Breaking: CBO releases the actual report; Update: Almost all $940 billion incurred in just six years; Update: Preliminary

posted at 11:25 am on March 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It’s much as advertised. Thanks to its spending provisions mainly starting in 2014, the reconciliation bill combined with the Senate version has a total cost of $940 billion, with deficit savings of around $138 billion (via No Runny Eggs):

CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted—would be the difference between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senate-passed bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5). …

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade 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 gross domestic product (GDP).3 The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.

Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation bill would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP.

Undoubtedly, this is good news for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. The overall deficit reduction number from the CBO, as well as the under-$1 trillion price tag, gives them some momentum towards winning the votes of reluctant moderates. Whether they can overcome the issues of abortion and Demon Pass will still have to be seen, but at least on cost they have some ammunition.

That also applies to the reluctance in the Senate to take this bill back up again.  The House version with the reconciliation package saves more money off of the deficit than the Senate version alone, at least according to the CBO.  If the Senate balks at considering the reconciliation changes, they’ll essentially be writing off supposed savings to the deficit.

Republicans set part of their argument against the House effort on the CBO response, but not all of it.  This doesn’t help build opposition to the bill, but it doesn’t stop it on the other grounds.  Expect the GOP to push hard on abortion and the individual mandate, as well as Demon Pass in response.

Update (AP): Here’s the key table from CBO’s letter to Pelosi. Via Philip Klein, want to see what a shabby fraud these cost estimates are? Check out the line for “Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions”:

cbo

This is why they’re delaying the start of the program, of course. If it kicked in right away, the decade-long estimate would obviously be well into the trillions. So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs — or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate — through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. A perfect ending to this travesty.

Update (Ed): I’ve received a lot of e-mail asking me to emphasize that this is a preliminary CBO report.  That’s true, but that’s exactly what was promised, too.  Politically, I doubt it makes much difference — and generally speaking, the preliminary reports are in the ballpark with the eventual final analysis.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

oy vey, Pelosi is making hay over the CBO report.

AnninCA on March 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM

You can’t make this stuff up.

A 10 year estimate for 6 years of the program.

Judging by the increases, you’re lucking at 940 billion just over the final 4 years.

So the actual first 10 years of the program it comes in at around 1.8 trillion.

reaganaut on March 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM

lucking

looking

reaganaut on March 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM

We need to get the above graph and this link on drudge…

http://twitter.com/philipaklein/status/10676059709

ninjapirate on March 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I get blasted on one post, congratulated on another.

You remind me of Bill O’Reilly. Same BS

You are the Bill O’Reilly of HotAir: Say something one day to endear Conservatives to you, and get lots of hate mail from the Libs, then go out the next day and say something positive about the Liberals so they like you again. Then show the hate mail from each side and say, “See, I’m hated by both sides, therefore I’m a Moderate.”

ConservativeTony on March 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Doing the quick math, 940 billion divided by 30 million (current uninsured) gives $34,000.

$34,000 per “uninsured” the Democrats intend to cover.

If we just handed them each a check for that amount we could at least avoid breaking our current health care system.

rogersnowden on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

What a load of crap!!! What about the $250 billion payoff to docs being passed under a separate bill. What? Paying doctors is not a part of health care??? Give me a bleeding break! We’re not fooled for one damn second.

Game over for Dems come November.

Bob in VA on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

UPDATE NEEDED.

There is NO OFFICAL CBO ESTIMATE.

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Another Yes just went No…. Obama in TROUBLE!!!

brewcrew67 on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I think it was Glen Beck who said The former Soviet Union hadn’t lived under a Democracy so they didn’t respond well. We have lived under a Representative Democracy for a long time…How do people think we will react to being socialists? Not well, I would think.

tomas on March 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM

As Rush just stated on his show, the Hell Care Bill rules that 12,000 NEW IRS AGENTS will be hired to ENFORCE the mandates in the Hell Care Bill that everyone buy insurance, or be fined or imprisoned. Sweet? NOT.

andy85719 on March 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM

UPDATE NEEDED.

There is NO OFFICAL CBO ESTIMATE.

