About those CBO numbers. . .
While Democrats and their lock-step lickspittles are just plum “giddy” about the CBO numbers saying that the Pelosi reconciliation bill will cut the deficit, more sober analysts are pointing out some uncomfortable facts to the Democrats, you know, like, well, these numbers are based on a lot of estimates.
Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, remarked:
The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press – and spinning for partisan gain – numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm.
(H/t: Ed Morrissey.) And Ryan’s not the only one to wonder how a new federal government entitlement could save money which would mean it would do something a federal social program has never done before.
Our reader Sonicfrog, his head not buried in Iliad scholarship, has had the time to look more closely than I at the bill and the CBO analysis and shows just how it burdens small business. He also points out something about the CBO analysis that those giddy Democrats just don’t want you to notice:
In the MSNBC article that came out today, concerning the CBO assessment, I noticed this paragraph:
Hospitals and doctors, drug companies and insurers would gain millions of new paying customers, but they would also have to adjust to major changes. Medicare cuts would force hospitals to operate more efficiently or risk going out of business.
Uh Hu. There is already a shortage of hospitals and emergency rooms across the country, and many are currently surviving by the skin of their teeth, operating on a bare bones budget. An increase in medical coverage will increase the demand for these facilities. So the government will allow struggling hospitals to go out of business, especially if the reason they go out of business can be tied to this government regulation?
Read the whole thing. In other words, to get to the budget savings, Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues plan on cutting Medicare which will burden hospitals now dependent on such government largesse. So, some will out of business and we have fewer hospitals (thus less health care).
The more people know about this legislation, the less they’ll like this. No wonder Democrats are rushing to vote on it, trying to get this done on a weekend when most people spend their time spending time with their families and enjoying their favorite past times.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I guess what I am missing in this whole Democrat boondoggle is what, exactly, would they be spending the money on? I see lots of pork. If it is supposed to be revenue neutral, why would they be spending an average of 900 billion a year, and on what? The news doesn’t tell us.
Comment by William Teach — March 18, 2010 @ 5:29 pm - March 18, 2010
“…these numbers are based on a lot of estimates.”
Well, duh! What else could they possibly be based on?
“And Ryan’s not the only one to wonder how a new federal government entitlement could save money”
Huh? The Ryan quote you offer us says nothing about wondering how an entitlement can save money. He just claims that the CBO numbers havent been released yet.
The notion that the bill will save money has been discussed for over a year now, and has been confirmed by many rounds of CBO scoring. How can this be news to anyone anymore?
“Medicare cuts would force hospitals to operate more efficiently or risk going out of business.”
Woooooo. Is this like some terrible thing? Funny to hear a bunch of committed capitalists whining about a business needing to be efficient or else failing.
The truth is, as everyone who knows anything about this subject would admit, the central problem we face, both in the health care system itself and in the federal budget (and the economy as a whole for that matter) is the absurdly high rate of medical inflation. We either find a way to control those rates, or we have very very huge problems.
I know the conservative answer is to keep 30 or 40 million people out of the healthcare system – so that their lack of adequate care can be where the savings occur. Dems believe that everyone should have a basic level of ongoing care, whether they can afford it or not, and that vast sums can be saved from forcing efficiencies in the system
So yes – hospitals should be forced to operate more efficiently. I am confident that they will find ways to do that without going out of business.
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - March 18, 2010
there are legitimate questions regarding how reform will impact the supply of health care services, but you aren’t asking them. instead, you resort anti-government platitudes, as though it’s self-evident that reform will lead to catastrophe. to most of your readers, that’s fine, but i’m not convinced. your argument needs actual evidence, perhaps of the historical variety. medicare and medicaid both expanded the demand for health care services by increasing the number of insured individuals. how many hospitals shuttered their doors in response? how many doctors and nurses went galt after these reforms were passed?
Comment by Chad — March 18, 2010 @ 5:51 pm - March 18, 2010
OK, Chad, please provide the evidence since you support the program the Democrats have been pushing of when such programs have led to a more efficient delivery of improved services.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 18, 2010 @ 5:57 pm - March 18, 2010
No, no, once again, you get the conservative position wrong. We don’t want to keep people out of the heath care system.
And your confidence in Democrats in breath-taking. I mean, even a leading Democratic Senator doesn’t buy your confidence about Senate action on the House bill.
You refuse to even argue with points I make rebutting one of their (and your) sacrosanct talking points.
It’s breathtaking given how much time you spend so much time on a conservative blog how ignorant you remain of our ideas. Obviously, you’re not here to engage us.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 18, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - March 18, 2010
dude, i’m not the one making naked assertions and screeching that they sky is falling. the burden of proof is yours. you made the argument; now man up and prove it.
Comment by Chad — March 18, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - March 18, 2010
“We don’t want to keep people out of the heath care system.”
Oh really? There have been tens of millions of people outside the system for a long time. Clinton tried to address the issue, and y’all killed that effort. Y’all had complete control of DC for a while, and you did nothing about it. Now we have a bill that will make a major advance on including everyone, and once again, you are out to kill it.
Sorry, but the evidence is all on one side of this.
You are so quick to melt down and bluster about what I choose to address – just look at your own comment here though. Your original post spoke about Ryan, and what he said in his post. I directly addressed that. You ignore the point I made.
You made a statement about saving money. I directly addressed that too. And again, you ignore my comment. And finally, what seems to be the biggest point in your post, about Medicare cuts – I addressed that directly too. And you ignore that comment too.
And then you turn around and accuse me of not addressing your points or not trying to engage??????
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 6:08 pm - March 18, 2010
Tano, nice revisionist history. It was Democrats who forced Clinton to abandon HillaryCare.
People are welcome to purchase health insurance. Many many people CHOOSE not to. I thought your side was about choice? Oh, wait, no, you are going to mandate that people purchase insurance, at the barrel of a jail cell, if Pelosi has her way.
In poll after poll, the American people are much more against this disaster of a piece of legislation, yet, y’all want to jam it down the People’s throats. Remind me, folks, wouldn’t that be called “tyranny”?
Comment by William Teach — March 18, 2010 @ 6:21 pm - March 18, 2010
how many doctors and nurses went galt after these reforms were passed?
Quite a few, actually.
Oh really? There have been tens of millions of people outside the system for a long time.
Several million by their own choice not to purchase it, which is their right.
Furthermore, Tano, how much did you contribute last year to purchasing health insurance for other people? How much was that? Did you put your own money where your mouth is? Did you reach into your pocket and pay for the health care for the “poor” over which you keep sniffling? Why not?
Didn’t think so.
And that’s really what this discussion is about. You are a moocher who is trying to rationalize stealing from other people to fund your own health insurance. You don’t want to pay. You refuse to spend your own money and instead try to use governmental power to take from other people.
Ifr you truly cared about other people, Tano, you would be spending your own money instead of trying to steal from others. You don’t. That much is clear.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2010 @ 6:23 pm - March 18, 2010
‘I mean, even a leading Democratic Senator doesn’t buy your confidence about Senate action on the House bill.”
Whats that mean Dan? Conrad simply raises the possibility that the Senate might have to modify the House bill of amendments. Obviously it would be better if that did not happen, but if it did, so what? The bill would have to go back to the House for another vote. Hopefully they work out the differences before starting all this, but worst case, it is delayed for a few weeks.
You original claim was that the Senate would simply refuse to take up the bill of amendments at all, and simply leave the Senate bill as the unamended law of the land. Are you willing to admit now that that aint gonna happen?
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - March 18, 2010
Again, Tano, how much did you contribute last year to purchasing health insurance for other people? How much was that? Did you put your own money where your mouth is? Did you reach into your pocket and pay for the health care for the “poor” over which you keep sniffling? Why not?
Why won’t you answer questions, Tano? Are you afraid? Are the facts not on your side? Are you a coward?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2010 @ 6:32 pm - March 18, 2010
No, Tano, I never said the Senate would refuse to take up the House Bill. I said it was possible. If you’re going to spend so much time on our blog, please get our points right.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 18, 2010 @ 6:42 pm - March 18, 2010
not quite, nd30. your article shows how lowering reimbursement rates on medicaid have lead some doctors to stop accepting medicaid patients. it doesn’t say that doctors quit practicing or that hospitals closed their doors when medicaid was passed back in the 1960s.
still waiting, dan….
Comment by Chad — March 18, 2010 @ 6:48 pm - March 18, 2010
Sorry, Chad, you’re the one backing this vast new bureaucracy, you’r supporting this supposedly big change.
I’ve blogged enough on this issues and provided numerous links to people making more thoughtful arguments on this point than I ever could. And as I noted in the post (if you bothered to read it), I’m busy with other things–guess my Iliad reference was just beyond you.
You’re telling us how wonderful all this is, yet you just don’t provide any evidence to back you you sense of wonder and delight.
Given that you’re not willing to argue my points, I don’t really think I need devote any time to answer your challenges. Not just that, from the tone of your rhetoric, I don’t think you’re as much interested in hearing my arguments as in baiting me. And if I did take the time to spell them out, I don’t think you’d acknowledge them nor would there be any chance they’d change your mind.
So, meet my challenge and then I’ll consider yours. Recall, you came to my blog, not me to yours.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 18, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - March 18, 2010
not quite, nd30. your article shows how lowering reimbursement rates on medicaid have lead some doctors to stop accepting medicaid patients.
Indeed it does. And, since that’s the only kind of health insurance that’s going to be available after the Obamacare takeover — government price-controlled — the net effect will be that doctors and medical service providers will simply choose to take those who can pay in cash or through other means.
