CBO numbers a boost for health-reform passage

News coming out of the Congressional Budget Office should add momentum to the Democrats’ effort to pass health-reform legislation, at least in the House. Democratic leadership has been tweaking the bill’s language to get the financial numbers right, and it appears to have succeeded.

From The Hill:

Health reform legislation headed for a House vote will cost $940 billion over the next decade, according to the CBO.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told lawmakers that the health bill would cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, and $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation.

The bill is more expensive than the healthcare measures passed by both the House and the Senate last year, though the CBO said that the current bill would make larger reductions in the deficit….

The release of the CBO score sets into motion a 72-hour endgame on healthcare that could mean a vote in the House on the package as early as Sunday morning.

The vote won’t be until Sunday to allow three days between the finalization of the package, expected soon, and the House vote.

Politico reports that under the CBO analysis, the bill will ensure that 95 percent of Americans have health insurance. In addition, “the CBO determined that the bill would reduce the annual growth in Medicare spending by 1.4 percent annually, and extend Medicare’s solvency by at least nine years, House Democrat aides said.”

In a related story, The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study on health-insurance reform in Massachusetts and its impact on the number of abortions performed in that state. In contrast to the plan in Washington, the Massachusetts plan provides subsidized coverage for abortions.

According to the study by Dr. Patrick Whelan, “the recent experience in Massachusetts suggests that universal health care coverage has been associated with a decrease in the number of abortions performed, despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress.”

“The number of abortions in Massachusetts in 2006, the year before the new law was implemented, was 24,245, including 4,024 among teenagers…..

In 2007, the first year of Commonwealth Care, the number of abortions fell to 24,128, and in 2008, it fell to 23,883 — a decline of 1.5% from the 2006 level The number of abortions among teenagers in 2008 fell to 3,726, a 7.4% decline from 2006….

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed.”

745 comments Add your comment

Mick

March 18th, 2010
10:31 am

I just have one question, historically, how accurate is the CBO?

Shawny

March 18th, 2010
10:34 am

I challenge the deficit reduction numbers. Kind of like the spouse saying, “I saved money by buying this”, when actually, money would have been saved by not buying it.

Besides, 130b over 10 years is like a couple of dimes to me. No impact.

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
10:40 am

If we dont know what is in this HCare bill then how were the costs/cost savings determined?

Yeah Come ON!

March 18th, 2010
10:41 am

Give a kid 10 dollars and tell him not to spend it all. What does he do? He spends half-again as much.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
10:41 am

“…tweaking the bill’s language to get the financial numbers right…”

Speaks volume JB. This whole process has been a farce.

JB, you are an “ends justifies the means” guy…no doubt. A leftist hack.

No matter how justified your criticism of corporate America when it comes to bogus accounting practices and bribery, its quite o.k. to excuse it as part of “the legislative process” when it is done by Congress. If the accounting chicanery and tax payer funded bribery was done anywhere else other than Capitol Hill, dozens of indictments would be imminent.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:41 am

Not to worry…..Faux News and their sycophants will continue to challenge this. meanwhile the AMA, AARP, and 59,000 Catholic Nuns support the bill (the latter defying their Bishops).

It’s too bad that the GOP represents corporate America….

Meanwhile, go to the website for the US House of Representatives to see what this bill will do on a district-by-district basis throughout the USA: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1924:benefits-of-health-care-reform-district-by-district-impact&catid=169:legislation&Itemid=55

Doggone/GA

March 18th, 2010
10:42 am

“If we dont know what is in this HCare bill then how were the costs/cost savings determined?”

Didn’t you know? The CBO has this big box in the middle of their office, and when someone asks about the cost/savings of a bill…they pull out a piece of paper and whatever is written on it…that’s IT!

Jay

March 18th, 2010
10:43 am

Historically, Mick, the CBO is conservative in its estimates, in the financial rather than political sense. In other words, it tends to underestimate the benefits and overestimate the costs, which is fine. I’d rather my analysts do that than make the opposite mistake. It is also widely cited as the nonpartisan gold standard for budget analysis.

Shawny, does the $1.3 TRILLION number in the second decade get your attention?

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:43 am

It’s kinda funny reading about GOPers who say they will take back Congress and repeal the healthcare reform bill. Kinda like they repealed Medicare. lol

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
10:44 am

Let’s roll.