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

You’re several hours behind. A preliminary report has been released.

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM

hell to pay

forest on March 18, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Reality check:

Social Security was established in 1935 – it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – it is broke.

The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – it is broke.

TARP shows no signs of impact.

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 shows no signs of impact, unless you’re thinking about a career in the IRS.

So class, what’s the common denominator here?

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM

You’re several hours behind. A preliminary report has been released.

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM

And you are deliberately spinning- preliminary report isn’t the same thing as an official estimate. The CBO can’t do that until they get an actual proposal.

highhopes on March 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Another Yes just went No…. Obama in TROUBLE!!!

I think this was anticipated. The scary thought over at NRO is that he’s voting no because Nancy allowed let him meaning she can afford to let his vote go. I hope that’s not the case.

WisRich on March 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM

I think it was Glen Beck who said The former Soviet Union hadn’t lived under a Democracy so they didn’t respond well. We have lived under a Representative Democracy for a long time…How do people think we will react to being socialists? Not well, I would think.
tomas on March 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Talk to people who have had to live under a (National) Socialist system – they know what that means and they will be at the front of the line resisting Statism.
Part of the problem is that we have a generation that doesn’t know what that type of Marxist,Leninist,Socialist,Fascist,Stalinist,Progressivist, Collectivist,Communist, etc. entails.

Chip on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Keep calling Congress. There is no reason for the Democrats to celebrate their book-cooked new pet number.

Edouard on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

even if this did reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 year (certainly it won’t but lets put on our rose colored glasses and assume that it will), why are people acting like this is a big deal? We just had over $200 billion in deficits for the month of February. The entire “savings” from this monstrosity wouldn’t even cover one months deficit. It’s a drop in the ocean.

exceller on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

And you are deliberately spinning- preliminary report isn’t the same thing as an official estimate. The CBO can’t do that until they get an actual proposal.

highhopes on March 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM

It is an official estimate, though. It’s the first report… the final report is coming out Saturday or Sunday.

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

This isn’t gonna do any good. Another previous “yes” vote in NY has switched to “no”. Keep calling and emailing. Just don’t stop.

Sultry Beauty on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Reality check:

Social Security was established in 1935 – it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – it is broke.

The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – it is broke.

TARP shows no signs of impact.

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 shows no signs of impact, unless you’re thinking about a career in the IRS.

So class, what’s the common denominator here?

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Unfortunately, the radical Left that has firm control of the Democrat party is not concerned with economic facts, history, etc.

Attn. Liberals & drones: this ain’t your mom & pop’s democrat party.

visions on March 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM

This is out of control. How can they say it costs X amount in 10 years if it doesn’t start for 4??? Isn’t that fraud pure and simple? Pure insanity.

unrealcitizen on March 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Reality check:
Social Security was established in 1935 – it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – it is broke.
The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – it is broke.
TARP shows no signs of impact.
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 shows no signs of impact, unless you’re thinking about a career in the IRS.
So class, what’s the common denominator here?
badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM

I am sooooooo coping that list.

Chip on March 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I think it was Glen Beck who said The former Soviet Union hadn’t lived under a Democracy so they didn’t respond well. We have lived under a Representative Democracy for a long time…How do people think we will react to being socialists? Not well, I would think.

tomas on March 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Federal Republic is a more fitting description of our Gov’t.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM

So if I buy a house tomorrow, with a 30 year loan at $1500/month, can I just not pay for the first 5 year’s and call it saved money???

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM

So they claim it will reduce the deficit by $138B. What if the spending started the same year as the taxes start (Spending does not start until 014).

Average cost of spending years $923B/6 years = $153.8B/year

The four years without spending woud cost = $153.8B/year * 4 year = $615.2B

Affect on deficit bill with 10 years of spending = $138B (surplus) + $17B (put back the first four years of spending) – $615.2B (replace with real 4 years of spending) = $460B deficit with 10 years of spending

WashJeff on March 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM

So if I buy a house tomorrow, with a 30 year loan at $1500/month, can I just not pay for the first 5 year’s and call it saved money???

