pattygreen

Another big uncertainty is how many employers will choose to pay a penalty rather than offer insurance as an employee benefit. The more firms do that, the more people will be looking to the government to subsidize care purchased on a new insurance exchange.

Reform proponents have cited the CBO analysis as evidence that the reforms will bring federal budget deficits down substantially in the decade beginning in 2020, for example. But CBO itself is careful to qualify its forecast. "It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care," the agency says in its report.

all these 'gimmicks' quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years.

#6 the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

#5 it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

#4 Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

#3 the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation

gimmick #2 some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion. Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending. I notice that noone is looking at the true cost of HC reform coming our way. Let's take one bit of deceitfulness at a time and look at it.

We don't support the insurance companies. We support Free Enterprise. We support the right to open a business and make it grow. I understand that some get big. These need to be regulated, not put out of business. And if you think that the government hasn't just taken a giant step closer to government run insurance for all, you don't get it.

.......amen!!!........

Business owners might find it more profitable for them to pay the fines rather than offer insurance for their employess. Then what? The employees get on the gov. run plan cause it's the cheapest one out there. This is what the government is banking on, because they want everyone to get on it. It's a stepping stone to their eventual socialized program of government run insurance ONLY. No options. Why do you think the people are so opposed to it. They dangle in front of us these wonderful reforms that will kick in within the first 6 months of signing the bill (notice, right before the November elections) to get the people thinking "oh, this isn't soooo bad." IT'S ALL IN THEIR PLAN TO EVENTUALLY RUN THE hi INDUSTRY COMPLETELY!!!!

No they wont. They'll be blaming thier folks for allowing the government to have such control of their lives and blaming them for the tremendous debt that they had to inherit. Just like we blame all of those in the past for the sham called Social security and the bill we have to keep paying and all the other government programs that are in bankruptcy.

All liberals see is what the people are going to "receive". But fail to consider: "at what expense."

For a doctor with a thriving private practice, the sweeping changes means higher overhead costs and an influx of new patients he may not be able to care for. For small business owners, the health insurance overhaul means higher premiums for people on their payroll. For insurance providers, the bill fails to address cost containment, which they say will lead to billions in health care taxes.

It was said that it would be required for every person to have health insurance, otherwise you're going to be fined. That's kind of taking away the whole purpose of us being an independent country.

The bill drops the ball in controlling costs.The American people want health care that's more affordable. This bill doesn't do that.

Medicare cost $3 billion in 1966. In what it called a conservative estimate, the House Ways and Means Committee that year projected Medicare would cost $12 billion after inflation by 1990. The actual cost in 1990: $107 billion. Do you REALLY think this will save us money? lol

Finally! Someone posting here that I can agree with! So true what you say. They just don't get it, but they will.

There are 2 sides to this abortion issue. It amazes me that those who are all for a womans choice is not satisfied with the fact that the law sides with them on this issue. Any woman can go to their doctor and have an abortion if she chooses. Even though they know how much the opposing side abhors that decision, and they understand that the reason they oppose it is because they truly, sincerely feel that life begins when the sperm meets the egg and that to abort a baby in the womb is murdering it, they STILL want their opposers to pay for the procedure with their tax dollars. It's VERY hard to fatham and understand. Why can't pro-choice people be satisfied with the law being on their side? Must they also insist that those who believe it is murdering a baby to pay for it as well and therefore be contributing to their "choice" financially. WOW!! I think that pro choice people are very uncompassionate towards the beliefs of others when they insist that the government fund their abortions desite the opponents conscience in doing so. What has this country come to? God would be very displeased with this. I know that the president has made a promise to not allow any funding for abortions in the HC bill that was passed yesterday, but he is a liar and can not be trusted with his promises. They are just talk to me. He talks to get his way. If ONE abortion is paid for with tax dollars someway somehow through trickery and deceitfulness, I believe the people will be in an uproar and there will be division that will be too thick to cut with a knife. Liberals should be satisfied with the law favoring them and expect women who want abortions to pay for their own murders.

I don't care what people did in 2001 or 2003. I know it's important to you to bring up how the other side has sinned equally, but I'm looking at what is happening NOW, not what happened in the past. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You are wrong about the cost of this bill.

We will all pay into this bill for the first 4 years BEFORE we get to use it. THEN we will use it. AFTER 10 years from now, this is when you will see the downhill spiral of its effects. The CBO doesn't tell you what will happen after 10 years. How can you pay for something for 10 years and get the services out of it for 6 of those years and then the next 10 years pay the same amount and get 10 additional years of service out of it? Not possible without rationing care or raising fees to pay for it. (BTW, This is where the conservatives got their death panels from last year. They understood that over time, their would be rationing of medical care) Let me repeat for those who don't get it: You pay into the government for this Obamacare for 4 years without getting any medical care. After 4 years of paying into it, they begin providing medical care to the people while collecting the same amount of funds. This is how the CBO says it will 'save' us money over ten years time. But, what about after that when you are recieving medical care for ten years and not saving up for 4 years prior? It doesn't take a math expert to figure out that you wont be taking in as much as you need anymore and will have to get some more money from somewhere to continue providing the same care or else ration the care, increase the prices of care or raise the premium fees or taxes.

socializing a nation doesn't happen over night. This is just one more giant step closer to it. Everytime the government enforces mandates on the people, it takes away some of your freedoms. This is going to cost us a whole lot. Hope you are prepared for the financial burden. It will raise the cost of living tremendously.

And don't forget....- kids staying on their parents plan till they are 26! You just don't get it. All these things ARE wonderful. Reps want them also. WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!! If you think it's wonderful, it's because it is wonderful get something you desire, but when the bill comes in, how are you going to pay for it? Leave it to a liberal to spend on things he just can't afford. And if you think it will reduce the deficit, you are dillusional. You can't insure 30 million more people and have it not cost anything.