heckofajobbrownie Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period....CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, 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 GDP. ....By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million....Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. ....Other components of the proposal would alter spending under Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and other federal health programs....In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would reduce direct spending by $404 billion over the 2010–2019 period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 As usual, you dissed the CBO before, when their report was negative. spin, little balerina, spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 And what is the projection after the first 10 year? If it were a chart it would be like climbing a steep cliff. These Libs who want to push this thing through will spin any lie they can to sway public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I wonder what the Vegas odds are for betting on a ten year government projection? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period....CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, 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 GDP. ....By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million....Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. ....Other components of the proposal would alter spending under Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and other federal health programs....In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would reduce direct spending by $404 billion over the 2010–2019 period. FWIW, has anybody done research on the impact of late-50ish people - those who work primarily for health coverage - taking a public option-type program and then retiring, thus, opening employment opportunities for some younger, perhaps with family, folks? I am interested in learning more about that 'hidden' impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 FWIW, has anybody done research on the impact of late-50ish people - those who work primarily for health coverage - taking a public option-type program and then retiring, thus, opening employment opportunities for some younger, perhaps with family, folks? I am interested in learning more about that 'hidden' impact. I wonder how many here actually believe there will be a "public optiion" in the final bill. Or if so that it'd pass. Very few I'd wager. But if there was (along with reasonable raise in compensation) you can just about be sure that the 50 somethings will be out of luck as only young low risk employees will be feasible to hire. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I wonder how many here actually believe there will be a "public optiion" in the final bill. Or if so that it'd pass. Very few I'd wager. But if there was (along with reasonable raise in compensation) you can just about be sure that the 50 somethings will be out of luck as only young low risk employees will be feasible to hire.WSS Maybe I misunderstand, Steve. My question revolves around providing an option - any type of option - that incents workers working primarily for health benefits to retire, thus opening up job opportunities for the younger folks. Are you saying the options - those that might incent older workers to retire - won't be affordable, except for people in their 20s and 30s?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Maybe I misunderstand, Steve. Or I did... My question revolves around providing an option - any type of option - that incents workers working primarily for health benefits to retire, thus opening up job opportunities for the younger folks. It'd depend on how much that public option would cost if one had to buy it. I mean if somebody is working because they need the benefits they could quit today if those benefits were picked up. Of course if those benefits are at or near market price I doubt it would make any difference. Are you saying the options - those that might incent older workers to retire - won't be affordable, except for people in their 20s and 30s?? That'd be my guess. I can't imagine any insurance worth having is going to be very cheap for 50+ guys whose costs are on the rise. Maybe one of the supporters could give us a guess as to the cost to a self or unemployed worker. Or explain if the public option would cost employers the same regardless of employees cost risk? Or if employers will even be able to select and pay for a public option for their workers? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Is it only me or do others find it 'enlightening' that Heck starts a thread and, when the thread takes a turn where people are asking questions and looking for answers to certain pointed questions, Heck goes silent. Heck, you used to wax nostalgic for the good old days when you could engage the likes of Toop in 'intelligent' conversation. Do you have anything to add here?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 What's the intelligent point you're referring to? As for the point of the thread, it was completely ignored. And I believe that in the last 3-4 months I've probably started no more than 8 threads. So I don't know where you're getting this idea. I also have a job with multiple deadlines every day. I can't rationalize the amount of time I spend on here as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 By the way, Steve, I'd be willing to do the old bet with anyone in here that there will be a public option in the final bill. Absolutely. $100 to Fisher House for anyone who wants to bet me. There will be a public option in the final bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 The unsaid point here, is that this analysis involves calculating the plan's idea that 450 BILLION will be cut/trimmed/saved from expenditures on Medicare. Congress will NOT vote to cut Medicare - that would be a heyl of a disaster. The whole idea to take over hc completely is a disaster. Why...not....simply.... solve the problem of many Americans not having hc, and leave the rest of what really does work, ALONE? WHY DOES THIS PLAN have to be a TOTAL TAKEOVER of our system as it is now? WHY are congresspeople voting for it, when they have NOT READ THE ACTUAL BILL ? Because some of the more leftist congressmen, are going with the power grabbing via huge government control. To them, it isn't about the legitmacy of the bill, it's about getting gov impowered in size and control. Which, leads me to figure, that's what Obama wants, like Chavez or a Selaya... Just look at the entire picture, for what all pieces are in place so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.