Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Drake Tungsten]

If it doesn't matter, why'd you feel the need to make up a precise figure? You could've just accurately reported the CBO's estimate, but you didn't.

[Ramo]

It's the figure that I read last time I looked at the news, which was around noon. I don't know what the GDP projections are based on (which seem reasonable enough); may have been from the CBO itself.

My point is that quibbling over GDP projections is ridiculous when I'm making an order of magnitude based argument.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's the figure that I read last time I looked at the news, which was around noon. I don't know what the GDP projections are based on (which seem reasonable enough); may have been from the CBO itself.

Finally, the truth we all already knew.

[Ramo]

That you completely avoided the substance of the argument? Yes, looks like it.

[Ramo]

Incidentally, that should've been obvious from the time stamp of my post; the CBO report wasn't even released. I was obviously going off of leaks to the media.

Which is irrelevant since we are talking about an order of magnitude argument.

[Drake Tungsten]

We wouldn't even be having this argument if you'd issued a mea culpa on the $1.2 trillion dollar figure once you found out it wasn't from the CBO rather than trying to bluff your way out of a trivial admission.

[Ramo]

The actual reason we're having this "argument" is so that you can avoid substance.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't even know what your "argument" is now. First it was that the CBO estimated a $1.2 trillion savings in the second decade of healthcare reform vs a $200 million cost for the doc fix in the first decade of healthcare reform. I pointed out that this was a stupid comparison, used your own numbers to show why the exclusion of the doc fix was crucial for making healthcare reform appear to be a deficit reducer over the first ten years and then showed that your $1.2 trillion figure wasn't even from the CBO.

You then said you could "read and do basic arithmetic" and tried to show how you came up with the $1.2 trillion figure, even though everyone knew you had just read it on some blog and took it at face value. I then pointed out that the CBO's estimate was a broad one stated in percentage of GDP and that it was intellectually dishonest to portray it as an exact figure.

You then called me "pathetic", accused me of "avoiding substance", finally admitted that your $1.2 trillion figure was just something you read somewhere and now want an argument on some subject that isn't exactly clear to me. This has truly been a tour de force exhibition of petulance and retardation on your part. Congratulations!

[Ramo]

I came up with a $1.1 trillion dollar figure, you dumbass. The implicit point there is that it's an order of magnitude argument. BTW, at the time I posted it, the $1.2 trillion was the only publicly available figure.

I'm not going to bother correct your other errors. I have better things to do.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thank god.

[Drake Tungsten]

I hadn't even noticed this accounting trick yet...

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion

[Dinner]

I SURE CAN!




http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170036

Holy ****! You just stomped on DinoDoc's right wing talking point. Game, set, match!

Well played.

[Dinner]

Here's a fantastic vote tally by the WaPo. Through this lense, the outlook for the bill looks poor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../?hpid=topnews

I wouldn't be so sure. Vegas bookies give the bill a 70% chance of passing right now so if you really believe it is going down in flames then maybe you should put some money on the line. Vegas bookies will take your bet.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's going to pass.

[MrFun]

Of course it will - some Democrats have pumped into the bill some more pork to sweetened it for those who were waivering.


sigh