a lobbying victory by getting a Democratic lawmaker to agree to switch his vote and back the legislation. Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich told reporters yesterday that a visit Obama made to his Cleveland-area district March 15 “underscored the urgency of this moment.”

“I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is,” Kucinich said.

Vote Counts

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on March 16 that she expected to be able to count votes better once she had the CBO cost estimate and legislative language.

Kucinich’s support is influencing others, Representative Rob Andrews of New Jersey said yesterday after meeting with fellow Democrats. He cited “a sea change where people are trying to find a way to vote yes and explain their vote.”

Obama also has been working on Washington Representative Brian Baird, meeting with him for 30 minutes in the Oval Office on March 16. Baird like Kucinich complained that the House and Senate bills aren’t ambitious enough. He said he would replace the Medicare and Medicaid programs for the elderly and the poor with vouchers to purchase care.

“We had a long discussion about the pros and cons of the legislation, what the alternatives are,” Baird said of the meeting. He said Republican “hypocrisy” and “extremism” during the debate would figure into whether he switches his previous “no” vote.

“Part of my calculus as well is the manner in which these people have conducted themselves,” Baird said.

Reconciliation Route

The House plans to approve a 10-year, $875 billion bill passed by the Senate and clear a set of changes to that measure through the budget-reconciliation process. The changes are needed because House Democrats object to parts of the Senate bill. The Senate would then pass the reconciliation bill.

Undecided Democrats are raising concerns on everything from the treatment of illegal immigrants to Medicare payments in the Senate bill.

The House bill passed 220-215 in November. Since then, Democrats lost four “yes” votes because of vacancies and a switch by the only Republican who supported the bill. Another group of Democrats led by Michigan Representative Bart Stupak also threatened to defect over restrictions on abortion funding that they say aren’t strong enough.

All told, 37 sitting Democrats voted “no” on the original House measure. Another 40 supported the bill while also voting “yes” on abortion language put forth by Stupak at the time, suggesting their votes might waver.

‘Leaning’ in Favor

One of those lawmakers, Minnesota Representative James Oberstar, said he’s “leaning” toward voting “yes,” though “there are a couple of items to be worked out.” Others, including Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, aren’t so sure.

Abortion is “one of the factors” in determining her vote, Kaptur said on March 16. She said she wants to preserve existing law that bans federal dollars from being used for abortions and she is “not convinced” the new bill does that. She has said she’s also worried about insurance costs.

“What’s going to happen to somebody who owns a deli back where I live?” Kaptur said. “Are they going to be able to get an affordable plan or will their employees be able to afford a plan?”

Democrats seek the biggest health-care changes in four decades. Americans would be required to get insurance, with subsidies and purchasing exchanges to help. Insurers such as Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. would get millions of new policyholders and be required to accept all customers.

‘Decision Time’

Representative Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said he objects to the failure of the Senate legislation to cover immigrants. He said he’s undecided on the measure, yet values his conversations with the White House on policies such as housing that affect undocumented immigrants.

“We have a lot of self-interest in Barack Obama being successful,” he said.

Representative Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat, said he’s waiting to see whether Democratic leaders compromised adequately on language establishing an independent commission to establish Medicare reimbursement rates to caregivers.

“It’s getting down to decision time now,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auwHP5bH44.c&pos=8

petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:32 AM
I think the funny part of this is the fuzzy math being foisted on us. The deficit would reduce by $940b over the first 10 years? Yea, it should. Cause you are going to tax the people for 10 years and only provide 6 years of services for that 10 years.

I am sure the Left is ok with that.

banyon
03-18-2010, 08:32 AM
Obama also has been working on Washington Representative Brian Baird, meeting with him for 30 minutes in the Oval Office on March 16. Baird like Kucinich complained that the House and Senate bills aren’t ambitious enough. He said he would replace the Medicare and Medicaid programs for the elderly and the poor with vouchers to purchase care.

“We had a long discussion about the pros and cons of the legislation, what the alternatives are,” Baird said of the meeting. He said Republican “hypocrisy” and “extremism” during the debate would figure into whether he switches his previous “no” vote.

“Part of my calculus as well is the manner in which these people have conducted themselves,” Baird said.

I haven't heard of this guy before, but I like the cut of his jib.

banyon
03-18-2010, 08:33 AM
I think the funny part of this is the fuzzy math being foisted on us. The deficit would reduce by $940b over the first 10 years? Yea, it should. Cause you are going to tax the people for 10 years and only provide 6 years of services for that 10 years.

I am sure the Left is ok with that.

Why don't you explain for us how you came up with that?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:35 AM
Why don't you explain for us how you came up with that?

They will start taxing and mandating in 2011 but the "benefits" of the bill will not be enacted until 2014.


Don't worry your little head, Mr. Banyon. By the time the bill is posted for all to see this you will have received your talking points on how to defend it.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:36 AM
I haven't heard of this guy before, but I like the cut of his jib.

Yea, voting out of spite is such a logical choice.

banyon
03-18-2010, 08:39 AM
They will start taxing and mandating in 2011 but the "benefits" of the bill will not be enacted until 2014.


Don't worry your little head, Mr. Banyon. By the time the bill is posted for all to see this you will have received your talking points on how to defend it.

Yeah, that. Like it isn't a "talking point" that you've attempted here.
I think you should know that I don't frequent Dem websites or anything, so I'm not really an avid user of "talking points".

But where did you arrive at the bolded conclusion?
From the president's interview and speech the last couple of days and the details I have read, many of the benefits do in fact begin in 2011, don't they?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:45 AM
Yeah, that. Like it isn't a "talking point" that you've attempted here.
I think you should know that I don't frequent Dem websites or anything, so I'm not really an avid user of "talking points".

But where did you arrive at the bolded conclusion?
From the president's interview and speech the last couple of days and the details I have read, many of the benefits do in fact begin in 2011, don't they?

Name them, please?

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 08:50 AM
FUzzy math, is that when Obama says health insurance premiums will be reduced by 3000%...or is fuzzy math when you count the medicare cuts twice ?

Better read the fine print of this bill :titus:

orange
03-18-2010, 08:55 AM
Name them, please?

The big expansion of coverage would not come until 2014, when new health insurance marketplaces open for business.

In the meantime, the legislation calls for a series of new consumer benefits. Insurers could not deny coverage to children because of an pre-existing health problem, nor could they place lifetime dollar caps on the amount of coverage.

A new high-risk health insurance pool would provide coverage to uninsured people who can't get private coverage because of health problems.


Full article below.

banyon
03-18-2010, 08:57 AM
Name them, please?

I asked you first, but I'm in the habit of backing up my claims so here:

_IMMEDIATE CHANGES

Uninsured people with medical problems will have a workable alternative. The bill pumps $5 billion into high-risk insurance pools run by the states to provide coverage to those in frail health. Taxpayer-backed insurance won't be free, but premiums should be much lower than what's charged by private insurers willing to take those in poor health.

For people with private health insurance — about two-thirds of Americans — there would be some new safeguards. For example, insurers would be barred from placing lifetime dollar limits on coverage and from canceling policies except in cases of fraud. Children could stay on their parents' coverage until age 26.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izJWfjqWiDxX90TH2_jQxIna9CYQD9EF9Q6O0

orange
03-18-2010, 08:57 AM
Dems on track for vote on $940B overhaul
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says House will likely vote on Sunday

March 18

WASHINGTON - House Democrats are on track for a Sunday vote on sweeping health care legislation that will expand coverage to millions of uninsured while also reducing the federal deficit, leaders said Thursday.

The bill delivers on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority by providing coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured at a 10-year cost of $940 billion. It does so through a combination of tax credits for middle class households and an expansion of the Medicaid program for low income people.

The Number 2 Democrat in the House said the health care package would also reduce the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over its first 10 years — and more than $1 trillion in the second decade.

"I think the momentum is growing for this bill," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "The more and more people have looked at this bill...a greater number of people are becoming more comfortable."

The big expansion of coverage would not come until 2014, when new health insurance marketplaces open for business.

In the meantime, the legislation calls for a series of new consumer benefits. Insurers could not deny coverage to children because of an pre-existing health problem, nor could they place lifetime dollar caps on the amount of coverage.

A new high-risk health insurance pool would provide coverage to uninsured people who can't get private coverage because of health problems.

Once the legislation is fully phased in, most Americans would be required to carry coverage — and insurers would be forbidden from turning down people with health problems, or from charging them more.

Democrats are following a complicated two-track legislative strategy for passing the bill. First, the House will have to approve a Senate bill that many of its Democratic members object to. Then both chambers will quickly pass a package of fixes agreed to in negotiations with the White House.

Since the House will vote first, Hoyer said lawmakers are seeking assurances from their Senate counterparts that they have enough votes to pass the follow-up measure as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35928063/ns/politics-health_care_reform

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:00 AM
Dems on track for vote on $940B overhaul
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says House will likely vote on Sunday

March 18

WASHINGTON - House Democrats are on track for a Sunday vote on sweeping health care legislation that will expand coverage to millions of uninsured while also reducing the federal deficit, leaders said Thursday.

The bill delivers on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority by providing coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured at a 10-year cost of $940 billion. It does so through a combination of tax credits for middle class households and an expansion of the Medicaid program for low income people.

The Number 2 Democrat in the House said the health care package would also reduce the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over its first 10 years — and more than $1 trillion in the second decade.

"I think the momentum is growing for this bill," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "The more and more people have looked at this bill...a greater number of people are becoming more comfortable."

The big expansion of coverage would not come until 2014, when new health insurance marketplaces open for business.

In the meantime, the legislation calls for a series of new consumer benefits. Insurers could not deny coverage to children because of an pre-existing health problem, nor could they place lifetime dollar caps on the amount of coverage.

A new high-risk health insurance pool would provide coverage to uninsured people who can't get private coverage because of health problems.

Once the legislation is fully phased in, most Americans would be required to carry coverage — and insurers would be forbidden from turning down people with health problems, or from charging them more.

Democrats are following a complicated two-track legislative strategy for passing the bill. First, the House will have to approve a Senate bill that many of its Democratic members object to. Then both chambers will quickly pass a package of fixes agreed to in negotiations with the White House.

Since the House will vote first, Hoyer said lawmakers are seeking assurances from their Senate counterparts that they have enough votes to pass the follow-up measure as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35928063/ns/politics-health_care_reform

Stephen Lynch calls health care vote plan ‘disingenuous’

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1240545

orange
03-18-2010, 09:06 AM
Stephen Lynch calls health care vote plan ‘disingenuous’

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1240545

And this matters why?

He ain't my representative.
He gets one vote, just like everyone else.
He's a vote against - wow, the "againsts" are against the Bill. Amazing.

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:06 AM
Also, I'm assuming you did not want to mention this estimate of the CBO:

CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. That judgment is unchanged from CBO’s previous assessment, and the imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.5

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf#page=5

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:09 AM
Also, I'm assuming you did not want to mention this estimate of the CBO:



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf#page=5

Sure, tax for 10 year, provide benfits for 6. Hard not to come out ahead in the scenario.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:09 AM
And this matters why?

He ain't my representative.
He gets one vote, just like everyone else.
He's a vote against - wow, the "againsts" are against the Bill. Amazing.

He is one of the whips. Keep playing dumb. Kind ahard to whip up yes votes when the whip is a no.

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:10 AM
Sure, tax for 10 year, provide benfits for 6. Hard not to come out ahead in the scenario.
Were you ever going to provide an explanation of where you came up with that, or do only other people have to explain themselves?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:10 AM
Were you ever going to provide an explanation of where you came up with that, or do only other people have to explain themselves?

It's in the bill. Always has been.