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Just “deem” that you’ve paid it off.

rbj on March 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

So if I buy a house tomorrow, with a 30 year loan at $1500/month, can I just not pay for the first 5 year’s and call it saved money???

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM

More like the first 12 years, if we get to monkey around with 40% of the years.

Edouard on March 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

It is an official estimate, though. It’s the first report… the final report is coming out Saturday or Sunday.

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM

But the devil is in details not yet established. An official estimate that doesn’t provide details is as meaningful as getting beauty tips from Nancy Pelosi.

highhopes on March 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

These are not the 4 out 10 years you seek…

Huckabye-Romney on March 18, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Average cost of spending years $923B/6 years = $153.8B/year

It’s worse than that, when you look at the way the number trend the last 4 years would cost 230 billion, 245 billion, 260 billion, 275 billion which is over a trillion.

The way I see it, this is 2 trillion dollars over 10 years, which doesn’t even factor in amnesty or higher than expected inflation.

reaganaut on March 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM

LOL! Rush just mocked MSLSD & CNN by saying Cartoon Network is beating them both and that was why 0 went on Brett’s show.
Somehow, hearing Rush report it beats reading it online.

OmahaConservative on March 18, 2010 at 12:51 PM

So class, what’s the common denominator here?

The same one as GM?

AnninCA on March 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM

The trolls are giving up

bluegrass on March 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM

We need to get used to some numbers here shortly.

Quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, and decillion for starters.

reaganaut on March 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM

What about the cost of the program to taxpayers! No one ever talks about the forfeited costs from taxpayers. What benefits will be lost by the increased taxes? Sure, the program will cost some ungodly amount, but that’s only half the actual cost.

This is kind of like people who get ecstatic when they get a $2000 tax refund. That money was yours to begin with! You’ve just lent the federal government $2000 interest free.

simon on March 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM

OT: Obama cancels trip!

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Rush just played a soundbite where Madame Speaker trots out more victims who have been affected by the health care “crisis”.

What about all the millions of health care cases, despite its imperfections, still worked beautifully?

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM

The same one as GM?

AnninCA on March 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Let me hear you say it.

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Breaking: CBO releases the actual report

That misleading. It’s a preliminary report.

UPDATE NEEDED.

There is NO OFFICIAL CBO ESTIMATE.

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Yes. Ed, please edit your headline.

I’ve even read the final CBO report won’t come until after the Sunday vote.

Rae on March 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM

LOL! Rush just mocked MSLSD & CNN by saying Cartoon Network is beating them both and that was why 0 went on Brett’s show.
Somehow, hearing Rush report it beats reading it online.

OmahaConservative on March 18, 2010 at 12:51 PM

That makes sense because Fox News is a cartoon network. Jerry Springer gets great ratings also. Does that mean it is quality programming?

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Can’t wait to see what some of these young voters and “enlighted” older voters think when they start seeing the price tag on all this.

I bet those trumped up, anecdotal sob stories won’t be tugging at their hearts so much any more.

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

That makes sense because Fox News is a cartoon network. Jerry Springer gets great ratings also. Does that mean it is quality programming?

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Wow. That was really…something.

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

The trolls are giving up

bluegrass on March 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Not yet.

That makes sense because Fox News is a cartoon network. Jerry Springer gets great ratings also. Does that mean it is quality programming?

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM

So they claim it will reduce the deficit by $138B. What if the spending started the same year as the taxes start (Spending does not start until 014).

Average cost of spending years $923B/6 years = $153.8B/year

The four years without spending woud cost = $153.8B/year * 4 year = $615.2B

Affect on deficit bill with 10 years of spending = $138B (surplus) + $17B (put back the first four years of spending) – $615.2B (replace with real 4 years of spending) = $460B deficit with 10 years of spending

WashJeff on March 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Exactly what the CBO should have done with one of their “scenarios.” And that is extremely conservative, as has been seen through SS, Medicare, Fannie, Freddie, etc. It is always a larger number.

Patriot Vet on March 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Unfortunately, the radical Left that has firm control of the Democrat party is not concerned with economic facts, history, etc.