Yeah Come ON!

March 18th, 2010
10:47 am

Didn’t you know? The CBO has this big box in the middle of their office, and when someone asks about the cost/savings of a bill…they pull out a piece of paper and whatever is written on it…that’s IT!

Literally speaking, I thought you were very literal?

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
10:47 am

But…but…what about the CHILDREN?!

Jay

March 18th, 2010
10:47 am

Outhouse, they were determined this way:

The Dems sent CBO a preliminary draft.

CBO analysed it, and said here are the cost numbers, here are the deficit reduction numbers, here are the numbers of people covered.

The Dems took those numbers, adjusted the language in the bill, and asked the CBO for a new analysis. That went back and forth until the bill produced the kind of impact the Dems wanted. It was an entirely rational, logical and honest process.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
10:48 am

What JB has left unsaid here is that the CBO “scores” only the info it is provided by Congress thus the “tweaking” to get the numbers “right”.

JB,I will bet you ANYTHING that these CBO numbers are not anywhere close to reality ten years from now.

Doggone/GA

March 18th, 2010
10:48 am

“Literally speaking, I thought you were very literal?”

Stupid questions only deserve stupid answers.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:49 am

“It’s been a long time, but I know
A change is gonna come, oh yes it will”

Gale

March 18th, 2010
10:49 am

I wonder what the CBO would find if all the non-healthcare related items were removed from this bill.

Peadawg

March 18th, 2010
10:51 am

I’m getting confused one which bill we’re talking about(there’s been so many). Does this have the public option in it or not?

Disgusted

March 18th, 2010
10:51 am

I can hardly wait until Outhouse and the others dependent on taxpayers and insureds in the event of a health disaster have to go looking for insurance coverage.

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
10:52 am

A tale of caution for those who post a bit too emotionally:

“A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message but described it as a joke. In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message – threatening to ‘rip out your … heart and feed it to you’ and to ‘pound your head in with an ice pick’ – conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech. The dissenting justice, Frances Rothschild, said no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site – in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults – would interpret any of them as a serious threat.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/BANA1CGRR9.DTL

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:52 am

Peadawg….no public option in this bill.

getalife

March 18th, 2010
10:52 am

photo

Well played libs.

I like the spine revealed at the end of the process.

The cons have surrendered.

Financial reform should end the gop because they side with the bankers.

Drew

March 18th, 2010
10:53 am

The CBO estimated that Medicare Part D would increase the national debt by half a trillion over ten years . . . and the Republican Party twisted every arm it could to pass it.

The CBO estimates that health care reform will reduce the national debt over by $100 billion over ten years . . . and the Republican Party twists every arm it can to oppose it.

Because the Republican Party is fiscally responsible. Right?

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
10:53 am

“It was an entirely rational, logical and honest process”….ROTFLMAO!!!

What is “logical” JB is that the Dems would “tweak” the legislation until the numbers came out “right” and you would defend it as “logical, rational and honest.”

Peadawg

March 18th, 2010
10:54 am

So if there’s no public option, how are we going to provide millions of people w/ health insurance w/out raising the deficit? Something’s not adding up…..

I wish we knew HOW the CBO came up with these numbers and what exactly they were provided.

Mick

March 18th, 2010
10:55 am

**It was an entirely rational, logical and honest process.**

Jay, good luck trying to convince some here of that. Don’t you realize that gov’t is not the solution, gov’t is the PROBLEM? I say let’s go with it and see what happens. Afterall, unless they changed the language, most of it kicks in 2014.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:56 am

jewcowbot: There are laws making “terroristic threats” illegal. This includes threatening people with bodily harm. If you read any of the weekly papers up here in the mountains (they list arrests), you will see that it happens regularly. All too often people ignore these threats and a woman gets killed by her husband or a stalker……

Hussein

March 18th, 2010
10:56 am

Hey liberal idiots. In 1965, the house ways and means committe (bipartisan)predicted that the entire cost of medicare in 1990 would cost $12 billion…actual cost? $110 billion. A 25 year prediction. I have no faith in the CBO second decade estimate. No one can predict that far into the future with so much uncertainty..if so, they’d be gypsies.