“Going Galt” doesn’t mean that you stop doing everything. It means that you stop doing things that contribute to or support an oppressive Obama-esque regime. Obviously you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2010 @ 7:00 pm - March 18, 2010
what a joke.
Comment by Chad — March 18, 2010 @ 7:09 pm - March 18, 2010
After watching real journalists question a slippery and uninformed polititian (Obama) last nite on independent Fox News, anyone else think the rest of the state run media will take the hint and actually start to do the same, speak truth to power, now that fox has shown how a man can be a real journalist.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 18, 2010 @ 7:37 pm - March 18, 2010
Agreed Chad,
This unconstitutional assault on liberties by the liberals should be a joke.
unfortunately, no one is laughing.
What is obamacare going to do when organizations go Wallgreens
Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2010 @ 7:38 pm - March 18, 2010
Woooooo. Is this like some terrible thing? Funny to hear a bunch of committed capitalists whining about a business needing to be efficient or else failing.
Tano, here’s the problem. Many hospitals ARE ALREADY operating on a bare-bones budget. Two of our hospitals here in Fresno have at least one wing completely shut down due to budget constraints. Having to hire even more staff to do the gobs of extra paperwork in order to comply with bill will only exacerbate the situation. And when those hospitals on the edge start to go under, will the government allow them to close down????? Or will they get bailed out, adding to the repercussions of passing this flawed health care reform bill.
I was talking to one of my nurse friends on Sunday, and what she had to say was interesting. There is a nursing shortage, but it’s not because there aren’t enough nursing candidates. It’s because hospitals cannot afford to hire the needed amount in order to satisfy the staffing needs (yes, I know, let the puns fly). The nurses they DO hire are private contractors, or travelers – nurses that sign on for six months to a year, and then move to another hospital. There are tons of new nurse graduates from all sorts of colleges, both state-run and private, but hospitals don’t hire many of them, even though they are salary cheaper than travelers. Why? Two reasons; the traveler nurse has years of experience doing the job, and will be able to do the job and supplement the staff immediately. A new fresh-out-of-nursing school one has to go through six months of extensive on-the-job training, with is monitored by a more experienced nurse, which adds inefficiency to the nursing staff as a whole. And since traveler nurses are private contractors who move around a lot, they usually have their own insurance arrangements, a cost the hospital doesn’t have to cover.
Oh, did I mention that malpractice insurance goes up for hospitals that take a larger percent of nurses-in-training?
I really should blog this.
PS. Dan, I made an error in the post the first line should read “Uh Hu. There is already a shortage”. Could you please fix? Thanks
Comment by Sonicfrog — March 18, 2010 @ 8:25 pm - March 18, 2010
PS. Here is a link to one of the traveler hiring agencies that provides insurance.
http://www.50statesstaffing.com/
Comment by Sonicfrog — March 18, 2010 @ 8:28 pm - March 18, 2010
Fixed
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 18, 2010 @ 8:35 pm - March 18, 2010
Oh this is just great! If the Dems do for health care what they have done for the educational system in this country we are all soooo screwed. I am a Chicago Public School teacher and horror stories abound here in Chicago about out of control bureaucracies. We also have a budget shortfall projected for next year to be between 700 million and a billion dollars.
I suppose somewhere in this bill the Demmies have affirmative action programs hidden?! Last year a teacher “created” a bulletin board on Black History. She labeled it “No your Black History”…..Argggg!
Comment by zgary — March 18, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - March 18, 2010
So why were they waiting, this week, for CBO scores? And shouldn’t they know by now that the CBO needs more than a laundry list to work with? How can THIS be news to anyone anymore?
Except for the 17 million (by liberal’s numbers) that this disaster won’t cover and the 400K+ (by Reid’s numbers) that will die while waiting for ObamaCareless to kick in. Not to mention liberals have, for decades, been whining that there’s just too many people in this world and that many need to die off. Just think of all the money that can be saved by providing shitty care.
Medicare and Medicaid have already denied care to Americans. How many people have died off already because Uncle Sugar said “no”? And the liberals want more of the same?
Medicare and Medicaid are broke. We’re borrowing money to make pay outs for Socialist Stupidity. And the liberals want more of the same?
Medicare fraud is now the top money making crime of choice and the liberals want more of the same?
Please, Tano. It’s clear from all the words and deeds of the liberal left that they don’t give a f*ck about the American people. You don’t have to twist yourself in knots trying to pretend otherwise.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 18, 2010 @ 9:43 pm - March 18, 2010
I suspect ObafascistCare will work as well as other Dem notions, such as The War On Poverty, Vietnam, Pay Go (which lasted 11 days), treating terrorism as strictly a law enforcement issue, Stimulus (say, didn’t Obama sign another jobs bill today? Doesn’t say much about the Generational Theft Act, eh?), Dukakis for President, etc and so on.
Comment by William Teach — March 18, 2010 @ 10:23 pm - March 18, 2010