Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks, Ichabod. I didn't think he'd really ask to see those quotes since he very certainly commingle the CBO and the Democratic Party this way.

LOL! Yeah. Go ahead. Put up or shut up. I bet you'll be hard pressed to find an instance where I used the phrase "the CBO and the democrats".

Done and done.

Now I see no suggestion that the CBO and democrats are "interchangeable" or that the CBO is in the pocket of the democrats in the above?

Do you need to see the evidence from this very thread again?

Quite the contrary.

Yes, I see that Johnny Karate has been pointing out where you're arguing both sides on the issue of the reliability of the CBO estimates. The fact that you're inconsistent doesn't support anything you say.

That looks like I've been saying exactly what I claimed ... that the CBO estimates are inaccurate and underestimates ... and there is no suggestion on my part that the CBO is in the democrat's pockets or interchangeable.

That may be so, but on this thread you quoted with approval figures from the Cato Institute and you have suggested repeatedly that the CBO is using a gimmick or is the control of the Democrats.

So it looks like you're not being accurate about what I've actually stated. And it's not the first time, either, Joe.

Again, what I'm saying is supported by the evidence. Please re-read your OP in this very thread.

I suggest you go back and TRY to understand what I actually wrote.

I understand that you said something really idiotic and have since been backpedalling like crazy. You allege that the CBO is conspiring to make misleading estimates. You made what looks like a reference to Bill Clinton, then said that it applied to me when it most certainly does not.

So back on topic: how exactly is it a gimmick not to count premiums paid to private insurance companies as taxes? How is it proper even if you did consider them taxes to add them to the cost to the federal budget rather than subtract them?

I've asked this on-topic question several times, and you only seem interested in changing the topic.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, what was the bet? Do I win anything?

No, because you still haven't actually disputed anything with regards to the truths I stated about the problems inherent in the CBO analysis, or the past record of government program after government program ending up costing many times more than what those selling the program at the time claimed it would cost. There is no reason to believe the CBO estimate is anything but a lower bound. Nor have you disputed any of the many examples I offered where government programs have failed to fulfill the goals their proponents claimed they would fulfill, regardless of how much they spent. The claims of savings are nothing but empty promises. Promises by a group of people who have excluded themselves from the plan. The claimed goals will never be met. In fact, they will probably harm the health care of most in the US. This and all the rest of Obama's agenda will only wreck the American economic engine, make people subservient to a government run by elitists and socialists who really don't give a damn about the common man, stifle innovation and independent thinking, and limit our freedoms and opportunity. And by the way, admit that you really aren't bothered by liars because you've put one in office ... one who is proving himself to be a bigger liar than Clinton ever was ... and that's no small feat.

 

[johnny karate]

BAC, if you believe the CBO to be inaccurate in their budgetary estimations, then why have you previously cited them to support your arguments?

 

[Upchurch]

No, because you still haven't actually disputed anything with regards to the truths I stated about the problems inherent in the CBO analysis, or the past record of government program after government program ending up costing many times more than what those selling the program at the time claimed it would cost. ...{snip}

The goal posts are just over ...whaaaa? Where'd they go?

 

[DavidJames]

Damn, Ichabod, I thought you would have at least won a

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, if you believe the CBO to be inaccurate in their budgetary estimations, then why have you previously cited them to support your arguments

Gee ... is it so difficult to comprehend that when CBO/government cost estimate procedures generally lead to gross underestimate of costs, one can cite that as data suggesting that the Obama Whitehouse's estimates of costs/deficits (which are even lower) are downright silly (or dishonest)?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC

By the way, johnny, when I cited the CBO in that thread you linked, I did so to prove that Obama is either incompetent or a liar regardless of whether the CBO analysis mentioned in that link was accurate or not. Because OBAMA cited the CBO numbers as being correct ... but did so in a way that shows he (and his staff) either didn't understand what the CBO actually said in their report or were trying to dishonestly sell their health care efforts by misrepresenting the CBO conclusions. Obviously, you didn't bother to read or understand the truth I was pointing out in that thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

The goal posts are just over ...whaaaa? Where'd they go?

No Upchurch ... my goal posts are where they were at the start of this thread. It's your side that has been trying to ignore or move them.

For example, I notice that you haven't done anything to rebut my initial assertions that government agencies are notorious for underestimating program costs, that the reasons they underestimate them also affect CBO estimates, and that government programs have over and over failed to achieve the goals that sold them ... even with much, much higher costs.

 

[johnny karate]

Gee ... is it so difficult to comprehend that when CBO/government cost estimate procedures generally lead to gross underestimate of costs, one can cite that as data suggesting that the Obama Whitehouse's estimates of costs/deficits (which are even lower) are downright silly (or dishonest)?

