UNEMPLOYMENT AT 10%

Coordinated blasts hit Baghdad; kill at least 121 (AP)

Iraqi security forces and rescuers search for survivors at the site of a bomb attack near the new Finance Ministry in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009. An official at Iraq's Interior Ministry says dozens have been killed in a series of coordinated blasts around Baghdad. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)AP - A series of coordinated attacks struck Baghdad Tuesday, including two suicide car bombers and another vehicle that blew up near government sites. At least 121 were killed and hundreds wounded in the worst wave of violence in the capital in more than a month, authorities said.

Also, I'm with the group that says we need health care reform, but not the way this administration is planning it. It misses out on savings while adding almost a trillion dollar to our deficit. When Obama said he's not going to add one dime to our deficit, he hasn't proved it yet as far as I'm concerned.

What Does the Congressional Budget Office Say About Health Care Reform?

Peter Suderman | December 7, 2009

In a column on health care today, E.J. Dionne argues that the Congressional Budget Office has cleared the way for reform:

The core issues of this debate have been settled. The Congressional Budget Office has swept away the major arguments that opponents of reform have been trying to make. The bill before the Senate would cut the deficit, not increase it, and would stabilize or reduce health care premiums for most people, not raise them. The proposal contains serious cost-control measures that can be built on over time. Passing health care reform is thus not only morally necessary, but also fiscally responsible.

These are certainly the numbers that have gotten the most play in the press. But looking a little closer, I'm not sure CBO confirms any of this.

On deficit neutrality, the CBO has warned strongly on repeated occasions that there's a long history of Medicare reimbursement cuts not coming to pass, and that the bill's score would change substantially if that were to happen once again (which many believe is likely). The CBO has also explicitly stated that if you include the legislative fix to the last round of failed reimbursement cuts"as House Democrats did in their original bill"the total effect on the deficit is decidedly not neutral.

And while it's true that the CBO expects premiums for those who receive insurance through their employers to stay roughly flat, the CBO also expects premiums in the individual market"the market that this bill was primarily intended to reform"to jump significantly. Any premium reductions in that market would come through taxpayer-funded subsidies, not through reform's magical shrinking effect on premiums.

Moreover, the CBO simply hasn't said that the bill's cost-control measures are likely to pay off. If anything, it's said the opposite. Over the summer, CBO chief Doug Elmendorf said he believed the reform bills he was seeing at the time would bend the cost curve in the wrong direction. Since then, the CBO has taken the official position that it can't evaluate one way or another. But given that 1) the major components of the bills are largely the same now as they were this summer and 2) Medicare's actuary has stated that reform is likely to increase costs, I think it's more than reasonable to be skeptical of any claims that the bill will reduce medical spending.

It's not whether I became allies with Bushbots; it's about your ability to challenge what they said.

yes. i had 3 interviews and my mom was supposed to give me a ride to take the drug test and she never showed up.

Even murders tell the truth some times. That you negate everything someone or some group says in total shows your ignorance, and limited capacity to learn.

If you don't believe them, tell us why? Provide us with your "evidence or facts."

I'm not afraid of any impact from our Medicare; we'll handle anything that comes up the pike; they've already covered much more expense than we've paid into the system, and that also goes for social security.

If they are "assertions," than you should be able to challenge them with some of your own evidence or reasons why.

Without credible challenge to those assertions, why should anybody believe you?