i am reminded of what the cbo director elmendorf said yesterday. he said it would probably take three days to get a preliminary analysis, about three days after. and he also said that then, after that, it would take two more weeks to look at the final analysis looking at the legislative language. we have never, ever, ever done that in this committee. i might also remind our colleagues of the almost excessive transparency this committee has utilized in telling the american people what we are doing. let me just review what we have done in this committee. first, it has been on the website since last wednesday, and the modified mark up has been recently, and this is a new process. that is new. this committee started that. i do not know any committee that has been more transparent than this committee. let me go back. when we start thinking about health care, are committing last november put together an options paper, a white paper, which is basically the foundation for most health-care reform legislation. that was on the website. for everybody to see an

elmendorf said this morning when we discussed a similar issue, both the congressional but ought -- congressionaludget office and joint committee when we estimate the effects, when we do distribution analysis, we see the economics of payroll taxes as generally ultimately falling on the employee. >> wateville, thank you very much. -- wonderful, thank you very much. let me quote from mr. obama during the campaign. "middle-class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than 2 under $50,000 will see their taxes increase -- making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." this bill violates that promise and we want to help the majority, help the president make good on his promise. pass this amendment and we will make sure that families making less than 2 wondered $50,000 do not see their taxes -- $250,000 do not see their taxes increase. it is just that easy, it is that simple. these taxes increase over 10 years. they're not the major pay force in this bill. they are the punitive penalties designed to force people into the mandate. obviously, we have a policy problem with t

. >> doug elmendorf, the head of the cbo, said if this goes through, those 20 million in medicare advantagewould see their services produced by about half. that would put the assertion the president has made that no one will be forced to go into a public plan if they do not want to, and part of the reason we got this started, they have not been briefed to post the arcane language. it is the kind of stuff that you want to read at night, but it is incredibly important. democrats are withholding publication of that, as well as the cbo scores of what the price tag is. just a few minutes ago, kent conrad asked the finance committee chair max baucus, if they got any number of overnight. he said yes, but nothing we wanted to discuss in public. kent conrad said, was afraid of that. megyn: wow. just one of the reasons why people are paying so close attention to this. thank you, carl cameron. bill: i have been telling you for months, if you are having a hard time following a sleep at night, just start reading one of these bills. megyn: i start reading these books on motherhood and i start to feel ove

>> at least what elmendorf said in his letter to congress, studies do show -- it surprised a lot of peoplet there aren't some saved lives and some people who would benefit from it. but the ultimate cost, when you add them all together, is greater. >> and, lastly, on government panels saving money by deciding who dies and who doesn't. take a listen. >> the best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. now such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. it is a lie, plain and simple. >> bill? >> he gets a true on the truth-o-meter for that one. we've rated this one. sarah palin said it, when betsy mccoy said it in a different way. it's just ridiculous. we gave it a pants on fire when palin said it. so, the president is right and he gets a true on the truth-o-meter. >> bill, thank you so much. hope to talk to you soon. >>> breaking news into msnbc, the number of uninsured in america up a touch here to 46.3 million, at

elmendorf told congress. mr. bloom happens to be a former senior aide to mr. bachus and an advisor on the president obama transition team. for the record, c.b.o.'s director elmendorf said cuts to medicare advantage could lead to many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise premium or withdraw from the program. they want to put a gag on the deliverers of this congress because they're writing to patient the people they're cover, and telling them they'll lose coverage if this bill passes that medicare advantage is going to be gutted, senator baucus is now saying we want to put a gag in the mouths of the people who are providing this coverage so that they can't tell the senior citizens of this country they're going to lose medicare advantage coverage. that is a violation of the first amendment and secondly, i don't know of any rule that would allow senator baucus to do this. this is absolutely a terrible thing and mr. bloom doesn't have the authority to do this, mr. bachus, senator baucus does not have the authority to do this, and yet they're gagging the he

