How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Conan71]

Name one. The CBO analyzed the GOP alternatives, and they were terrible.

CBO analysis isn't the only relevant yard stick.  Get off of your CBO kick.

[we vs us]

Then what's a relevant yardstick?  

[Gaspar]

CBO analysis isn't the only relevant yard stick.  Get off of your CBO kick.

CBO has a poor record of scoring particularly when congress and the administration share a political majority.  I would turn to independent economic research. 

2002 BUDGET DEFICIT:
ESTIMATED: $21 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $158 BILLION

JANUARY 2007 C.B.O. ECONOMIC FORCAST: GDP WILL GROW 2008 BY 3%, AND 2009 BY 2.9% BASED ON HOUSING MARKET IMPROVEMENTS AND GAS PRICES STABLE.... WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT TURNED OUT.

MEDICARE 1990
ESTIMATED: $12 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $167 BILLION

MEDICAID DSH PROGRAM 1992
ESTIMATED: $1 BILLION ACTUAL: $17 BILLION

MEDICARE HOME CARE 1993
ESTIMATED: $4 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $10 BILLION

BOSTON'S BIG DIG ROAD PROJECT
ESTIMATED: $2 BILLION ///  ACTUAL: $15 BILLION + $8 BILLION MANDATED RAIL TRANSPORTAION SPENDING & still counting.

(Washington Post)

[Conan71]

First of all, not only is it a bad bill, but a large portion of the legislation has nothing to do with healthcare and is being washed over in the media.

The bill is actually called "Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010."

A good portion of the bill covers the government take-over of the banking industry focused on student loans.  It gives the government the ability to regulate the amounts and payback structure for many forms of banking related to education. 

Your thoughts?

I read this on line this morning and I've got mixed opinions.  I've always felt government investment in higher education (vocational and collegiate) yields the highest long-term returns as far as tax revenue recieved by individual productivity vs. output.  It's one of the best investments government can make.

If this does all it claims (recalling from memory): frees up money which could be used for more Pell Grants, helps raise the limit on Pell Grants, lowers servicing fees for students, lowers the deficit- it sounds sensible.

But...

I'm not a big government person.  The major argument against this is thousands of private sector jobs lost.  I am assuming the government would need people to administer these programs and could absorb the displaced former bank employees, but then it fully assumes salary and pension benefits for those people.

I'm trying to separate the hyperbole from reality and political bias on the part of Congresspeople who are for and against.

As a benefit to people seeking higher education, I like the concept.  In terms of expanding government authority and bureaucracy, I hate it.  I've got one daughter who is a sophomore in college and another who will be a freshman in a year and a half.  I can definitely appreciate the costs associated with a college education and see the benefits of a good education.

[Townsend]

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., wants a vote on his amendment to prohibit coverage of Viagra for sex offenders.

tinyurl.com/ygrouyo


Awesome

[guido911]

If there was any doubt about the true motives of dems on healthcare, Rep. Dingell cleared it up:

[Conan71]

Dingell looks like he's already taking the eternal dirt nap.

[guido911]

Interesting video of Candidate Obama vs.President Obama"

[Gaspar]

Interesting video of Candidate Obama vs.President Obama"

Sharp looking tie! 
You gotta love the contempt in Hillary's face.

[rwarn17588]

CBO analysis isn't the only relevant yard stick.  Get off of your CBO kick.

OK, I'm up for suggestions ... from a nonpartisan group like the CBO, please.

Otherwise, don't whine if they come up with results you don't like.

[rwarn17588]

I would turn to independent economic research.  

Well, considering that CBO is nonpartisan, I would say that makes them independent.

Let's have some suggestions for such other independent research, please.

[rwarn17588]

Found this at the FAQ at CBO's Web site:

How accurate are CBO's economic forecasts?

CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency's efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO's estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO's two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration. For a related discussion, see What Is a Current-Law Economic Baseline and CBO's Economic Forecasting Record: 2007 Update.

How accurate are CBO's budget projections?