Paul

March 18th, 2010
10:57 am

I usually comment on Jay’s writing first, but I want to do some background reading on the numbers.

Mick

To piggyback on Jay’s comments, CBO begins with assumptions and constraints provided by the requestor. Their methodologies are consistent and sound. However, any cost analysis, projected into the outyears, is probably going to be different than what actual conditions will show when one actually arrives at a given year. This does not mean the analysis is not accurate; rather, factors come along that change the assumptions that went into the analysis.

Another real value is, regardless of how accurate a ten-year estimate compares to the reality after ten years, the analyses provide a way to compare various proposals, if the assumptions are consistent. Where it is weak is when those proposals incorporate differing assumptions, such as Proposal A assumes no rise in medical reimbursements over ten years while Proposal B assumes 5 percent growth each year.

Which is why the statement “CBO says it WILL do this’ or ‘CBO SAYS’ should be taken with caution. One must look at the underlying assumptions to see what that means.

For example, if you’re considering buying a car, you can look at Intellichoice dot com and find maintenance costs over five years consistently computed, by recommended service requirements and standard labor rates. However, if you looked at another source that was markedly more expensive and you found that it included services in addition to the recommendations (injector cleaner ever 10,000 miles, power steering fluid change every 20,000 miles) you’d be able to make a more informed decision on which car was more expensive to maintain.

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
10:57 am

off topic, but… Damnitalltohell.

This truly sucks.

Chilton had been scheduled to perform with Big Star on Saturday at the South by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas.

“Alex Chilton always messed with your head, charming and amazing you while doing so. His gift for melody was second to none, yet he frequently seemed in disdain of that gift,” the festival’s creative director, Brent Gulke, said in an e-mail.

(I just heard. Forgive me.)

Yeah Come ON!

March 18th, 2010
10:58 am

Stupid questions only deserve stupid answers.

I thought you were above all that, being a literalist and such.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
10:58 am

peadawg….You need to do just a little reading to understand where the savings occur. The Healthcare Reform Bill isn’t just about providing insurance to people who don’t have it. But I’m not going to waste my time doing your work for you. (hint: the answers to your question are all over the web)

SouthGaDawg

March 18th, 2010
10:59 am

Jay,

What about the analysis that the bill will increase insurance premiums?

One of the main reasons the Democrats have been arguing that we need “health-care reform” is because it will decrease insurance premiums. However, that’s not the case, as reported by the AJC yesterday:

http://www.ajc.com/business/fact-check-obama-plan-376684.html

And while we’re being honest, the only reason it will cut the deficit is because it will be raising taxes on Americans.

Further, it is quite ironic that the democrats are now touting that the CBO said the bill will reduce costs as a reason to vote for “reform,” when just last year the Democrats and Obama were telling America that the CBO was wrong when it determined that costs would rise under Health Care Reform.

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
10:59 am

Well if the catholic nuns approve of the HCare bill then what was I thinking.

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
11:00 am

In 1965, the house ways and means committe (bipartisan)predicted that the entire cost of medicare in 1990 would cost $12 billion…actual cost? $110 billion.

Cite, please. And make sure you’re talking inflation adjusted dollars. And make sure that you’re accounting for what was covered by Medicare in 1965, as opposed to what it was expanded to include over the years.

(And 110 billion actually sounds a bit cheap, if anything.)

Jay

March 18th, 2010
11:00 am

Pokey, would you rather they NOT tweak the bill so that the numbers came out wrong, i.e., added to the deficit?

Or would you rather they adjust the bill until — in the eyes of an unbiased experts — it actually cut our national debt?

For me, it’s not a hard question.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:01 am

Hussein: The cost of a gallon of gasoline in 1965 was $.30. Who would have thought that it would be $3.00 now? [SARC]

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:01 am

“That went back and forth until the bill produced the kind of impact the Dems wanted.”

So its the ole shell game. The red or blue flashlight.

Mick

March 18th, 2010
11:02 am

Paul

Nice breakdown, thanks – I still am in the affirmative for passing this bill.

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
11:02 am

And while we’re being honest, the only reason it will cut the deficit is because it will be raising taxes on Americans.

For the record, if the 940 billion over ten years is to be shouldered more or less equally (with, say, a median income earner bearing what would come to about 300 bucks per year per person), and it does what it says? It’s money very well spent.

