[...]Paul Ryan, squish? « The right-wing liberal[...]…

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/04/does-obamacare-reduce-health-c
http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/07/congress-cant-repeal-economics
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089702354292100.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-usa-healthcare-cbo-idUSTRE71H77N20110218

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-HealthCareLegislation.pdf

But my view remains the same. I’ve been through both Ryans and this and both are bogus.

Any FOOL can build a chart showing year by year numbers for the categories.

look at the appendix data and tell me you understand how where the changes to outlays and revenues comes from other than penciled in ?

Both “plans” read like a partisan statement of philosophical concepts.

they talk about specific programs and even throw some money data in – in those discussions but no where is there an articulated list of cuts that total to reduced outlays shown in the summary tables.

Contrast Ryans “plan” and this “plan” with the two deficit commissions that showed how they got their numbers (and allowed you to disagree with their data) and that data was scored by CBO.

You can’t begin to score this plan because it’s not really a plan but a back of envelope scribbling … without showing how you got there.

That’s not budget planning guy.

You can find more accurate and detailed information on a nutrition label for yogurt.

These so-called “plans” show how serious the Republicans really are about their advocacy.

On the health care – CBO scores health care costs and the impact on the budget including what effect ObamaCare has on it.

Where is the references to CBO’s updated scoring of ObamaCare?

MedicAID – The States ALREADY control MedicAid.

They already have control over the costs.

SS and Medicare Part A are funded from FICA not taxes.

Parts B, C, and D are funded by premiums and general fund and nothing in this plan deals with the health care cost inflation which also affects other programs like SCHIPS and TRICARE o which nothing is said about.

I could go on but this is not a serious effort – it something the Republicans can hang their hat on and they’re hoping that no one actually goes and read it and ask for substantiation of the numbers which basically are WAGS without validation.

bad DJ bad.

I can’t even given them a “nice try” because I’m betting one or two staffers threw this together in their spare time and it got rushed into print.

I’m amazed over and over just how little many of the rank and file Republicans actually know about the specifics of the budget.

Many of them either don’t know that FICA is a separate revenue nor that it rivals the income tax in size or what it funds and what it does not fund.

and that becomes painfully obvious when reading their “plans”.

TRICARE Costs – by the way are projected to DOUBLE in about a decade like virtually all other health care costs in this country and there is NO PLAN .. NO “REPLACE” in this “plan” any health care and TRICARE is apparently exempted from the caps, eh?

The CBO has since rescored Obamacare without the GIGO assumptions demanded by the Administration – and whaddya know, Obamacare would *add* to the deficit, not reduce it.

You need to pay closer attention. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

so the plan is believing the CBO on their assessments, right?

oops.. wait one…

” President’s Health Care Law 0 0 0″

so the CBO says that the President’s Health care law will SAVE money.

so where did the study committee get it’ numbers?

Do we believe CBO when we want to and not when we don’t want to?

and that’s “honest”?

where are the footnotes… and references and who scored this plan?

an “honest” plan would be scored by a credentialed entity and it would state who that entity is.

This is more partisan blather just a different flavor that Paul Ryans which is a joke.

this study is a joke also.

Youse guys don’t get it.

You really don’t want to do the real analysis and have it validated.

You think you can throw numbers on a piece of paper and call it credible because you think it is.

the more you show your work the more obvious how bogus it is.