By the way, johnny, when I cited the CBO in that thread you linked, I did so to prove that Obama is either incompetent or a liar regardless of whether the CBO analysis mentioned in that link was accurate or not. Because OBAMA cited the CBO numbers as being correct ... but did so in a way that shows he (and his staff) either didn't understand what the CBO actually said in their report or were trying to dishonestly sell their health care efforts by misrepresenting the CBO conclusions. Obviously, you didn't bother to read or understand the truth I was pointing out in that thread.

Following your post I linked back to your original statement:

The issue is why war debt is bad but welfare debt is good. The CBO projected an increase in national debt over the next 10 years, due to changes that Obama made, of nearly twice the total long term projected cost of the Iraq War (by anti-war liberals). Why isn't that increase in debt bad?

In this statement you make no mention or comparison of the Obama administration's interpretation of the CBO report. You merely take an estimate from that report ("The CBO projected an increase in national debt over the next 10 years...") and treat it as fact to bolster your argument.

And now here you are in this thread deriding the CBO's estimates as "inaccurate" and saying the CBO is "encumbered with some of the same problems that prevented previous government efforts at cost estimates from being accurate".

So why do you believe the CBO is able to accurately predict an increase in the national debt, but not able to accurately predict a decrease in the national debt?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I'm still waiting to hear how premiums paid to private insurance companies comprise federal taxes, and also why, if you do count them as taxes, they don't decrease the deficit rather than increase it.

And I've yet to hear why preparing estimates for the first 10 years is wrong.

 

[IchabodPlain]

No, because you still haven't actually disputed anything with regards to the truths I stated about the problems inherent in the CBO analysis, or the past record of government program after government program ending up costing many times more than what those selling the program at the time claimed it would cost.

Was that the bet? Seems here...

I bet you'll be hard pressed to find an instance where I used the phrase the "CBO and the democrats".

...Nope, nothing about disputing truths or past government records. Instead it's finding an instance where you used the phrase "the CBO and the democrats."

Wasn't hard pressed, seeing as you did it twice in this very thread in separate posts.

There is no reason to believe the CBO estimate is anything but a lower bound. Nor have you disputed any of the many examples I offered where government programs have failed to fulfill the goals their proponents claimed they would fulfill, regardless of how much they spent. The claims of savings are nothing but empty promises. Promises by a group of people who have excluded themselves from the plan. The claimed goals will never be met. In fact, they will probably harm the health care of most in the US. This and all the rest of Obama's agenda will only wreck the American economic engine, make people subservient to a government run by elitists and socialists who really don't give a damn about the common man, stifle innovation and independent thinking, and limit our freedoms and opportunity. And by the way, admit that you really aren't bothered by liars because you've put one in office ... one who is proving himself to be a bigger liar than Clinton ever was ... and that's no small feat.

(FTR, I didn't vote for Obama )

Are you even passingly familiar with the current situation? I asked this earlier in the thread - maybe you missed the questions because they weren't specifically directed towards you, but what about the 40+ million uninsured? Are you expecting that with republican reforms the problem will simply take care of themselves? Why weren't these reforms pursued for more than a decade when republicans controlled congress?

The rest of your narrative interests me little, and seems to only result in sticking your head in the sand and hoping our current problems simply go away.

 

[BeAChooser]

Following your post I linked back to your original statement:

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The issue is why war debt is bad but welfare debt is good. The CBO projected an increase in national debt over the next 10 years, due to changes that Obama made, of nearly twice the total long term projected cost of the Iraq War (by anti-war liberals). Why isn't that increase in debt bad?

False, Johnny. My post to you (#206) quoted and was in response to your post #203, which only stated this

BAC, if you believe the CBO to be inaccurate in their budgetary estimations, then why have you previously cited them to support your arguments?

Your post linked this post by me:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5147421&postcount=90 ,

which says nothing about the Iraq War and does indeed mention and compare the Obama administration's interpretation of the CBO report. And that post and thread does indeed prove that the Obama administration, regardless of whether the CBO analysis is accurate or not, was either incapable of understanding what the CBO report stated or deliberately misrepresented what it said inorder to promote its nationalized health care agenda.

 

[BeAChooser]

but what about the 40+ million uninsured?

40 million uninsured what? US Citizens? LOL!

The rest of your narrative interests me little

Then go somewhere else, because if you don't want to talk about the likely REAL costs of Obamacare, you are off topic.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hey Joe. Did you see this? Hot off the press ...

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/23/now-they-tell-us-cbo-double-co

Now They Tell Us: CBO Double Counted Medicare Savings

... snip ...

After allowing Democrats for weeks to argue that their Medicare cuts would both help finance the new health care legislation and extend the solvency of Medicare, the Congressional Budget Office explained today that the bill could do one or the other, but not both at the same time.