Any other complaints?

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:04 am

N-GA,

“jewcowbot:” – is that my robot doppelgänger ;)

“All too often people ignore these threats and a woman gets killed by her husband or a stalker……”

Sadly so. Although I find this case interesting more as an example of cyber-bullying rather than terroristic threats.

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
11:04 am

Does this have the public option in it or not?

No, it does not. The Senate never came close to adopting it.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:05 am

Outhouse…..kinda like the Bush tax cuts (passed with reconciliation, BTW). But everyone really knew that federal revenues would decrease thus eliminating the surplus and setting the country up for financial armageddon.

Paul

March 18th, 2010
11:06 am

While I take a look at the analysis, I’ve a serious question.

What about the bill is ’socialism’?

Bill says insurance companies can’t deny coverage for preexisting conditions. Can’t pull their tricks of denying treatment because ‘we found you understated your weight by 20 pounds on your application ten years ago.’ Requires people to have insurance.

This last one – Jay posted a well-reasoned argument that this is essential to reducing costs, else people would get insurance when ill and cancel after treatment. For those who will wander off into the ‘gov’t can’t force me to buy insurance’ route: what is insurance? Payment for protection against loss? Payment doesn’t mean only $$$. No one can send their kids to public schools without being immunized, or, insuring their kids against contracting a disease. Parents provide some form of payment to immunize their children against future sickness (avoid a loss of time in school) as well as to not cause costs to flow to other people (the cost of getting sick because one isn’t immunized).

So what about it is socialism?

Hail to the Chief!

March 18th, 2010
11:06 am

They could vote as early as Sunday Morning. We will drive to church still needing a miracle from the Lord to heal us. We might drive home from church having the secular means to health? No longer needing that miracle? I wonder what it all means.

What if there was a public option when Jesus healed the blind man. “No thankyou, kind sir, my doctor is going to do RK and I’ll be just fine, but thanks for your concern.”

Or what if they had cryogenics when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. “Sorry, kind sir, but we can’t thaw Lazarus out yet, he’s set on a 50 year defrost cycle.”

Bravo4obamacare!

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:08 am

jewcowboy….the “t” is adjacent to the “y” on my keyboard. sorry…

Well, cyber-bullying has hit the legal system before. I expect it will only increase. Remember the mother who pretended to be a student and bullied a young girl (who eventually killed herself)? Tragic beyond belief.

Peadawg

March 18th, 2010
11:09 am

“The Healthcare Reform Bill isn’t just about providing insurance to people who don’t have it.”

Since when? That’s all I’ve heard. Providing affordable healthcare to everyone.

Sue the Cyberbullies now. Call a lawyer.

March 18th, 2010
11:11 am

“A tale of caution for those who post a bit too emotionally:

“A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message but described it as a joke. In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message – threatening to ‘rip out your … heart and feed it to you’ and to ‘pound your head in with an ice pick’ – conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech. The dissenting justice, Frances Rothschild, said no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site – in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults – would interpret any of them as a serious threat.”

Exactly!

Shawny

March 18th, 2010
11:12 am

Well, projecting second decade numbers is about as accurate as getting the weather prediction correct two weeks out. We’ll see.

On this piece:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

The part that makes me nervous is: “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. Insurance companies would face unprecendented federal regulation. Health care industries would be hit with new federal taxes, as would upper-income households.”

It is going to be very interesting to see how hospitals are impacted, and which ones go out of business with the cuts. Grady comes to mind immediately as one that I see in a financial crisis.

godless heathen

March 18th, 2010
11:12 am

Thanks Jay and the CBO. I needed a good laugh today.

Anyone willing to lay down money that the “reform” will reduce the deficit?

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:13 am

N-GA,

“the “t” is adjacent to the “y” on my keyboard. sorry…”

No need for apology…I figured that…and I actually like it. I may have to change…after all we are in the 21st century now…no more cowboys left :)

“Remember the mother who pretended to be a student and bullied a young girl (who eventually killed herself)? Tragic beyond belief.”

That an adult (and parent no less) did that baffles the mind…The fact that Lori Drew was acquitted underscores the need for laws to be changed.

Sue the Cyberbullies now. Call a lawyer.

