His last post actually addressed this directly, this is my understanding at least. The CBO analyzes proposed programs and they effect they will have on the deficit, but it can't really predict what laws will be passed 5-10 years down the road. If the CBO estimates that Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $100billion/year and 3 years later congress decides to invade Kazakhstan at a cost of $200billion/year, the deficit will increase and the CBO 5 year overall deficit prediction will be wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make their specific prediction about Obamacare wrong. Obviously this gets much more complicated when there are hundreds of random spending bills out there that may or may not get passed, especially when savings in one area inevitably lead to more spending in others.

The real question is what should be covered by health insurance? The church doesn't want to cover birth control. The Obama administration is telling the church what their insurance should include.
I'm against the insurance model for solving healthcare. If everyone were responsible for their own birth control, we wouldn't need this debate on that should be covered.

The insurance model is poorly suited for small claims.

The model which worked well for large claims isn't cost efficient for small claims.

The conclusion of the study is that CBO does worse than random walk. The study also only looked at 1 year and 5 year projections on specific programs.

While true, that wasn't my question.

My question to you is, "would you still be in favor of UHC if it were run by the U.S. govt?" That means your healthcare cost would double with no improvement in your health coverage.

The current rate of inflation is right in the appropriate area of about 3% - no problems there. The banks are doing OK. Which major banks are in danger of collapsing? I'll admit the trade deficit is not great, but it is still better than it was 2005-2008. As for another credit bubble - unless you are talking about student loans, I just don't see it.

What do you mean by ridiculously fixed?

Economic think-tanks such as the OECD (OECD Hints at Developed Economy Recovery), The Conference Board (Index of leading economic indicators in .S. climbs 0.4%) seem to be finding some optimism in these reports.

Overseas markets such as Japan (link) and Mexico (link) have seen boosts based on rising confidence in the U.S. economy.

American's confidence in the economy, while obviously not great, has been rising for the last 6 months and is approaching the highest it has been in 4 years. (Gallup)

I'm just really not seeing the impending doom.

Do you see why I keep bringing this up?

Black President tho

When you know you are among the healthy, you don't want to be placed in the general pool which includes the sickly.

1. not really something you can control either way
2. that wasn't his point/objection

Please explain, in your own words, what this means with respect to how a specific program will effect the deficit.

In regards to how it affects the deficit, each specific program who garners a surplus helps the deficit, and each that has a deficit adds to the deficit. I don't really know what question you are trying to ask.

If I make multiple leaps, I think you are asking what the random walk means. If we simply make estimations based on the prior year's data, that estimate is better than the 47 million dollar CBO estimate.

I think what he meant was that the study you are referencing doesn't say anything about how well the CBO projects specific programs. You are making the leap that since the deficit projections 'can't beat a random walk', then the specific program projections are worthless.

There is certainly no proof that they are effective. This entire argument stemmed from the assertion that Obamacare will not cost more money, because the CBO said it would have a surplus. I provided opposing views and a study discounting the ability of the CBO to forecast surplus/deficit. I asked for their side of the argument with citations and proof like they requested of me, and I have been left hanging.

I just skimmed through the report and I don't see where it talks about specific program projections, it seems to be entirely about their total fiscal year deficit projections. They even discuss some reasons why their predictions might be so inconsistent. When the CBO says there will be a surplus, the government uses that as an excuse to spend more money. Of course this doesn't mean that all their individual projections are perfect, but I really don't think this paper supports your argument.

Good, so let's take this to the next step. How can we make estimations based on the prior year's data for a new program? What does a "random walk" prediction mean when it's a new program?

Are you starting to see how the study was talking about something different than what we're talking about?

The CBO does what it can, but it's pretty easy to game with assumptions or policies unlikely to actually occur. It also didn't exactly nail Medicare costs on the nose.

I'd certainly bet on this bill increasing the deficit over 10 years if I had to take a side, but there are so many unknowns the best anyone can do is guess.

Except when Medicare was implemented they had no idea people would live as long as they do today. The life expectancy then was like 67 years, now it's like 77. That's a fair difference.

Well of course you could always see how the UHC nations have fared with their plans. I mean it's only EVERY SINGLE ONE of them that spends less on health care than the USA does, so it might be, you know, worth taking a look at.

We didn't pass UHC, so not sure what your point is?

One thing I have been thinking about:

let's say an european-like UHC is implemeted in america: would american hospitals crash under the new stream of patients?

European hospitals have been built with mass care in mind; does the same apply for US hospitals?

It's only a roughly 10% increase in the number of insured, so it's hard to see why the system couldn't handle it. In fact, it's likely that the lineups for emergency rooms would go down since all the people using that as their primary care service would be able to visit GPs.

There's a doctor shortage. Not all new members will be able to find primary care physicians. Many seniors new to medicare can not find doctors.

In San Francisco most hospital emergency rooms do not accept walk-ins off the street. You must be bought in by an ambulance.

Why would anyone want to become a doctor these days...? Shortages make sense.

am i missing something in the US? why wouldn'd they become doctors?

Think there are many who want to be doctors. But few want the low paying PCP jobs. They mostly want to be specialist.