Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (36110)	7/29/2009 6:07:26 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag." Yeah, they (CBO) are not allowed to use "dynamic scoring" (like Bush was so fond of, and Gingrich, et al). And, admittedly, this "independent panel of medical experts" thing is a pretty thinly fleshed out idea after all... (but only one very small piece of the entire puzzle). Then, there is also much more about the CBO's analysis, (& quoting CBO conclusions): CBO boosts Obama's health care plan Says proviso 'won't kill private insurers' Washington Times By Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact) and S.A. Miller (Contact) Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 28, 2009, updated 12:09 p.m., July 28, 2009 washingtontimes.com And this: "... Put most simply, the CBO’s track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit -— by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBO’s estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. That’s right: In the BBA’s first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected." "It comes from this Roll Call column that explains why the CBO's task is so difficult and inherently results in errors; essentially, the assumptions that CBO makes about the world and the requirement that it look 10 years into the future make forecasting difficult." UNDERSTANDING CBO'S HEALTH-CARE ESTIMATES. prospect.org And, (generally detailing the terrible consequences of continuing with the status quo): "Clearly, health care costs have reached levels that are adversely impacting entrepreneurial activity...." How the Health Care Mess Affects Entrepreneurship [From: Your The Boss, The Art of Running a Small Business] By Scott A. Shane boss.blogs.nytimes.com "...the cost of Medicare, the biggest single item driving federal spending...." "...Many health care experts believe that one main reason we spend far more on health than any other advanced nation, without better health outcomes, is the fee-for-service system in which hospitals and doctors are paid for procedures, not results." Op-Ed Columnist: Costs and Compassion July 24, 2009 By PAUL KRUGMAN nytimes.com And, the President speaking about the rising cost of the status quo: “If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health-care costs over the next 10 years,” he said, “that’s guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that.” “That’s what we have right now,” he said. “So if we don’t change, we can’t expect a different result.” (President Obama speaking at his news conference on Wednesday night.) nytimes.com