Fuck its silent in here.......

[R-V]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

Here's your American.com editor. Looks like a guy we'd all get along with.



Nick Schulz

Wonder what his slant is?

Politics Editor, FoxNews.com, 2000-2002

Ah.

American.com sucks. I get all my news and analysis from bolshevikhoopleheadswhohate'merica.com.

[Wheezer]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

[Oleg]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

[Slaky]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

Outrage?

[morpheus]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.

[Oleg]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

Outrage?

That article got me pretty good and pissed off at the Democrats for being such fucking pussies about this.  Outrage, check!

[Brownie]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.

So, what you are saying is that if you make an argument like "Zambrano sucks; he only had 9 wins last year. If we assume his WHIP will be 2.39 in 2010, we'd be best to trade him and eat most of his salary or just release him," you are being "conservative" with the numbers, but you're sandbagging the numbers so much that of course getting him off the team is the best option. If we use other projections, we can see that such a move would be foolish.

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

[Chuck to Chuck]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

[Oleg]

Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.

So, what you are saying is that if you make an argument like "Zambrano sucks; he only had 9 wins last year. If we assume his WHIP will be 2.39 in 2010, we'd be best to trade him and eat most of his salary or just release him," you are being "conservative" with the numbers, but you're sandbagging the numbers so much that of course getting him off the team is the best option. If we use other projections, we can see that such a move would be foolish.

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

But, if you were trying to trade for Carlos Zambrano, wouldn't being more conservative with his numbers make more sense?

[Brownie]

But, if you were trying to trade for Carlos Zambrano, wouldn't being more conservative with his numbers make more sense?

Two different arguments. Obama is saying that under the status quo, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is going to account for X percent of the deficit in the future. Thus, we should do Y and Z now.

I toured the local high school in the suburbs (along with 242) one Saturday morning a few weeks back because the district was trying to get a $175MM referendum passed. They made some good arguments as well as some specious claims. They're trying to demonstrate the benefits of doing what they wanted to do versus "Doing Nothing" and "Proposing a Better Plan."

The numbers and figures they used were plausible (although maybe not convincing enough to spend $175 million). But they were plausible and the figures were explained.

If the district were to say something like, "In 20 years, our projections show we'll have 40 percent more students in our high school" when all other projections show much less growth, there'd be a problem. And it would be a real problem if they were to build a second high school only to close it after 15 years. Come to think of it, they've done that before.

If Al Yellon wrote something like:

"Carlos Zambrano is projected by the BCB readership to go 4-19 with a 5.98 ERA and a 2.09 WHIP in 2010 and he will likely spend 2011 on the DL," we'd mock him because, while I suppose that scenario is possible, it's not plausible, and it's not likely, and it contradicts what other accepted projections have.

If Jim Hendry were to look at that and decide to cite that as a reason to actively shop Zambrano, that would be absurd. Zambrano's value is worth far more.

Now, if you were another ballclub with a chance to get Zambrano, would you seriously consider Al Yellon's projections? If this is someone who can help your team and his value is much higher than a shitty pitcher with a very high salary, you're not going to put together a competitive offer. (Obviously, it wouldn't be productive for either GM to project Zambrano would be good for 41 starts per year and a sub-2 ERA, either.)

As to the American magazine article, it's interesting, and I'm curious why they added an extra 1 percent of annual cost growth in there. Maybe the motivations for doing this are political; however, even if there are political reasons for doing it, I am sure there's some justification for it rooted in something.

[Wheezer]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

[powen01]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

[Oleg]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

[CT III]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

All of a sudden...

[Wheezer]

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

"Listen, Steve," I said at one point, "why don't we build you a tree house out back? Then, when visitors come we can tell them we have this hermit who will answer one and only one question for each group of visitors. They should take their time and work out some question that's really complex and covers everything ... then they have to prostrate themselves under your tree and go through some kind of mumbo-jumbo to get you to come out on your porch or limb or whatever. You don't say anything. Just listen gravely as the question is read out. Then you say, 'Oh, yea-a-a-a-a-ah?' and go back in your house."

I'm not sure it's the right archetype, though. Have you ever tried on a Mongolian lamb vest?