March 18th, 2010
11:14 am

Some people have been stalked all over the internet by the same cyberbullies for years. The evidence lives forever, apparently, and is easily retrieved.
Call a lawyer people, if you’ve been cyberbullied, especially if the bully was a journalist or the editors of a newspaper. Then you’ve really got a case.

Cyberbullies!

AmVet

March 18th, 2010
11:15 am

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:15 am

Paul,

The left has at least tried reasoned debate to get people behind this bill. But the media (primarily FOX), talking heads, and a well-orchestrated campaign has influenced people irrespective of the facts. Examples:

- “we can’t afford this bill”
- “this is a government takeover of 1/6th of the economy”
- “death panels”
- “the federal government will start paying for abortions”
- “we are becoming a socialist country”
- “reconciliation is undemocratic”

oh well……

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:15 am

Paul @ 11.06,

Stop with your rational arguments…you know this is not the correct forum for that! ;)

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:16 am

“A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message”

Yet another assault on free speech and common sense.

“no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site – in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults – would interpret any of them as a serious threat.”

There it is.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:16 am

Jay, You are shamelessly defending the indefensible. This has been a b.s. process and the “score” is only as good as the info it is provided. You know that.

If you are so certain that this “score” is an assessment of “honest” info, then put your money where your mouth is. C’mon Jay!!

Keep defending the “legislative process” Jay, keeping defending it.

You are no doubt an “end justifies the means” “journalist”.

I am disappointed a “Jerry Ford” Republican like you could support such a travesty! LOL!

Disgusted

March 18th, 2010
11:18 am

So what about it is socialism?

Funny how this argument gets inserted into any government expenditure that actually helps working people. Tax cuts for the wealthy and big business? Why, that’s what government should do. But let Congress consider a bill to help some poor shmuck who’s lost his job and insurance coverage and it’s socialism. The same arguments were made and continue to be made against Social Security and Medicare, not to mention unemployment insurance.

And wait until you hear the squealing when some of these opponents are required to purchase health insurance, instead of sponging on the rest of us who’ve purchased such coverage. The mossbacks have already started by urging passage of state laws to prohibit mandatory health insurance coverage. Bottom line: without mandatory coverage, we’ll be back to where we started—the healthy opting out of insurance and only the sick and vulnerable opting in to higher and higher premiums.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:18 am

Peadawg…..try using The Google! “If you continue to just believe what people TELL you, you will remain ignorant.” (anon)

Doggone/GA

March 18th, 2010
11:18 am

“Yet another assault on free speech and common sense”

They said he can sue. They didn’t guarantee he would win.

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:19 am

Outhouse GoKart,

“Yet another assault on free speech and common sense.”

Ask the parents of Megan Meier if this is an assualt on free speech and common sense.

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:20 am

No…I dont think I will ask them anything.

GoingBroke

March 18th, 2010
11:20 am

They can tweak the bill all they want.. all it means is more taxes to pay and cover the cost. Just sort of an FYI.. premium costs in the state of Mass have gone up.. not down.. this was to cover the costs..

I guess I am baffled and how either ignorant or stupid people are that believe this pile of BS.. No wonder Obama got voted into office with zero experience..

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:21 am

Disgusted: If some states opt out, their citizens will likely travel to other states when they get sick and can’t pay for treatment. Kinda like people who enroll their kids in “good” school districts even though they don’t live there. They lie about their addresses.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:21 am

Of course, you can write whatever you want on YOUR blog JB. You are the master of the specious argument.

Funny when you quoted Gen Petraeus to buttress your opinion that “dont ask, don’t tell, should be overturned, you ignore the testimony given on the subject by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force. Just one of many examples.

Paul

March 18th, 2010
11:22 am

N-GA – jewcowboy

‘Excuse me’ to those who heard this yesterday. I was with a group of couples, some of whom are quite conservative. I heard the ’socialism’ bit, not just on health care. So I asked “what, precisely, is socialistic about his policies?’ I got the ‘please, please don’t go there’ look from one of the wives.

There was a bit of stammering, but no answers. One of my very, very good friends was in the group. But he knows to expect that of me. And I of him. Every so often he says ‘hmmmm, hadn’t thought of that….”

