Good jorb!

Ouch. Man, when one side has a fresh best-case-scenario bill and the other has had theirs go through the meat grinder for half a year, the meat grinder bill shouldn't still look better.

It's one thing to have no ideas. It's another thing to only have bad ideas.

It was better when it was three circles and two lines.

And this is divergent from their obvious intentions how?

DUH... They don't want this one approved either. By making it an awful mess, it assures it won't be voted in, but it makes them look like they are trying.

patrick767: It was better when it was three circles and two lines.

Three circles and two lines cost the taxpayers 76 trillion dollars.

what, no [OBVIOUS] tag?

I, for one, am shocked....SHOCKED...at this surprising turn of events.

I think that we're all shocked that the GOP leadership wants to waste money with sops to Big Insurance.

And here we all were thinking that the GOP leadership is so smart and effective!

At least it's not socialist!!!

amirite?

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

I just want to repeat that point. People, stop listening to the Republicans. It's clear they can't help America.

It's can't be any simpler, people. This is why you libs always lose your way... you don't pay attention to the BIG PICTURE.

/Stupid Libs
//Hotlinked from stupid lib website

FTFA: According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

I call BS. Anyone who thinks that either of these plans will reduce the deficit is delusional.

BillCo: I call BS. Anyone who thinks that either of these plans will reduce the deficit is delusional.

I don't think you understand how the deficit works.

BillCo: Anyone who thinks that either of these plans will reduce the deficit is delusional.

[citation needed]

BillCo: FTFA: According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

I call BS. Anyone who thinks that either of these plans will reduce the deficit is delusional.

It will likely reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. That's the point of implementing it. Insurance costs are increasing 3 times faster than the cost of living. Also, private insurance has a 30% overhead. US pays twice as much as other industrialized Nations for health care (premiums & taxes combined). Any shift to single payer will eventually yield huge savings which can be beat down the deficit. Why is this delusional?

GAT_00: The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

I just want to repeat that point. People, stop listening to the Republicans. It's clear they can't help America.

THIS
period.


Gig103: DUH... They don't want this one approved either. By making it an awful mess, it assures it won't be voted in, but it makes them look like they are trying.

no, it makes them look incompetent and it makes the dem plan look better.
I am certain that they thought that their plan was a good one.

plus they can not attack CBO cause it is the group both sides use as independent (of course they will attack CBO next as obama lackeys)

Does it cover rich white people?
Yes?
Then what's the problem?

BillCo: Anyone who thinks that either of these plans will reduce the deficit is delusional.

I guess the government should just keep spending $1.25t a year in health care expenditures without trying to fix costs.

FTFA: Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner...

And then I couldn't continue reading.

heh. Boehner. SPROINGGGG!!!!

/bringing puerility to Fark for over 3 years now...

Ok, now, FTFA: Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

I wonder which 4% we're talking about here...

Let's see, the CBO says this bill will lower premiums and the deficit - and cost $61 billion. It says the Pelosi bill will lower deficit but raise premiums - and cost over $1 trillion (not counting $200 billion in non-cuts to Medicare payouts they removed from the bill or even considering how the bill will pay for itself if the individual mandate upon which its cost structure depends is struck down as unconstitutional).

So naturally, Ezra Klein and subby describe it as costing more and covering fewer people.

MuadDib: So naturally, Ezra Klein and subby describe it as costing more and covering fewer people.

No... the CBO describes it as costing more and covering fewer people. From the CBO report.

CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019-83 percent-would be roughly in line with the current share.

Read it for your self.

Code_Archeologist: MuadDib: So naturally, Ezra Klein and subby describe it as costing more and covering fewer people.

No... the CBO describes it as costing more and covering fewer people. From the CBO report.
CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019-83 percent-would be roughly in line with the current share.
Read it for your self.

From the first paragraph of your link that you skipped for some reason to cherry pick a quotation summing up the cost portion of the summary:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period...

Link (new window)

the actual CBO report without the spin

where is the DEM report from the CBO ??
Link (new window)

so yah,
there we go, numbers we can cite. rather than the spin crap

MuadDib: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4750285&viewmode=1&togglehtml=1&start id=55732930&tt=#bFrom the first paragraph of your link that you skipped for some reason to cherry pick a quotation summing up the cost portion of the summary:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period...

Is $68 Billion greater than $103 Billion saving over the same period in Democratic bill (or $426 Billion if you use the Rangel bill's CBO score that namatad linked to)? Your ability to cherry pick numbers that still invalidate your position is astounding.

Code_Archeologist: MuadDib: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4750285&viewmode=1&togglehtml=1&start id=55732930&tt=#bFrom the first paragraph of your link that you skipped for some reason to cherry pick a quotation summing up the cost portion of the summary:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period...

Is $68 Billion greater than $103 Billion saving over the same period in Democratic bill (or $426 Billion if you use the Rangel bill's CBO score that namatad linked to)? Your ability to cherry pick numbers that still invalidate your position is astounding.

