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: Peter Dierks who wrote (38967)	11/23/2009 11:48:16 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A 'Heritage blog' (not even a proper econometrics projection) is the source for "$2.6 Trillion" of your guesstimate? And the "$250 Billion doctor fix" --- is exactly the same issue I already responded to, (and which response you have since ignored), pointing out that this is exactly the same can that has been kicked down the road ANNUALLY for nearly every single year of the two term Bush administration... making it 'nothing new' and not really 'part' of the proposed health care reform that under way currently in congress insofar as it has NEVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED, not even ONCE! And a "$228 billion" (ten year) reduction in hospital payments which you believe will not actually happen is the final line-item you claim for you "$3.4 Trillion" guesstimate.... I would contend that you are yet a very LONG WAY from quantifying anything even in the range of "1 Trillion" yet... let ALONE the fanciful claim for "$3.4 Trillion"! <GGG> On the other-hand, (as I've already pointed out), and totally UNLIKE the Trillions added by Bush directly to the national debt, the vast bulk (if not all of it) of these proposed changes are PAID for. And would thus not add to national debt. From my previous post: I have no doubt AT ALL that there are some fairly 'optimistic assumptions' baked into the current Senate proposal. However the CBO does project a $130 Billion deficit reduction as a result or the new proposal's enactment... and, even assuming (as you and I both do), that there is some budgetary fluff in the proposal... it most likely pales in magnitude when compared to the massive budgetary chicanery and hypocrisy that went immediately before. This about the Bush administration Medicare Part D changes, massive transfer of national wealth to Big Pharma that they were, (from an earlier post of the Forbes article by Bruce Bartlett): Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion [over ten year horizon]. Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.) Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees.... Message 26116735