$81 billion? I’m not impressed.

Posted by: Phineas on October 7, 2009 at 10:06 pm

So, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Baucus health care reform plan will shave a whopping $81 billion off the federal deficit by 2019. The Left is crowing with joy and the Right is quaking in its boots at the prospect nationalized health care with all the progressive trimmings.

Let me remind you of something: The CBO may have estimated a $81 billion-dollar savings over ten years, but the deficit for this year alone was estimated last March at $1.752 trillion. So, annualize that savings and you get… Let’s see, $8.1 billion divided by $1,752 billion is… carry the one…. A less than one-percent savings! Proof-positive of President Obama and the Democrats’ commitment to responsible public finance! Party on! Party

What a bunch of malarkey. How stupid do they think we are? Waiting Remember this also, this bill hasn’t been written yet. This is a preliminary analysis that’s waiting for the final legislative language. And that’s just the Senate version. The House has its own bill and, assuming they insist on passing it, the two measures will have to be reconciled in a conference committee and voted on again. These so-called savings, pathetic as they are, could vanish as quickly as a snowflake in the Sahara. The “Baucus Bill” is a bad joke.

(Harry Reid, though, will do his darnedest to ram it through.)

So don’t start dancing in the streets, yet, little Lefties, and don’t be crying in your beer, my fellow Righties. Once the smoke clears from this bombshell, you’ll see that there’s still a long way to go. (Senator Snowe, for one, may hold things up until the final legislative language. You know, so the public can see it? Hey, didn’t the Democrats campaign on transparency? Oh go on ) This fight to prevent an absolute disaster of a bill from becoming law is far from over.

LINKS: Gaius wonders if anyone does math, anymore.

UPDATE: As pointed out by Neo in the comments and Ed at Hot Air, the new taxes under the Baucus plan start three years before the “benefits” kick in. That takes any talk of deficit reduction from the ludicrous to the absolutely meaningless. As Ed points out:

However, Baucus has also included a little sleight-of-hand in this scenario.  While the program itself would not start until 2013, the taxes start in 2010.  That means the CBO compared seven years of expenses to ten years of revenue, which hardly makes for an apples-to-apples comparison, and will likely mean that the real analysis — which will contain a projection for the second decade as well as the first — will look much less positive for Baucus.

Do read the whole thing. (Cross-posted from Public Secrets. I’m helping out while Our Hostess is on the mend.)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

16 Responses to “$81 billion? I’m not impressed.”

Comments

  1. Carlos says:

    “What a bunch of malarkey. How stupid do they think we are?”

    Very. With very short memories. After all, it was months ago that Nazi Pelousy told us this would be the most transparent Congress EVUH! so it no longer counts because that promise is more than 1.7 seconds old.

  2. Neo says:

    The underlying problem is that the Baucus bill is that the bill has 10 years of taxes and about 7 1/2 years of actual healthcare, leaving us with a program that will be underfunded by the 11th year.
    Besides, the bill, or anything looking like it, has no chance in the House.

  3. Anthony says:

    Besides, the bill, or anything looking like it, has no chance in the House.

    I agree: it’s caught between the Scylla of the Blue Dogs who are afraid for their jobs, should they vote for a public option, and the Charybdis of the Progressives who won’t settle for anything less.

  4. Kate says:

    The Dems are counting on a disinterested public that will simply allow them to do whatever they want…..come election time I think they might get a little wake up call.

    And I agree with you Sister, where’s all this transparency that was touted by Obama…oh, my mistake, we are now dealing with a democratic congress that protects tax cheats and has no problems hiding their agenda in an avalanche of detailed legislative jargon.

    Simply put….do the math. This whole plan only adds up to outrageous debt on the backs of ALL Americans…so maybe they should rename the plan and call it what it is….social engineering scheme. They have all the senior citizens scared out of their wits and they were mandated to have Medicare, or else, now their benefits will be moderated and decreased to accommodate the majority of Americans. How fair is that.

    In the end didn’t the CBO say only 94% of ALL Americans would be covered by the bill? So who are the unfortunate 6%?

  5. NC Cop says:

    $81 billion?!?!?! Gosh, what a deal!! All that AND a completely destroyed health care system?? What more could anyone ask for?!??! I was SO wrong about the dems…..8-|

  6. 2Hotel9 says:

    “will shave a whopping $81 billion off the federal deficit by 2019.”

    This is a bald faced lie. Period. Full stop.

  7. Lorica says:

    “will shave a whopping $81 billion off the federal deficit by 2019.”

    This is a bald faced lie. Period. Full stop.

    I agree with you Hotel. This is a bald face lie. You see the Base Realignment of 2005 told everyone that it would save 50 billion in 20 years. Now that it is almost all said and done, we find out it will only save 5 billion in that same period of time. Congress was sold a bill of goods, that is and was completely pointless. It cost way more than it was originally intended, and it was more about consolidating power, than it was actually about function. And in no way was it worth the loss of personel, and experience for the lack of a gain. Basically, it was an idiotic thing to do, much like this health care problem.

    Yesterday Rush was saying that AskHeritage.org had a stat that Medicaid, turned down more claims than any of the insurance companies. Yet these buffoons want me to believe that they ain’t gonna pull the plug on Grandma. Whatever. – Lorica

  8. MAS1916 says:

    This is after the Obama administration took the CBO to the woodshed after its first estimate on the cost of the House health care takeover bills, there can’t be much credibility attached to this estimate. On top of that, the estimated savings depends on that half trillion dollar savings by cutting Medicare services.

    Voters understand! That is why there is such a resistance. The estimated savings is indeed (from Hotel9 above) a bald faced lie!

  9. Anthony says:

    Yesterday Rush was saying that AskHeritage.org had a stat that Medicaid, turned down more claims than any of the insurance companies.

    Yep, and here’s the source: AMA Endorses Largest Denier of Health Care Claims.

  10. Neo says:

    So they try to over-raise taxes by $81 billion.

    Oh .. I almost forgot .. There is no Baucus Bill

    The CBO scored the “concept” not an actual bill.

  11. teqjack says:

    Note that even the 81billion is about the Federal deficit: large parts of the proposals impose huge costs back to the States.

  12. I just about yakked when I saw this on Hot Air last night. But you’re completely right about it being a load of malarkey. But will the apathetic public (minus tea partiers and those paying attention) understand that it might “save” $81B but it’s still going to cost $789B or (supposedly) there abouts?

    “I just bought a new car and man I got a deal, $50k off sticker price!”

    “So how much was it?”

    “Just $3,550,000!”

  13. Kate says:

    Medicare the great denier….how many folks who have it have seen that little statistic? I guess Grandma better stockpile whatever she can before the cuts and reductions.

    The sad thing is that what the government pays out as acceptable claims is the model for the rest of the insurance industry. They won’t pay anymore than what the government does. So in short, the problem with most insurers is not their coverage, but the government caps. Denials are not uncommon. Doctors do appeal them and many times they are allowed. SO I am not sure if the denial rate for private insurers was taken as the “final” word or just the initial denial.