Attn. Liberals & drones: this ain’t your mom & pop’s democrat party.

visions on March 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM

You’re so right. My in-laws are life long Dems. They are truly what one would call classical moderate Dems. But they don’t pay attention and have no idea what their party has become.

I try to tell them and show them what Pelosi and Reid are doing. They brush it off. I tell them Obama is spending $200B a month that we don’t have and it will mean poverty for their grandkids. They agree too much money is spent, but think we need it to help the poor.

They’re stuck in this 60s and 70s mindset of ‘the govt is there to help the less fortunate and if you oppose that you’re an evil person’. They don’t understand that we’ve gone from that to a Dem party hell bent on controlling every aspect of our lives. It’s so frustrating to see this. They’re good people, but they are so clueless somedays I want to throw something at them.

angryed on March 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM

That makes sense because Fox News is a cartoon network. Jerry Springer gets great ratings also. Does that mean it is quality programming?

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Normally, I’d disagree, but just yesterday, they had one of their reporters interviewing a ridiculous caricature of a President.

BlueCollarAstronaut on March 18, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but for those coming up with cost analysis regarding the delayed start and taxation…

Doesn’t the graph above pretty much show that the taxation doesn’t really start until 2014? The same year that the program goes into effect?

The net costs for the years 2010 – 2014 show higher costs than the gross. You don’t see lower net costs until 2014.

carti3r on March 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Damn it! We are being spent into penury against our consent.

For any politician to be proud of this debacle-in-the-making is completely insane.

Keep calling the fence-sitters, everyone…

Edouard on March 18, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Last year, 2,426,264 people died in the United States.

~43,000 of those deaths were people who didn’t have health insurance.

That means 2,383,264 people with health insurance died.

I don’t think we need to reform healthcare. I think we need to cancel it.

Just sayin’.

BobMbx on March 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM

That makes sense because Fox News is a cartoon network. Jerry Springer gets great ratings also. Does that mean it is quality programming?

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Jerry Springer is on during the day. So who’s watching? Those with or without jobs?

Springer is tuned to it’s audience. Fat chicks fighting, incest, guess who cheated on you, who are you screwing, who’s your daddy, etc..

The race to the bottom is over. Springer wins.

BobMbx on March 18, 2010 at 1:21 PM

I gave up trying to read the gobbledygook

From what I can discern, folk pay into the system for a zillion years before it starts paying out. Why wouldn’t that bring down the deficit since it all goes into the general fund and not some magic lock box.

Money comes in and gets flushed out to pay for Lousisiana purchase, SSA checks etc.

There is zero information about the bureaucratic infrastructure to run the system. I assume they will begin hiring the gov workers and leasing offices immediately, which will improve the jobs numbers and they will pay the new workers with the money collected in the first years

A ponzi scheme.

There are over a hundred departments being created, if the old info is correct.

America hits the brick wall when the people finally start claiming benefits, and find the money was spent.

When they actually issue the biometric ID card is another issue. A whole new bureaucracy, computers and fiberoptics, parking lots and janitorial staff to monitor the populace.

The date the new card must be used to get medical care is another unknown. The crappy evil part of the whole scheme is the way such crucial freedom threatening ploys are not hard coded into law, but left in the hands of appointed committees

As far as I know, illegals are in the mix. There will be so much work documenting the undocumented as they assume quasi citizen status, that also ought to boost the jobs numbers.

Snakes and currs, all of them.

I wish I could throw out the entire Congress, the House and the Senate and re load the system by lottery, which would give us a better chance at keeping our country. I put a ton of blame on McCain with his Campaign Finance Reform for sealing our fate by giving Congress job security

These Crooks have lost all fear of the populace, betweem Campaign Finance Reform, and a gigantic pension and benefites for life for anyone kicked out of office

entagor on March 18, 2010 at 1:21 PM

I wish they would give the numbers for the first 10 years after the program actually starts paying out.

Rocks on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

If you give me a hamburger today, I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow?

fullogas on March 18, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Watching the dimwit from the Rose Garden. A reporterette just asked Mr. Gibbs why the states don’t realize that the health care bill will save the states so much money, why are they passing laws trying to stop it. You have to love an independent unbiased press.