:-)

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:22 am

Outhouse GoKart,

And exactly when did threatening to “rip out your … heart and feed it to you” and to “pound your head in with an ice pick” become protected free speech?

Red

March 18th, 2010
11:23 am

Ever unflappable, our new young President confidently pushes his agenda forward, incrementally reforming 17% of the entire U.S. economy. Stay tuned for more- he’s still got three years to level the playing field. So SUCK IT Repubs!

Paul

March 18th, 2010
11:24 am

Disgusted

Mossbacks? What’s that?

I’ll defer to your judgment – if it’s a definition I don’t want to know, you needn’t answer.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:24 am

goingbroke: Look at the upside. Since you’re “going broke”, you will still be able to get heath coverage. This bill does try to help those in need.

Jay

March 18th, 2010
11:25 am

In Grady’s particular case, Shawny, this bill will probably be a big help. Much of its patient load is uninsured, which makes it difficult to survive financiallly; under this approach, that should change.

It might even reduce the financial load on taxpayers in Fulton and DeKalb, because the subsidy needed to sustain Grady would fall.

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:28 am

Outhouse GoKart,

“No…I dont think I will ask them anything.”

No…then how about the parents of Lawrence King?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting

I mean no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site would interpret any of them as a serious threat. Why would they? I mean it’s not like there is ever any violence against gay (or perceived gay) people, right?

Disgusted

March 18th, 2010
11:28 am

Mossback: n. An extremely old-fashioned or reactionary person.

Merriam’s Dictionary

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:28 am

Jay, follow the link in my 10:41. Then click on the representative of the district (would that be Rep. Lewis?). Then you can see how many people might be helped by this bill. It also includes what funds could be available to local hospitals.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:28 am

JB,
If this legislation is going to reduce our debt so much why are you calling for a BIGGER bill????

TINSTAAFL

March 18th, 2010
11:29 am

Could anybody who supports this bill please explain this. If we add 30+ million people to the healthcare system, where do we get the doctors to treat them in a timely manner? If we suddenly have an infinitely high demand (after all, it’s free!!!), how to we treat them with no rise in supply of doctors? I read an article just the other day that although everybody in MA has insurance, many have to wait MONTHS because there are not enough primary care physicians in MA to handle the demand. The whole idea of reform and expansion of coverage falls apart on the simple laws of supply and demand. If you want to get serious about treating more people, open more medical schools. A rise in supply of doctors would also cause a corresponding drop in price for healthcare.

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:29 am

Paul @ 11.22,

Very funny….there you go again stirring up trouble with logic.

Jess

March 18th, 2010
11:30 am

Jay,

Since the Mass. so closely resembles the latest health care version from Congress, perhaps you want to share with us how it is working for those in Mass.

godless heathen

March 18th, 2010
11:30 am

Better insurance at lower costs, reduced deficits, coverage for everyone, and a big rock candy mountain!!! I can’t wait!!!!

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:31 am

JB,

If the people of this nation is in such dire need for this legislation, then why don’t most of the benefits begin for four years???

Paul

March 18th, 2010
11:31 am

Disgusted

Whew. Thanks. I thought it might have been another example of a wonderful word whose meaning had been co-opted by political activists with a new, less -than- savory meaning.

Paul

March 18th, 2010
11:34 am

TINSTAAFL

[[If we add 30+ million people to the healthcare system, where do we get the doctors to treat them in a timely manner? ]]

They’re already in the healthcare system. Doctors are already seeing them. Some have no insurance but pay for care out of pocket. In some cases, doctors are already seeing them when care becomes critical. Maybe if there were some preventive, routine actions it wouldn’t get to that point?

Disgusted

March 18th, 2010
11:35 am

I thought it might have been another example of a wonderful word whose meaning had been co-opted by political activists with a new, less -than- savory meaning.

Actually, its derivation is from shellfish or the turtle. The older and more stodgy they get, the more algae (the “moss” is grown on their backs.

stands for decibels

March 18th, 2010
11:35 am

AmVet @ 11.15, thanks for that.

I have to admit that really digging up the Box Tops and Big Star catalog and giving it the hearing it deserves had been in my Round Tuit pile for ages. The bits and pieces I’ve heard from Chilton over the years (all on vinyl, in my home) were always engaging, and I got why people seemed to connect with him so strongly.