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:12 AM
It's in the bill. Always has been.

where?

orange
03-18-2010, 09:13 AM
He is one of the whips. Keep playing dumb. Kind ahard to whip up yes votes when the whip is a no.

So you're going on record that the Bill is going to fail? :hmmm:

After all, it can't possibly pass with one of the whips not whipping. :banghead:

CoMoChief
03-18-2010, 09:13 AM
the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and $1.2 trillion in the next, said another House leader, Representative Chris Van Hollen.

They say this yet I haven't heard one person as to HOW that is going to happen.

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:14 AM
It's in the bill. Always has been.

Also, I don't suppose you knew that many of the taxes don't begin until 2014 either?

The health care overhaul would raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 in 2013, and on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans in 2018.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124784750

NY CHIEF
03-18-2010, 09:16 AM
Buy a new house.......Pay the mortgage for 4 years....Then you get the keys.........:hmmm:

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:21 AM
So you're going on record that the Bill is going to fail? :hmmm:

After all, it can't possibly pass with one of the whips not whipping. :banghead:

I nver said that. JFC where do you get this shit?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:22 AM
Also, I don't suppose you knew that many of the taxes don't begin until 2014 either?



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124784750

Banyon, 2013 comes before 2014.

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:23 AM
Banyon, 2013 comes before 2014.

So, you agree that it's not a blanket statement of "tax for 10 years and benefits for 6", then?

orange
03-18-2010, 09:24 AM
I nver said that. JFC where do you get this shit?

So, we're back to:

And this matters why?

Let me guess - it matters because you saw it on Drudge Report!

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:24 AM
So, you agree that it's not a blanket statement of "tax for 10 years and benefits for 6", then?

Not entirely, no. When does the mandate kick in? Why should ANY taxing or mandates kick in before the people get the services of their tax $'s?

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:25 AM
Not entirely, no. When does the mandate kick in? Why should ANY taxing or mandates kick in before the people get the services of their tax $'s?

Did you miss my post where I described the benefits that would kick in immediately, because this post seems to assume that my earlier post was incorrect?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:26 AM
So, we're back to:

And this matters why?

You're hopless. I give up with you. You can take solace that your bill will probably pass. Which I am on the record saying it probably would. Dumbass.

But don't come here crying in November.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:27 AM
'Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate'...

The CBO Score, As Reported by Steny Hoyer [Kathryn Jean Lopez]



House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan responds to an NRO query about the news this morning: “The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press — and spinning for partisan gain — numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he was 'giddy' about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority — in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.”

This CBO reporting this morning really is remarkable to me — the news is simply what Steny Hoyer says it is.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjJiMjFkYjQyMTY4NmMyNDllYzZjNDAxNjVkOWE1ODQ=

banyon, weren't you just slamming Repubs for doing similar yesterday?

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:30 AM
'Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate'...



banyon, weren't you just slamming Repubs for doing similar yesterday?

The CBO put their report in the classified section of the National Review?

My link was DIRECTLY from the CBO.

orange
03-18-2010, 09:30 AM
it matters because you saw it on Drudge Report!

Yessiree.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:32 AM
The CBO put their report in the classified section of the National Review?

My link was DIRECTLY from the CBO.

Take it up with the author of the article, Counselor.

CoMoChief
03-18-2010, 09:34 AM
PAZZ DAT BEEL PAZZ DAT BEEL PAZZ DAT BEEL

banyon
03-18-2010, 09:36 AM
Take it up with the author of the article, Counselor.

The blog post? Do you deny that the CBO made the deficit finding or not? Because that's what we were talking about, right?

orange
03-18-2010, 09:39 AM
Yessiree.

p.s. I see where you got your Walgreen's headline - and why you couldn't explain what you thought was beginning.

LMAO LMAO


... and now the NRO blog post.

You've become a complete regurgitator. At least HonestChiefFan spits up cud from different sites occasionally.