Cindy Munford on March 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The “net cost” (to the Government, with tax increases taken into account), is $175 billion in 2019, with the trend of about $10 billion increase per year.

Continue that trend from 2020 to 2029, the first full decade where “benefits” are paid, and we get $185 billion in 2020 and $275 billion in 2029, which averages $230 billion per year times 10 years = $2.3 TRILLION.

Or if we start the count in 2017, at $154 billion per year, trending upward at $10 billion per year, we average about $200 billion per year from 2017-2026, or $2.0 TRILLION over 10 years.

The whole $940 billion pricetag (under $1 trillion, the Dem selling point) is a gimmick based on collecting taxes for more years than paying benefits. But on a SUSTAINING basis, when benefits are paid, the REAL cost is $2 trillion plus over 10 years, or $200 billion per year.

Republicans in Congress need to shout this from the rooftops–THE REAL COST IS $2 TRILLION PER DECADE!

Steve Z on March 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Interesting…. the origional link is down… was up earlier…

Romeo13 on March 18, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Paul Ryan on Rush.

Cindy Munford on March 18, 2010 at 1:49 PM

From NRO:

No Sweethearts [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Tom Coburn, from a press conference a little earlier:

I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.

If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn’t going to be held in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It’s going to be held.

Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn’t going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.

Stephanie on March 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Okay, quick show of hands.

Who actually thinks this will reduce the deficit?

Anybody?

Bueller?

I can only hope that Joe and Joyce America understands what’s really going on here.

JusDreamin on March 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Watching the dimwit from the Rose Garden. A reporterette just asked Mr. Gibbs why the states don’t realize that the health care bill will save the states so much money, why are they passing laws trying to stop it. You have to love an independent unbiased press.

Cindy Munford on March 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Cindy, any chance you could chase down a link for that? It will make a wonderful keepsake for my kids. “This is why you lost your freedom Son”

JusDreamin on March 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

The “deficit reduction” issue is a red herring. They could raise taxes by $500 billion, use $400 billion of the money to buy everybody puppies and the end result, per CBO, would be “deficit reduction.” The correct way to look at this (even assuming everything in the CBO report comes true) is that they are cutting Medicare by $500 billion, raising taxes by $500 billion and spending $900 billion on their “plan.” The real question isn’t whether the net result is a lower deficit, the real question is: Is this a wise use of $1 trillion extracted from taxpayers and Medicare recipients?

jdp629 on March 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Stephanie on March 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Wow! Nice.

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 2:37 PM

The provision also changes the applicable payment amount for firms with more than 50 FTEs that do not offer coverage to $2,000 per full-time employee

Average Health insurance costs are $4500 per person… 13,500 per family…

Why would ANY employer continue with coverage? Especialy any small business?

Romeo13 on March 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

JusDreamin on March 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I will see if anyone archives the daily press briefings. Surely an ego as big as the presidents keeps all this slivers of brilliance.

Cindy Munford on March 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

JusDreamin on March 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

This is the website that has the transcripts the most current is 3/16.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings

Cindy Munford on March 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Decider on March 18, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I pity you trolls. You are so easily twisted, misled and blind that you do not even realize that you are simple fodder for a bigger machine.

For the fodder that supports the current corruption …

You are covetous thieves, liars, and cowards … each and every one.

You are not content and demand what others possess, but are not willing to work. Behaving like small children you whine and stamp your feet. You don’t have the cajones to steal for yourselves, so you empower another that will take it for you. You approve of deceit and coercion through force. Moreover, you are fools, in thinking the liar and thief you support today will not turn on you tomorrow.

AZ_Redneck on March 18, 2010 at 3:25 PM

So if I buy a house tomorrow, with a 30 year loan at $1500/month, can I just not pay for the first 5 year’s and call it saved money???

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Sure, but only if you’re an illegal alien with a U.S. taxpayer-subsidized mortgage loan. (And not only that, but we’ll send you some nice “tax credits” so you can put in a pool, buy some nice granite countertops and new stainless steel appliances, etc. Hey, who says illegal aliens don’t contribute to our economy!).