If folks are wondering what the fuss it all about, they could do far worse than to start out here

http://www.soundopinions.org/shownotes/2009/091109/shownotes.html

download the “album dissection” podcast, and take it from there.

N-GA

March 18th, 2010
11:35 am

Paul….thanks for the personal anecdote. Back at ya: I was having dinner in a restaurant with close friends (2 couples) who are staunch Republicans. I asked them if they would support making abortion illegal. They all responded that they would strongly oppose such legislation although they would not want to have their daughters have an abortion. They supported a woman’s right to choose. I closed the topic with the observation that electing a very conservative president or stacking the SC with very conservative judges could spell the end of “a woman’s right to choose.” The look on their faces was my just reward.

GoingBroke

March 18th, 2010
11:36 am

Jay
March 18th, 2010
11:25 am

“It might even reduce the financial load on taxpayers in Fulton and DeKalb, because the subsidy
needed to sustain Grady would fall.”

Liberal Logic = Fail

Jay.. where does the money come from to pay for the insurance that will pay for Grady to reduce the load on the “taxpayers”? From more taxes.. so.. the “actual” taxpayers will be paying more in addition to what they are already paying.. this makes it better how??

joe matarotz

March 18th, 2010
11:36 am

HOW will it reduce the deficit?

WHAT are the cost cutting measures that will be implemented to reduce the deficit?

HOW will this affect each one of us?

Any answers to those questons, Jay? WHAT will be CUT to reduce the cost of the plan?

HOW MANY supporters of this plan are supporting it because they believe the Presidant is looking out for them personally? HOW MANY supporters of this plan believe that Congress is looking out for them personally? How many of them would like to buy a bridge?

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:36 am

C’mon JB…take my bet. I’ll even give you “points”!! LOL!!

TINSTAAFL

March 18th, 2010
11:37 am

Paul

Do you realize the time involved in people meeting a doctor for check-ups, physicals etc? So the uninsured might not be visiting the emergency room 1-2 times a year, they’ll be soaking up the time of primary care physicians 3-4 times a year instead. Primary care physicians don’t exactly have glaring holes in their days, looking for people to fill them. With no new practices, how in the world do you perform routine preventative actions on 30 million more people?

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:37 am

“cyber-bullying” is much different than a physical attack. Feel free to phone the parents of Lawrence and offer your prayers.

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:37 am

“big rock candy mountain!!! ”

Nah…I want mountains with chocolate cliffs with rivers of fudge like in those old Dairy Queen commericals.

getalife

March 18th, 2010
11:38 am

Jobs bill is law then health care.

The dems on a roll with the financial reform next.

deegee

March 18th, 2010
11:38 am

I came to the stark realization yesterday that my new employer based dental insurance policy has a $500.00 yearly limit on benefits. That essentially pays for two cleanings, or a cleaning and a filling. I reached my limit in January due to having a couple of fillings. This year my spouse and I are paying $980.00 for a $1,000.00 benefit. Screw the insurance companies. They suck.

Pokey

March 18th, 2010
11:39 am

Who would have ever guessed…start a brand mult-trillion dollar entitlement and you reduce the deficit and national debt!! Why didn’t we think of this sooner???

Yeah Come On!

March 18th, 2010
11:40 am

deegee – what dentist are you going to that charges $500 for two cleanings?

Hmmmmmmm

March 18th, 2010
11:40 am

Jay is 100 percent wrong about the CBO’s estimates or numbers. People please do your own due diligence. It’s not very hard to figure out that the CBO has NEVER been close to the real numbers….. Good Grief Jay are you really that dense!

jewcowboy

March 18th, 2010
11:41 am

Outhouse GoKart,

““cyber-bullying” is much different than a physical attack.”

And often ends up with the same result.

GoingBroke

March 18th, 2010
11:41 am

deegee.. If you are paying 980 for a 1000 dollar benefit.. thats your own fault..

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:42 am

deegee

March 18th, 2010
11:38 am

Never heard of such a limited plan. Perhaps you signed up for the plan that cost the least and offer the least? No? Cmon now…tell the truth…

BTW…what is your annual cost of this dental program you so dispise?

Outhouse GoKart

March 18th, 2010
11:43 am

Often? Pretty general…