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

[Quality Start Machine]

The CBO basically assumes whatever the bill says it will do, it will do.

According to this guy, the CBO actually takes a conservative view of cost-savings in the second decade:

Yes, the CBO itself notes that projections for the second decade of implementation--that is, 2020 through 2029--have an unusually high margin of error. But the CBO's final judgment takes that uncertainty into account.

Remember, when the CBO makes a projection for how much a program will cost over time, it isn't just spitting out a single number. It's giving a range of numbers. It's typically the midpoint that you hear about, but there's always a chance that the number will be higher or lower, by a certain interval. And, in order to play it safe, CBO decided it would judge health care reform based on the worst possible estimate within that interval.

So suppose, just to use some hypothetical numbers, the CBO ran the numbers and determined that the Democrats' bill would probably save $1 trillion over ten years, but that the range of possible estimates was between saving $2.25 trillion and losing $250 billion. I'd say that's pretty good odds: It's far more likely you'll save money and the possible savings are far bigger than the possible increase in the deficit.

CBO would have disagreed. If there's a statistically significant chance that the bill would cost $250 billion, they would have said they can't declare that the bill won't inflate the deficit. The only way to get CBO approval would have been to modify the bill, so that the CBO determined it was likely to save $1.25 trillion but determined even the worst-case, most pessimistic scenario wouldn't drive up the deficit.

FWIW, I can't find any language in here that verifies the TNR claim of conservative budgeting of cost savings.

These seem to be pretty even-handed takes on the legitimacy of the CBO scores:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-19/health-cares-fuzzy-math/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18/do-these-numbers-add-up/

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

It's going to be a tough sell for this with whatever Dems were on the fence before the CBO numbers came out. Especially in an election year.

[Wheezer]

Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity?

For the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (so they claim)

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity?

For the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well

1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

If this dragon was fucking a car, you deserved much, much more.

FACE

Apparently you don't understand what I do around here.

[morpheus]

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.

[Yeti]

Apparently you don't understand what I do around here.

Men?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do their job first, then report?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do their job first, then report?

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone considers The Politico to be part of the media.

(Or maybe some people do. Which would be part of the problem, I guess.)

[thehawk]

Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity?

For the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

They did, and I'm not sure why.  I believe that in 2007 they had 27 employees, so it seems a bit overhead heavy to me.

[R-V]

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not.

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

[morpheus]

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not.

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

[morpheus]

DPD.  "Hey employees, this is just a recommendation but..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6313300.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not.

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

No one is saying it's not a complicated issue.

But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This, in turn, means at least two things: reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in the first place and, when unintended pregnancies do happen, increasing the number that are carried to term.

Increased access to female contraception and quality sex education help towards the former. Decreasing the financial burden of pre- and postnatal care seems like it would help the latter.

Now, you can go on hand-waving with your over-simplified and over-generalized mantra that if you subsidize anything it WILL happen more often. But we'd like to see more than a theory posited, too.

Maybe start by considering this question that I asked up-thread:

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?

Subsidize what and more of it will happen?

Subsidized abortions? Subsidized childbirth? Subsidized contraception?

All three?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

DPD.  "Hey employees, this is just a recommendation but..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6313300.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

updated 7:20 p.m. 3/20/10

Editor's note: The White House is disputing a claim in this article that e-mails are being sent to people who don't want them. The communications director for the Office of Health Reform, Linda Douglass, said Grenell's assertions are "inaccurate."

"Emailed updates about health insurance reform legislation are sent periodically to members of the public who sign up to receive them. No one is sent unsolicited emails. Mr. Grenell would have learned this if he had called the White House to ask who receives the emails, but he did not contact us before writing. The assertions made in his column are inaccurate," Douglass said in a statement.

So, apparently the crime was failing to filter federal email addresses out of their normal e-blast address list.

[Wheezer]

But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Relentlessly shitting all over the pro-rubella community would be a good idea, as well.