AZCoyote on March 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Another Yes just went No…. Obama in TROUBLE!!!

brewcrew67 on March 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I wonder if they are letting the most vulnerable make their announcements because they know they have enough votes. The Slaughter plan came up with more than I would have thought it would.

I bet they have the votes now.

It’s a shame we will have to fight the government from here on out just for decent health care!

petunia on March 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I was trying to scan the bill … didn’t they say the fine for not having insurance was $750? If so, it’s been upped to $2000.

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 4:13 PM

I bet they have the votes now.

It’s a shame we will have to fight the government from here on out just for decent health care!

petunia on March 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM

They don’t have the votes. This is all a ploy to demoralize the public. Don’t fall into their trap.

Remember, the democrats never tell the truth. Everything they say is calculated to manipulate … everything.

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 4:15 PM

$923 Billion divided by 6 years = around 153.8 billion per year. Extrapolate that out to 10 years and the actual cost is over $1.5 TRILLION. But then again, I am just an ignorant rube.

Huckabye-Romney on March 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Exactly. When have they said that they don’t have the votes or that this won’t pass?

They’ve been recycling the same “happy happy joy joy” since they started this nonsense last summer and they still have a big mouthful of nothing.

NoDonkey on March 18, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Heck, I’ve been predicting from the beginning that by the fifth year after the actual ‘benefits’ begin, this program will cost a TRILLION per YEAR, by the time you adjust for normal inflation and AMNESTY kick in.

If hyper-inflation kicks in as I expect it will, they will have to start talking about quintillions of dollars.

LegendHasIt on March 18, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony

McArdle: * “The CBO process has now been so thoroughly gamed that it’s useless.”

Rae on March 18, 2010 at 4:51 PM

But, but, Obama’s presidency is at stake. We should think of nothing else! /s

scalleywag on March 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM

The national news on the radio is reporting this as a final CBO number.

roux on March 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM

The national news on the radio is reporting this as a final CBO number.

roux on March 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM

But it’s not. Figures … media doing propaganda again. Do they really think people will think it’s terrific that they came in 60 billion under one trillion?

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 5:31 PM

“…if we can save money by adding 30 million people to our rolls, we need to go insure everybody in China and then we’ll be done with the deficit. This bill is a disaster.”

– Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

peski on March 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM

All of this garbage propaganda is relative . . . we’re still in debt up to our eyeballs and sinking further every minute under an astronomical deficit. Just whom do these crooked, slimy, shyster politicians think they are kidding?

rplat on March 18, 2010 at 5:58 PM

***
What will happen to the money collected (aka ROBIN HOOD style extorted) during these first 4 years? Will it just go into the General Fund and be spent right away by Comrade Obama (PBUH) and his ilk? Will it be spent setting up the 100+ federal police / IRS enforcement agencies?
***
I used to think that the good Lord saved many people in Washington, D.C. when the brave passengers tried to take control of the fourth hijacked airliner on 9/11/2001 and forced the Jihadis to crash it into the Pennsylvania field.
***
But now I think maybe Satan was responsible. If this plane had hit Congress when our “representatives” were there “serving” us–we might have had a much better Congress now. It would have been far better than term limits–a “clean sweep” fresh start. The Devil takes care of his own.
***
And hundreds of thousands of future abortions might not occur if taxpayer money wouldn’t be used to fund them. A lot of innocent lives would be saved. Teaparty these evil corrupt clowns at all opportunities and vote them out in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on March 18, 2010 at 6:04 PM

So a driving trip from New York to California only costs $500, if you start from Chicago. How stupid do they think we are?

smellthecoffee on March 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM

The best bet my “liberal” instructor today has told me over and over again that Healthcare for all will be starting monday.
According to her all children with parents making certain amount can add children to SCHIP (higher than the max income now) and adults get the high deductible risk pool that they can join monday.
Please, someone tell me who fooling who?

What other crap has been added to this bill the public doesn’t know about?

Gracelynn on March 18, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4