Scrambling for Votes, Democrats Face Uphill Climb to Pass Healthcare Reform

I understand wanting to know the most accurate way of predicting costs, and revenue.

I would be willing to listen if anyone had a different approach than the CBO that was more accurate. I just haven't seen it yet.

Also, I don't know how accurate or inaccurate they are. It seems like most things they project are made in kind of a fluid way. They always seem to be revising, and updating.

 

What BS. The CBO is not being used. They aren't even allowed to figure in savings that comes from people getting preventative care and avoiding costly emergency procedures and hospital stays.

We know that's going to happen, but it can't be figured into the budget estimates. We also know that there are going to be cuts made to save money as well. The CBO is doing the right thing by including those.

 

Certainly - anytime you're forecasting 10 years, let alone 20, there's going to be progressive margins of error. It's impossible to know changes in society, the economy, over that period. The CBO uses best estimates, but they will always be off. For example, with budget estimates, they consistently overshoot on both the upside and the downside for 10 year projections on deficits, depending on how the economy is doing at that particular moment, because it's impossible to predict major changes in economic growth or how the stock market will do, etc.

I think the key here is that these are the best numbers available. It's not like there are other numbers from the GOP or the Dems or any foundations that show something wildly different. These are absolutely estimates - but that's all you're going to get because looking out 5+ years is inherently unpredictable. It's not like we can say "it will be more expensive in the end" or "it will be less expensive in the end" - no one really knows. So if you don't use these numbers, basically you have no numbers to work with - the bill could cost $1 trillion or save $1 trillion.

 

As was pointed out earlier, even using just the last 5 years (with both the tax and the benefit), the CBO scores it as deficit reducing. As does the 11-20 yr forecast with the $1.2T in savings, but that's of course suspect because of the simple length of time. A large key to it all is the Medicare savings projections, which are enormous.

Just keep on repeating that...

 

Your political instincts have been about as accurate as basso's

Bring it!

 

I sure hope that mojo is right. The democrats completely neutered the health care bill. Reckoning is legitimately deserved.

 

democrats will not lose the majority of the house or senate this year

bank it

 

I don't doubt that. But I think they deserve to lose some seats. Certainly, congress can't lose anymore popular opinion - they're beyond rock bottom already.

 

They may deserve to lose some seats, but the party they're going to lose those seats to doesn't deserve to win any.

 

True - such is the grotesque nature of our fake democracy.

 

The majority party always loses seats at the mid term; this is standard.

 

This is another falsehood. Some benefits for the health care reform start this year. Furthermore saving and gaining revenue right now, to pay for something is sound economics.

You are searching hard and inventing reasons why the numbers won't add up, and the proof of that is that you somehow try to claim that planning ahead to pay for benefits shouldn't count. That's sound policy. It's also part of the bill. Since the CBO is looking at the bill, it makes sense they would look at that as well.

 

via TPM --

The House Rules Committee just posted the health care reconciliation bill online.

Because the legislative text must be posted for 72 hours before a vote, the House is looking at a vote sometime mid-afternoon Sunday.

 

Another Pro-Life Dem Leaning to vote 'yes'

Ohio's Charlie Wilson just made a statement on that press call in support of the health-care legislation I mentioned earlier. "As a pro-life Catholic," he said, "I think the language in the Senate bill clearly ensures that there will be no federal funding of abortion."

He went on to say "I'm taking my time to review" the reconciliation language, but he ended his brief remarks by again stating: "I'm confident that the Senate language upholds my pro-life values."

 

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka endorsed the health care reform bill.

 

things are moving fast now --

another switch from No to Yes!

Retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) is officially switching his vote on the health care legislation from "No" to "Yes."

"The health care bill being considered by Congress now accomplishes three things: one, it reduces health care costs for families and small businesses; two, it improves access to affordable care, regardless of pre-existing conditions; three, it lowers our budget deficit. That's why I am supporting it," he said.

 

Because of vacancies, Dems only need 216. They got 222 on this vote.