Did you actually read my post? Unlike Pelosi's bill, this one doesn't offload $200+ billion in Medicare costs to a separate bill. Nor does it depend on a likely unconstitutional mandate to support it cost provisions. Pelosi's plan, even withotu considering the potential mandate problem with the individual, doesn't cut the deficit even by CBO scoring once you include all of it. Removing the buyoff for doctors from the bill and passing it separately is just a shell game.

Pelosi's plan, even without considering the potential problem with the individual mandate, doesn't cut the deficit.

FTFM.

/should proofread after cutting and pasting clauses

MuadDib: Pelosi's plan, even without considering the potential problem with the individual mandate, doesn't cut the deficit.

FTFM.

/should proofread after cutting and pasting clauses

The goal of the plan was not to cut the deficit. It will, however, very quickly put a mechanism in place by which costs can be controlled and brought more in-line with inflation. I expect that it will allow deficit reductions within Obama's second term if not his first. Only if a strong public option passes.

MuadDib: Did you actually read my post?

Yep... but I stopped reading when you started devolving into the irrelevant minutiae of one of the five bills being considered by Congress currently. And when you began making assumptions of what the final is going to have in it, even before ink has been brought to paper.

I am dealing in facts only today, not paranoid teabagger fantasies.

Code_Archeologist: MuadDib: Did you actually read my post?

Yep... but I stopped reading when you started devolving into the irrelevant minutiae of one of the five bills being considered by Congress currently. And when you began making assumptions of what the final is going to have in it, even before ink has been brought to paper.

I am dealing in facts only today, not paranoid teabagger fantasies.

The post in question was three sentences long, one parenthetical of which raised a consitutional issue, the rest was CBO numbers about Pelosi's bill that could be voted on within the next 48 hours and the one referred to in the headline. Either the CBO is now a purveyor of "paranoid teabagger fantasies" or you need to try just reading the black parts of posts and not the stuff in the white spaces the fillings in your teeth tell you is there.

Exceptionally lame response, friend.

patrick767: It was better when it was three circles and two lines.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

Hahahahahaha *deep breath* haahahahahahahah *wipes tears* hahahahahahaha

The CBO is total bullshiat!

Is this the same bill McCain tried to offer that pushes everyone off employer-based healthcare, only covers half the cost, and doesn't take prices into issue?

stupid socialist Congressional Budget Office czars!

Is it just me, or do the Republican Robots around here feel the need to post a picture when they say anything. I've noticed it with about half a dozen posters now (MuadDib in this thread).

It is almost like their arguments are so weak that they feel a need to post a pic to distract from it.

Fart_Machine: Is this the same bill McCain tried to offer that pushes everyone off employer-based healthcare, only covers half the cost, and doesn't take prices into issue?

Nah. This one wasn't printed on parchment.

STILL written in crayon, of course...

nobody does token efforts like the Republican party

Can we start calling it Boehner Care? Then at least it would have a good name.

IXI Jim IXI: STILL written in crayon, of course...

uh, that's actually feces...

Xetal: Is it just me, or do the Republican Robots around here feel the need to post a picture when they say anything. I've noticed it with about half a dozen posters now (MuadDib in this thread).

It is almost like their arguments are so weak that they feel a need to post a pic to distract from it.

You might try reading the text instead of just looking at the pictures.

MuadDib: Exceptionally lame response, friend.

Instead of answering you... I think I will point out why I ignored your previous post. Everything in bold makes the statement read like an ignorant teabagger screed.

Did you actually read my post? Unlike Pelosi's bill, this one doesn't offload $200+ billion in Medicare costs to a separate bill. Nor does it depend on a likely unconstitutional mandate to support it cost provisions. Pelosi's plan, even withotu considering the potential mandate problem with the individual, doesn't cut the deficit even by CBO scoring once you include all of it. Removing the buyoff for doctors from the bill and passing it separately is just a shell game.

Your statement is incomprehensible.

The House Health Care Reform Bill is not Nancy Pelosi's Bill. She is not holed up in her office typing out all 1000+ pages of it. And repeatedly referring to it as her's instead of as the negotiated final House bill makes you sound ignorant.

Saying something that you have not even seen is likely unconstitutional is dumb. Since when did you become a prescient constitutional scholar?

"support it cost" and "withoutu"... uhm? LOLWHUT?

"doesn't cut the deficit even by CBO scoring once you include all of it" This sentence is a train wreck, and open to more than one interpretation; as such I cannot even address it without kowing the missing context of it. Commas and semicolons are your friend. Use them!

"buyoff for doctors" and "just a shell game": paranoid Teabagger talking points. They mean nothing, but are meant to illicit a negative connotation in the reader.

/yes I know I am being a dickish grammar nazi

brainiac-dumdum: nobody does token efforts like the Republican party

GAT_00: saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

What's a few billion when we spend a trillion at the drop of a hat?

The coverage difference is more telling than saving a few measly billion dollars.

Well, it's better than nothing. But, far too little, too late.

Code_Archeologist: MuadDib: gibberish redacted

You shouldn't even try talking sense to the troll.

MuadDib: You might try reading the text instead of just looking at the pictures.

So it IS just like the GOP's budget!