Did no one else read the actual letter from the CBO and see the disclaimer saying that the figures do NOT represent a formal or complete estimate of the draft?

 

Which means the dollars spent will be more. Go back and look at the estimates of other government programs and the projected costs. They are all far more expensive than first projected, even allowing for inflation.

Which means the dollars spent will be more. Go back and look at the estimates of other government programs and the projected costs. They are all far more expensive than first projected, even allowing for inflation.

 

Fine. We can all agree on the point that these programs end up being more expensive than projected.

 

That, however, is not the emphasis of the article nor the reason why this thread was started. It was started because of the point being made that only 16M of the 50M uninsured would be insured.

 

To then say later that "hey we havent seen the entire bill so we're just winging it" doesn't make much sense. Heck, it could be only 8M become insured or it could be 48M become insured. The CBO has told us nothing.

Some more change you can believe in.

Good 'ole Rahm said they will get it down from 1.6 to under 1 trillion. Yippee. Somehow, I doubt it.

The CBO is also predicting that 23 million employees will lose their employer provided health insurance.

I wasn't aware of this but the CBO's analysis did not take into account any potential savings brought on by a Public option.

 

So what, again, was the purpose of this study?

I wasn't aware of this but the CBO's analysis did not take into account any potential savings brought on by a Public option.

 

So what, again, was the purpose of this study?

 

To start the process of putting some numbers together, something nobody else is apparently wanting to do.

To start the process of putting some numbers together, something nobody else is apparently wanting to do.

 

IMO its a disservice to put out half of a study. You can't say , on one hand, that its going to cost X and decrease the uninsured by Y and then, on the other hand, say "we're not finished yet."

 

Heck, it got a thread started and its all over the news being reported as final and definitive.

IMO its a disservice to put out half of a study. You can't say , on one hand, that its going to cost X and decrease the uninsured by Y and then, on the other hand, say "we're not finished yet."

 

Heck, it got a thread started and its all over the news being reported as final and definitive.

 

I disagree, having produced hundreds (maybe thousands) of cost and budget estimates over the years, you have to start somewhere. Otherwise you have no roadmap to guide you. What happens if these reports were not produced and all of a sudden the actual comes out and it's 2 trillion to cover 12 million new people? Tens of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars may be spent by that time and everyone says "nevermind"? It has done a great service in getting some real discussions going and people looking more closely at what they're doing. That's part of the CBO's responsibility.

 

Heck, if you run the numbers they come out rather reasonable. 1 trillion over ten years to cover 16 million people comes out to about $6,000 per year per person. With the government running things I can see that. As someone pointed out, these estimates might prove to be the best case scenario.

I disagree, having produced hundreds (maybe thousands) of cost and budget estimates over the years, you have to start somewhere. Otherwise you have no roadmap to guide you. What happens if these reports were not produced and all of a sudden the actual comes out and it's 2 trillion to cover 12 million new people? Tens of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars may be spent by that time and everyone says "nevermind"? It has done a great service in getting some real discussions going and people looking more closely at what they're doing. That's part of the CBO's responsibility.

 

Heck, if you run the numbers they come out rather reasonable. 1 trillion over ten years to cover 16 million people comes out to about $6,000 per year per person. With the government running things I can see that. As someone pointed out, these estimates might prove to be the best case scenario.

 

Fair enough. Then I shall chastise all who use the number put out as "fact" or "final."

Fair enough. Then I shall chastise all who use the number put out as "fact" or "final."

Our numbers will be final when the PRC tells us they're final!

Fair enough. Then I shall chastise all who use the number put out as "fact" or "final."

 

I agree.