Comments on: Breaking News: The Bottom Line on Reid’s Health Care Bill

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:38:32 +0000

“Hopefully, all sides know that the numbers are mostly fantasy.”

I'm certain they do. These are the same people who chose not to reform Medicare at all before proceeding to write this legislation affecting everyone else (in addition to Medicare beneficiaries).

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:56 +0000

The bill is junk, no doubt, just as is the House bill. What matters is that the Senate got off the ground and actually made “progress.” Now they may well get together with the House and produce a (bad) bill for Obama to sign before year's end, and then all congratulate themselves and be cheered by the choir.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:26:29 +0000

The biggest fallacy is that you can offer more coverage without dramatically increasing demand. Most of the unfunded liability of Medicaid/Medicare comes from not anticipating how dramatically costs would rise. Hopefully, all sides know that the numbers are mostly fantasy.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:49 +0000

As I recall the House bill math, there is the counting of 10 tax increase years against 7 years of new health spending. Therefore, it may technically be correct on it deficit effect over the ensuing ten calendar years, but nonetheless does not disclose the true cost of 10 years of health spending. But, after all, we had to find a way to say it cost less than $900 billion.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:16:55 +0000

… and didn't provide a link to actually look at the bill. A lot of tricks are used to skew the numbers, so the numbers themselves are rather meaningless until we see how the bill gets there.