The new memo, released after Democrats have already secured 60 votes, reads:

The key point is that the savings to the HI (Medicare Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. ... snip ... To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.

... snip ...

Sen. Jeff Sessions, after conversing with CBO director Doug Elmendorf, said that without the revenue from the Medicare cuts, the bill would actually increase deficts by nearly $300 billion, FoxNews reports.

So maybe the CBO is in cahoots with democrats. Why else wait until democrats secured the 60 votes before telling us something as important as this ... something that proves Obama lied when he stated "This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program."

So it looks like you were taken in by a lie, Joe, and used to spread that lie. Shouldn't that make you or a bit more skeptical of the democrats?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So maybe the CBO is in cahoots with democrats. Why else wait until democrats secured the 60 votes before telling us something as important as this ... something that proves Obama lied when he stated "This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program."

Your fantasies are profoundly unconvincing.

But then, it hardly seems to be your objective to convince people.

The reason why you do post your half-baked garbage here --- on a forum full of skeptics --- is a mystery to me.

 

[BeAChooser]

The reason why you do post your half-baked garbage here --- on a forum full of skeptics --- is a mystery to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-care-increase-federal-deficit/

Updated December 23, 2009

Senators Cite New Budget Letter to Argue Health Care Bill Will Hike Deficit

... snip ...

In his letter to Sessions, Elmendorf wrote that government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

"The key point is that the savings to the (Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs," Elmendorf wrote.

"To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position," he wrote.

You calling CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a liar, Dr Adequate?

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-care-increase-federal-deficit/



You calling CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a liar, Dr Adequate?

No.

I have noted before that you need to improve your reading skills.

Let me explain my post in detail.

When I wrote, "Your fantasies are profoundly unconvincing", I meant that your fantasies were profoundly unconvincing.

When I wrote, "But then, it hardly seems to be your objective to convince people.", I meant that it hardly seems to be your objective to convince people.

And when I wrote, "The reason why you do post your half-baked garbage here --- on a forum full of skeptics --- is a mystery to me", I meant that it was a mystery to me why you post your half-baked garbage on a forum full of skeptics.

I am at a loss to know which part of that you were muddled enough to confuse with calling CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a liar.

 

[BeAChooser]

I am at a loss to know which part of that you were muddled enough to confuse with calling CBO Director Doug Elmendorf a liar.

Well, DA, it just seemed to me you were calling the reported quote from CBO Director Doug Elmendorf "half baked garbage". I'm relieved to hear you weren't doing that. In which case, you must also accept the fact that Elmendorf is in effect saying Obama was dishonest in claiming (after the 60 votes were assured through coercion and bribery) that "This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program." Maybe you are finally coming to your senses? Will wonders never cease.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hey Joe. Did you see this? Hot off the press ...

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/23/now-they-tell-us-cbo-double-co



So maybe the CBO is in cahoots with democrats. Why else wait until democrats secured the 60 votes before telling us something as important as this ... something that proves Obama lied when he stated "This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program."

So it looks like you were taken in by a lie, Joe, and used to spread that lie. Shouldn't that make you or a bit more skeptical of the democrats?

Nah. You shouldn't consider Sen. Sessions' remarks more reliable than those of the CBO.

Here is the memo released today:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-23-Trust_Fund_Accounting.pdf

It was on the topic of the effect of the bill--including the recently added manager's amendments--on the Hospital Insurance trust fund (from which Medicare Part A benefits are drawn). As always, the CBO is responding to a request (from the Senate, in this case).

The story you quote and the blog that story cites as a reference mischaracterized this memo.

So nobody at the CBO was lying.

From the CBO memo:

The improvement in Medicare’s finances would not be matched by a corresponding improvement in the federal government’s overall finances. CBO and JCT estimated that the PPACA as originally proposed would add more than $300 billion ($246 billion + $69 billion + interest) to the balance of the HI trust fund by 2019, while reducing federal budget deficits by a total of $130 billion by 2019. Thus, the trust fund would be recording additional saving of more than $300 billion during the next 10 years, but the government as a whole would be doing much less additional saving.

But go on relying on your sources rather than doing something as radical as actually reading the memo.

Here's the final sentence--the one your story is talking about:

To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.

I think it's pointing out that this increased savings in the HI trust fund should not be counted as a savings in the general federal budget. I don't think the CBO is saying that that's what they did on their previous report.

However, it's nice to see you finally admitting that you're a conspiracy theorist on this CBO-and the Democrats stuff. It was so awkward when you were denying what you previously said.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But once again--back onto the topic of this thread. How exactly do premiums paid to private insurance companies count as taxes?

And if they did count as taxes, how would they increase rather than decrease the cost to the federal budget?