King_Chief_Fan
03-18-2010, 09:41 AM
And for your $940 Billion you get these socialist mandates:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026733_health_health_care_healthcare.html


Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare (http://www.naturalnews.com/healthcare.html) services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community (http://www.naturalnews.com/community.html) organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid (http://www.naturalnews.com/Medicaid.html) will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees (http://www.naturalnews.com/employees.html) into the government-run public plan. No alternatives


The government cannot even run the government, how can they run health care?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 09:50 AM
p.s. I see where you got your Walgreen's headline - and why you couldn't explain what you thought was beginning.

LMAO LMAO


... and now the NRO blog post.

You've become a complete regurgitator. At least HonestChiefFan spits up cud from different sites occasionally.

I could explain fine. I just refused to play your idiotic game you were trying to play. But whatever you need to tell yourself.

BTW, dumbass, the CBO Report thread I started came from Bloomberg and was never on Drudge. Fucking moran.

donkhater
03-18-2010, 09:59 AM
Democrats seek the biggest health-care changes in four decades. Americans would be required to get insurance, with subsidies and purchasing exchanges to help. Insurers such as Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. would get millions of new policyholders and be required to accept all customers.



Must accept millions of new customers, most of whom, now that they have insurance will use more medical services. How is insurance company supposed to remain viable?

Oh yeah, it's not supposed to....onto the 'next' crisis.

How does this cut costs for the providers of healthcare?

Oh yeah, it doesn't...hello rationing.

What a f***ing bunch of idiots these guys are.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 10:00 AM
“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.1)

RINGLEADER
03-18-2010, 10:14 AM
Why don't you explain for us how you came up with that?

You do realize that the CBO is using a host of numbers that the Dems have provided to "score" the bill, correct? You do realize that they are using revenues from secondary sources that will raise the deficit in those areas (and consequently raise the overall deficit)? You do know that the plan requires future congresses to pass unpopular legislation (like the "doctor fix") that have never been passed when they have been brought up in the past to achieve these deficit "savings"?

In short, you put fuzzy numbers into the CBO and you get fuzzy (many would say unrealistic or even false) numbers back.

This bill won't save money, won't reduce the deficit, or reduce costs -- unless changes that have almost no chance of passing in future years are actually passed. And look out if the economy suffers a recession because the CBO estimates anticipate revenues and growth every year.

So, again, what's the plan if revenues fall short or expenses exceed projections? Do we get less care, more taxes on more people, or a higher deficit?

banyon
03-18-2010, 10:14 AM
“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.1)

Gee, you mean after Congress revises the bill, that the CBO has to revise their estimates? Who would have thunk it? What do you think will happen if the bill gets yet another revision?

banyon
03-18-2010, 10:16 AM
You do realize that the CBO is using a host of numbers that the Dems have provided to "score" the bill, correct? You do realize that they are using revenues from secondary sources that will raise the deficit in those areas (and consequently raise the overall deficit)? You do know that the plan requires future congresses to pass unpopular legislation (like the "doctor fix") that have never been passed when they have been brought up in the past to achieve these deficit "savings"?

In short, you put fuzzy numbers into the CBO and you get fuzzy (many would say unrealistic or even false) numbers back.

This bill won't save money, won't reduce the deficit, or reduce costs -- unless future changes that have almost no chance of passing in future years are actually passed. And look out if the economy suffers a recession because the CBO estimates anticipate revenues and growth every year.

So, again, what's the plan if revenues fall short or expenses exceed projections? Do we get less care, more taxes on more people, or a higher deficit?

Which numbers did you think were "fuzzy"?

I would assume that if revenues fall short of the estimated projections, then they would run a deficit, like happens with every other program.

Do you understand that I don't support this bill as a handout to private insurance companies and not lowering costs or providing universal care?

Chief Henry
03-18-2010, 10:23 AM
Now thats a winner for the people. 940 Billion estimated cost for just SIX years of benefits...and thats after they count $500 Billion twice. Dontcha love the people turning themselfs into pretzels for this cluster f uck of an administration ???