By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections. For a related discussion, see Chapter 1 of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook; see also The Uncertainty of Budget Projections: A Discussion of Data and Methods for supplemental information.

<end clip>

So the budget estimations serve as a neutral benchmark, which most reasonable people would be fine with. And the economic reports are no worse than other economists'.

The GOP put out a health-care bill during the past year. And the CBO found the Republicans' version was vastly inferior to the Democrats' bill. We're taking about the GOP version barely covering more Americans at all and making a modest reduction on the deficit. Then we had the Democrats' version, which covered 30 million more Americans than the GOP's, plus cut the deficit more over the next 10 years.

If you were an independent person who saw the reports, which would you pick? The answer is self-apparent.

[Gaspar]

Found this at the FAQ at CBO's Web site:

How accurate are CBO's economic forecasts?

CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency's efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO's estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO's two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration. For a related discussion, see What Is a Current-Law Economic Baseline and CBO's Economic Forecasting Record: 2007 Update.

How accurate are CBO's budget projections?

By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections. For a related discussion, see Chapter 1 of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook; see also The Uncertainty of Budget Projections: A Discussion of Data and Methods for supplemental information.

<end clip>

So the budget estimations serve as a neutral benchmark, which most reasonable people would be fine with. And the economic reports are no worse than other economists'.

The GOP put out a health-care bill during the past year. And the CBO found the Republicans' version was vastly inferior to the Democrats' bill. We're taking about the GOP version barely covering more Americans at all and making a modest reduction on the deficit. Then we had the Democrats' version, which covered 30 million more Americans than the GOP's, plus cut the deficit more over the next 10 years.

If you were an independent person who saw the reports, which would you pick? The answer is self-apparent.

I read that too.  It seems to focus more on the broad economic forecasts rather than individual legislation.  I would love to see something that rates them on their individual bill scores, because they have been way off on most examples I've seen.

Good post!

[Conan71]

"How accurate are CBO's budget projections?

By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections. For a related discussion, see Chapter 1 of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook; see also The Uncertainty of Budget Projections: A Discussion of Data and Methods for supplemental information."

Basically the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. The error in relying on CBO data is making assumptions that the ultimate actions of Congress will parallel assumptions given to the CBO in the first place.

Reading articles over at Brookings, which is pretty non-partisan, they are saying this bill is not going to be sustainable without raising taxes on the middle class.  Just wait...

Here's Cato's opinion on CBO "estimates"

"Since we're already depressed by the enactment of Obamacare, we may as well wallow in misery by looking at some long-term budget numbers. The chart below, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office's long-run estimates, shows that federal government spending will climb to 45 percent of GDP if we believe CBO's more optimistic "baseline" estimate. If we prefer the less optimistic "alternative" estimate, the burden of federal government spending will climb to 67 percent of economic output. These dismal numbers are driven by two factors, an aging population and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For all intents and purposes, America is on a path to become a European-style welfare state.

If these numbers don't depress you enough, here are a couple of additional observations to push you over the edge. These CBO estimates were produced last year, so they don't count the cost of Obamacare. And as Michael Cannon repeatedly has observed, Obamacare will cost much more than the official estimates concocted by CBO. And speaking of estimates, the long-run numbers in the chart are almost certainly too optimistic since CBO's methodology naively assumes that a rising burden of government will have no negative impact on the economy's growth rate. Last but not least, the data above only measures federal spending. State and local government budgets will consume at least another 15 percent of GDP, so even using the optimistic baseline, total government spending will be about 60 percent of GDP, higher than every European nation, including France, Greece, and Sweden. And if we add state and local spending on top of the "alternative" baseline, then we're in uncharted territory where perhaps Cuba and North Korea would be the most appropriate analogies.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/24/my-big-fat-greek-budget/

[fotd]

The rethugs need to be put over our collective knee and spanked like the little, whiney babies they are. When they ran the sandbox, the other kids played nice with them, but now that the other kids are in control, it is one temper tantrum after another.

This AMERICAN is sick and tired of this "tactic." Other important business needs to be done. OK, you lost. Get over it and get back to work.