Grassley skeptical of health numbers

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:03:32 GMT

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said today's White House announcement that a coalition of health-care groups would cut cost by $2 trillion "a move in the right direction." But without any details on how they plan do it, he said the announcement is not big news.

What say you? Wonder who all is in the coalition. Methinks that possibly some health care companies are spear heading these efforts? 2 trillion dollars? Well wouldn't that be loverly if it were, but wouldn't it be ironic that a move to nationalize health care sparked this move. Just saying...

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

Republican Party Talking Points — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:05:41 GMT

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

Chris - IL — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:07:48 GMT

How refreshing to get an honest and non-political answer!

I fear the republicans may kick him out of their party for not immediately pointing out that President Obama is a socialist and has destroyed America!

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

The - Democrat Soldier — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:09:53 GMT

Grassley - if President Obama went to the toilet and "sh t" gold nuggets would that big a big deal.

Or would it have to be George Bush - before that would mean anything to you either.

Nothing new here - the Republicans will never be satisfied with anything President Obama does; we have accepted that – so their disagreements are becoming NEWS that no longer matter and they will never have a clue.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

Steve the Computer Guy — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:11:23 GMT

I agree with Senator Grassley about today's announcement from those health care groups. If there's no specifics on how they plan to save all that money, then it's no real news, just wishful thinking. Yeah, I plan to make a billion dollars over the next ten years, just don't ask me how.

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

The CBO report is not the Bible — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:16:57 GMT

Taxes and the Budget: How accurate are short-run and long-run budget scenarios?

*Short-run budget projections tend to be highly inaccurate, because of unforeseen changes in economic activity, changes in technical assumptions, and changes in economic and other policies. . .

Over the period 1983-2005, the average absolute error in the five-year revenue projection of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) caused by changes in the economic and technical assumptions was 1.6 percent of GDP, which would be $219 billion at the 2007 level of GDP. Between the earliest official projection of the 2007 budget balance (in the ten-year projection of 1997) and the actual outcome, the projected balance varied over a range of $844 billion because of changes in economic and technical assumptions

*If the CBO projection is too pessimistic in one period, it is extremely probable that it will be too pessimistic in the next period as well. Similarly, too much optimism in one period is likely to be repeated in the next. Thus one observes long streaks of overly pessimistic or overly optimistic projections.

*Especially large errors tend to occur after the fifth year of CBO’s ten-year projection period, and so one might question the prominence that CBO publications give to the second half of their projection periods. . . it might be better to confine those longer-run assumptions to appendices in CBO reports, to avoid giving the appearance of false precision.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/taxes-budget/accuracy.cfm

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

no joe, no bo, nj — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:18:23 GMT

I don't get it-most of us who know anything at all about the economy were absolutely appalled by the CBO numbers on Obama's budget, but that had no effect on its implementation.

Senator Grassley believes that if the CBO looks into this Alice in Wonderland scenario, and advises that the $2trillion in savings come from reducing $6Trillion in spending by that amount, the media will do anything but swoon?

These people feel about Obama the way that 10 year olds feel about the Jonas Brothers. They have lost any ability to function as professionals; therefore, they will buy it hook line and sinker, and sell it the same way they sold the stimulus package, which has stimulated NOTHING.

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

A. Brown, Shirt, USA — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:21:23 GMT

B..b..but Grassley, if obama says it, then it MUST be true!!

And if you don't believe him he will send his thugs out to make threats against you.

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:33:30 GMT

Who are the participants in the coalition? Who are the participants in the private sector?

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

JustThinkin — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:36:44 GMT

This is absolutely hysterical! Did he actually manage to say it with a straight face?!? Considering the Republicans thought it reasonable to present an alternate budget - however lacking in any number, I can't believe they can even consider criticizing a lack of details.

Of course, what else should be expected from the "gNOp"?

Grassley skeptical of health numbers

eagle1776 — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:04:53 GMT

Get all parties together, insurance companies, lawyers, medical professionals, reps from pharmaseutical companies, general business leaders and ordinary citizens (maybe a union rep.) and throw out ideas. Then once the brain storming has pretty much ended start analyzing each suggestion removing those that, after discussion, don't seem like good ideas after all. Put both liberals and conservatives on the panel, some independants, Republicans and Democrats. Give them a month to come up with a plan that they can all live with. Not one perfect for one or the other but that that can live with. Present that plan to Congress with full data to support their suggestions. Congress may want further discussion and debate and then a vote. The goal is AFFORDABLE quality healthcare.