>>>>>>>The U.S. Taliban now has two members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Many more than that, sadly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What exactly are you saying, Mr. Beane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought it was clear. That your hostile sense of justice differs little or at all from the Taliban's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Enough of this discussion. It's going to give me a heart attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>So - our health care will take care of that now.
>>>>>
>>>>>(sorry - just couldn't help myself)
>>>>
>>>>Don't jump the gun! Mike's heart attack will not be covered by mandate until 2014. However, he will be paying for it between now and then...
>>>
>>>My costs aren't going to go up a nickel. I am already paying through the nose.
>>
>>The multitude of tax increases are phased in between now and 2013, whereas the individual mandate, no-deny insurance, insurance exchanges and credits do not start until 2014. Your costs are going up, guaranteed, whether or not you'll see the "benefits" notsomuch.
>
>We'll see.
>
>Projections are that costs will go down. As opposed to gong up 16% per year like clockwork.

CBO projections are based on the assumptions given to them, they are not based in history nor likely hood.

For instance, which politicians will actually cast a vote to cut medicare when the time for those assumed cuts comes? Only the gerrymandered safest ones, that's who. The CBO counts those cuts because they're assumed in the legislation, however, they must still be voted on to actually be enacted. Fat chance. So there's $500 billion worth of BS savings.

That's how Congress manipulates everything and why it was such a DUMB idea for the Reps to tout those early CBO numbers. They legitimized them in the debate. From that point the Dems simply had to throw in a bunch of garbage about future cuts and taxes and bingo! The only way the CBO numbers can possibly pan out is for everything in the legislation to be put in place according to plan and for all assumptions regarding costs to be accurate. Wanna bet on that?

Here's a hint as to why I'm certain about this disaster. The legislation calls for higher fees on insurance companies and drugmakers starting in 2017 and increasing in 2018. In addition the tax on high-cost insurance plans kicks in in 2018. That's 7 and 8 years in the future. 6 election cycles from now. 7-8 years worth of events which can and inevitably do, change priorities. Congress holds the power through appropriation. No funds = no assumed savings. No cuts = no assumed savings. No taxes = no assumed savings.

>As a fiscal conservative I thought you would like that.

If I believed it for a second I would like it. History of entitlement, economics and simple math tell me different.

Remember supply and demand? Plug the basics of the changes into the curve and see what you get.
30+ million more insured + same resources = ???

Of course this makes an assumption that the resources stay the same. Not likely. They're much more likely to dwindle especially given recent news regarding hospitals and doctors dropping medicare patients due to underpayment or lack of payment alltogether.

...and of course there's that whole unconstitutional mandate thing which is eventually headed to a Supreme Court whom our Dear Leader recently called out on the floor of Congress to the thunderous Pavlovian response of the Dems who just passed this slow-motion trainwreck as their signature issue. Now I've mentioned before that I don't hold much hope for the court challenges, however, some recent decisions have kept that small bit of hope alive in me. There are 3 co-equal branches of government, not 2.

UPDATE : I found a positive in the bill. 17000 jobs are guaranteed to be created. ;)
http://www2.starexponent.com/cse/news/opinion/article/how_i_see_it_who_wins_in_health_care_mess_the_irs/54541/

UPDATE 2 : Here's the most recent example of the CBO at work in regards to Social Security.
This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp