Harry Reid's bill to reduce deficit

• Elliot Stabler

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) health care reform proposal will cost $849 billion over 10 years but cut the deficit by about $127 billion, Roll Call reports.
  
  The CBO cost estimate also concluded that the health care reform bill would help more than 94 percent of Americans get health insurance coverage and reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 31 million people.
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/18/reids_bill_scored_well.html
  
  
  I sure am happy to see this. I would also like to know what took so long
• fish82

  

  Elliot Stabler wrote: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) health care reform proposal will cost $849 billion over 10 years but cut the deficit by about $127 billion, Roll Call reports.
  
  The CBO cost estimate also concluded that the health care reform bill would help more than 94 percent of Americans get health insurance coverage and reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 31 million people.
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/18/reids_bill_scored_well.html
  
  
  I sure am happy to see this. I would also like to know what took so long

  The libs have spent 6 months deciding if their balls are big enough to own this shitpile 100%. That's what took so long.
• Dog99

  fish82 wrote:
  
  The libs have spent 6 months deciding if their balls are big enough to own this shitpile 100%. That's what took so long.

  Cutting the deficit is bad now?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I've got some swampland in Florida for sale for anyone gullible enough to believe this reduce the deficit.
• Dog99

  Sounds good. I'll build a theme park on it and make millions.
• majorspark

  

  Elliot Stabler wrote: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) health care reform proposal will cost $849 billion over 10 years but cut the deficit by about $127 billion, Roll Call reports.
  
  The CBO cost estimate also concluded that the health care reform bill would help more than 94 percent of Americans get health insurance coverage and reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 31 million people.
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/18/reids_bill_scored_well.html
  
  
  I sure am happy to see this. I would also like to know what took so long

  We have been sold this bill of goods before. Name for me one major federal social program that has not exceeded its initial cost projections.
  
  Lets take medicare, federally managed health insurance for a certain group of our population. Here are some past initial projections made by congress and the CBO and the cost overuns.
  

  In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
  
  In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
  
  The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion

  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTM5NGNmZDc3OGIxYTMwMTlkZTQzNTJlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
• tk421

  

  If this pile of shit cuts the deficit, I'm Elvis Presley. Anyone who honestly believes this is fooling themselves.
• tk421

  

  I think EVERY politician lies, it doesn't matter if they are D or R. I wouldn't believe a Republican who came up with this bill and said it would lower the deficit, either. I don't trust a word any of them say.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Dog99 wrote:

  fish82 wrote:
  
  The libs have spent 6 months deciding if their balls are big enough to own this shitpile 100%. That's what took so long.

  Cutting the deficit is bad now?

  The ONLY sure way to cut the deficit is to cut SPENDING. The only spending cuts in this bill are likely to Medicare programs. So IF the Dems are trimming anything here it's going to be on the backs of senior citizens in the form of denied care.
  
  Creating a new program isn't going to cut anything -- and as the discussions on this bill progress, I am willing to bet figures get revised to more than $1.2 trillion.
  
  Anyone who believes Reid's bill will actually end up cutting costs is a damn fool.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Major,
  
  

  Your post is outstanding and bears repeating, I hope you don't mind!
  
  In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
  
  In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
  
  The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion

• eersandbeers

  Dog99 wrote:

  fish82 wrote:
  
  The libs have spent 6 months deciding if their balls are big enough to own this shitpile 100%. That's what took so long.

  Cutting the deficit is bad now?

  
  How'd that Cash for Clunkers work out?
• Elliot Stabler

  fish82 wrote:

  Elliot Stabler wrote: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) health care reform proposal will cost $849 billion over 10 years but cut the deficit by about $127 billion, Roll Call reports.
  
  The CBO cost estimate also concluded that the health care reform bill would help more than 94 percent of Americans get health insurance coverage and reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 31 million people.
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/18/reids_bill_scored_well.html
  
  
  I sure am happy to see this. I would also like to know what took so long

  The libs have spent 6 months deciding if their balls are big enough to own this shitpile 100%. That's what took so long.

  I was referring to the CBO taking so long
• Elliot Stabler

  The house bill didnt take half this long to grade
• Cleveland Buck

  

  From what I heard they are counting on us having like 5% or 6% economic growth per year to project how much revenue these new taxes will bring in, which is ridiculous. It's been many years since we had that kind of growth, and this president and Congress will never see anything close to it. If you factor in more realistic revenue projections and also factor in how many people will be forced on to the government option, this thing will cost untold trillions of dollars. It is a joke. And I also agree that it should be a crime for these clowns to push these numbers around like they are fact.
• 2trap_4ever

  November 2, 2010
  
  The date the American people can tell the majority of these congressmen and congresswomen what we think of this health bill and the way they have spent our money.
• Elliot Stabler

  ^^^
  
  To be completely honest with you..
  
  I wouldn't be suprised to see the Dems pick up atleast 2 seats in the Senate
  
  Here would be an interesting question:
  
  If,and that is a big If,Harry Reid loses his Senate seat,who will be the next Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats?
• tk421

  

  If somehow Reid and Pelosi were to lose their seats, I'd throw a party. That would be a great day.
• majorspark

  

  tk421 wrote: If somehow Reid and Pelosi were to lose their seats, I'd throw a party. That would be a great day.

  Harry Reid is toast. Pelosi, don't get you party hat out.
• BoatShoes

  Cleveland Buck wrote: From what I heard they are counting on us having like 5% or 6% economic growth per year to project how much revenue these new taxes will bring in, which is ridiculous. It's been many years since we had that kind of growth, and this president and Congress will never see anything close to it.

  Where did you hear this? I just read both the CBO's letter to harry reid and the Joint Committee on Taxation's report and I could find nothing in either of them about projected economic growth.
• oldtriple

  Maybe I am not very good at math but what is the big deal that the deficit is being reduced? Let me individualize my point. Lets say my annual income is $50K and I earn that every year until I die. Does it really matter if my annual expenses every year are $60K or $100K? No it does not matter how big my deficit is every year because I will never be able to pay off my debt. This same principle applies to nations. Does it matter whether the deficit is $600 billion or $2 trillion? As long as expenditures exceed revenue this country is screwed either now or later because a deficit continues to add to the national debt. A debt it appears we will never be able to retire particularly at the rate we are going.
  
  Oh, and I definitely agree with the statemenst above regarding when was the last time a government social program came in under budget/projections?
• derek bomar

  

  We're never going to pay off the debt unless you raise taxes on everyone and cut the military and entitlements
• Manhattan Buckeye

  The baby boom generation's governments may have put us in a hole we will never get out of, if nothing else young people should pay attention to see that government is incapable of budgeting itself because it lacks the initiative (and in fact is discouraged) to save money during the good times and lacks the political will to cutback in bad times. I'm not optimistic that they will pay attention, or the future of this country as a whole.
  
  Reid's "magna carta" now includes a 5% tax on certain services such as elective cosmetic surgery, which opens up a new can of worms about which services should now be taxed. How is me getting a mole removed worthy of a 5% tax when the charge I pay for a contractor to replace our back door isn't? People are joking about this being a "Pelosi facelift tax" but it could potentially affect a lot of procedures that could have a medical benefit but aren't deemed to be necessary.
• tcby99

  tk421 wrote: If somehow Reid and Pelosi were to lose their seats, I'd throw a party. That would be a great day.

  wouldn't we all.