Publius Maximus wrote: > I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Hi Bob,
Shocked that they tried it, or shocked that *I* am the one posting about it? :-) >> Unless, of course, you are writing the Senate bill . . . >> >> http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/ >> >> "The New York Times’s Robert Pear notes that the Senate health bill >> would double count proposed Medicare cuts by using them both to pay for >> the new health insurance subsidies and to extend the life of the >> Medicare trust fund from 2017 to 2026. The analysis comes from the CBO, >> and was mentioned by Rich on The Corner last week. Rich, to his credit, >> told us about the double count before the Senate’s final vote on the >> health-care package. The Times, however, has conveniently waited until >> after the vote, blithely noting that CBO’s “clarification came too late >> to affect the outcome of debate over the legislation, passed Thursday in >> the Senate by a party-line vote of 60 to 39.” >> >> "The Times does provide a service in highlighting the views of CMS >> actuary Rick Foster on the subject. In addition to making the point >> that the funds “cannot be simultaneously used” for both purposes, Foster >> notes that the bill’s estimated savings themselves “may be unrealistic.” >> The bill’s proponents have been eager to highlight the Senate bill’s >> apparent deficit neutrality as evidence of fiscal responsibility. But >> what we are learning from this article — after the crucial vote, mind >> you — is that that the bill may even be more irresponsible than the >> bill’s critics have claimed, as unrealistic savings that may not >> materialize are to be counted for two completely different purposes. >> Pear quotes Senator Jon Kyl as saying about the double count that “You >> can’t sell the same pony twice.” If Foster is right, however, the very >> pony they are double selling may not even exist." -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
