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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (16147)	4/5/2010 6:11:18 PM
From: Murrey Walker	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

The CBO scored this and found that it saves money. There's nothing else to acknowledge. Do you actually think that the democrat leadership sat on their hands and waited for the CBO to roll up its sleeves and put the green eyeshade on, and much later…come up with a budget that came under the bar of being cost effective? The only question is: how many times did Harry & Nan have to go back to the accountants to get the right number? Amongst other accounting techniques, the CBO operates on the GIGO method. That's Garbage In, Garbage Out just in case you didn't know. Gaming the CBO to come up with the right number is the only GAME in D.C. Now do you want to talk about AGW and "Settled Science"? ;-)

To: Alighieri who wrote (16147)	4/5/2010 6:40:28 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The CBO scored this and found that it saves money. So, is it your opinion that the CBO scoring process resulted in a reasonable estimate of the effects of the new legislation on future deficits? Or are you just assuming it for some reason, or what? You do realize that CBO does not have a great history of "getting it right" scoring these bills? So, why would you accept the CBO score as meaningful?

To: Alighieri who wrote (16147)	4/5/2010 7:06:02 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If you want to know the effect of a variable on a plan you change that variable and then measure the effect. You don't change two or more variables...unless you are trying to obfuscate. Hey, that's my line. I'm looking only at the cost variable, one single variable. You're the one who is slipping in the universal coverage variable. One at a time, I say. Also, I took the PO cohort, which if you recall was "people who are either uninsured due to cost or uninsurability or who have individual policies that are too costly or too limited" and compared the cost of that cohort under the status quo ante system against the cost of that cohort under PO. You're the one who wants to have unequal cohorts. "You insist on comparing it to a (non) plan that leaves 30M people without insurance. " Well, yeah, I do. Because part of the cohort happens to be insured in one plan and not in the other. Let the chips fall where they may. Hey don't make me use an analogy now. Do you mean my "apples and oranges"? It wasn't a conscious analogy. It's just such a common expression it slipped in unnoticed. Sorry. We are talking about the effect on cost of a PO. A plan with it, a plan without it. You may be. I sure haven't been. I see no point in making that comparison outside the confines of legislators picking which option to put forward. They picked on, so now it's moot. Once the plan without it has been installed long enough to see what we have, if someone wants to propose adding a PO, then your comparison would be meaningful.