i sat next to doug elmendorf from cbo and he was asked by distinguished members of the committee where the savings would be from tort reform, an insurance reform, in an amendment like this, and he said, no, it is very small. negligible savings, and you really cannot pick up defensive medicine because there are so many reasons for there to be. that distinction cannot be drawn for innumerable reasons, from good ones too bad ones like having a friend with an ownership interest in an imaging clinic where you want to keep sending people. there is a lot of defensive medicine practiced, and not all that is a bad thing. some of the key to america healthy and this type of legislation simply cannot be documented to save significant funds, at least according to cbo. the last point i want to make is they always try to hit at the jury system and we all know that the jury system can be disruptive and uncomfortable. but under our constitution, it is supposed to be. it is often the last refuge of the individual when they are badly injured, when the forces of society are against them, when money for in

i think one of the most interesting was a letter that i just saw that was sent from doug elmendorf, the director of the congressional budget office to the distinguished ranking member of the senate budget committee, our colleague, mr. greg. and in it he references -- he refers to the fact that as we go down the line we are going to obviously see what is going to be a tremendous increase in expenditures. i listened to my friend, the gentleman, the gentleman from the education and labor committee that we'll have $10 billion in savings. based on what i've seen from that c.b.o. number, not only will we have savings but we'll have a dramatic increase in spending. we know that pursuing private markets is the right way for us to go, but we've had disruptions in the private markets over the past couple of years. unfortunately, the measure before us prevents us from being able to rely on private credit markets in the future. now, one of the reasons that's so important is private capital is what i believe we should be relying on as much as possible. i'm not saying there should be no role for gove

elmendorf said this morning when we discussed a similar issue, both the congressional but ought -- congressionalt office and joint committee when we estimate the effects, when we do distribution analysis, we see the economics of payroll taxes as generally ultimately falling on the employee. >> wateville, thank you very much. -- wonderful, thank you very much. let me quote from mr. obama during the campaign. "middle-class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than 2 under $50,000 will see their taxes increase -- making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." this bill violates that promise and we want to help the majority, help the president make good on his promise. pass this amendment and we will make sure that families making less than 2 wondered $50,000 do not see their taxes -- $250,000 do not see their taxes increase. it is just that easy, it is that simple. these taxes increase over 10 years. they're not the major pay force in this bill. they are the punitive penalties designed to force people into the mandate. obviously, we have a policy problem with that.

in july, the congressional budget office director, douglas elmendorf, said the house bill and the senateealth bill did not -- quote -- "propose the fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." unquote. additionally, the congressional budget office has indicated that the house bill would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $230 billion over ten years. this likely is a low-ball estimate because it assumes that congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next 10 years. so, mr. president, if we're going to implement health care reform without increasing our debt, how are we going to pay for it? who is going to pay for it, is the more precise question. here are some of the answers that have been proposed so far by the democratic side of the aisle. number one: grandma's medicare is going to pay for it. the bills and the president's own plan, which we've yet to see the details of, propose -- quote -- "medicare savings," nice words for "medicare cuts." if there really is a $5 billio00 bil

in july, the congressional budget office director, douglas elmendorf, said the house bill and the senate health bill did not -- quote -- "propose the fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." unquote. additionally, the congressional budget office has indicated that the house bill would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $230 billion over ten years. this likely is a low-ball estimate because it assumes that congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next 10 years. so, mr. president, if we're going to implement health care reform without increasing our debt, how are we going to pay for it? who is going to pay for it, is the more precise question. here are some of the answers that have been proposed so far by the democratic side of the aisle. number one: grandma's medicare is going to pay for it. the bills and the president's own plan, which we've yet to see the details of, propose -- quote -- "medicare savings," nice words for "medicare cuts." if there really is a $5 billio00 b

elmendorf said this morning when we discussed a similar issue, both the congressional but ought -- congressionaloffice and joint committee when we estimate the effects, when we do distribution analysis, we see the economics of payroll taxes as generally ultimately falling on the employee. >> wateville, thank you very much. -- wonderful, thank you very much. let me quote from mr. obama during the campaign. "middle-class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than 2 under $50,000 will see their taxes increase -- making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." this bill violates that promise and we want to help the majority, help the president make good on his promise. pass this amendment and we will make sure that families making less than 2 wondered $50,000 do not see their taxes -- $250,000 do not see their taxes increase. it is just that easy, it is that simple. these taxes increase over 10 years. they're not the major pay force in this bill. they are the punitive penalties designed to force people into the mandate. obviously, we have a policy problem with that. b

i sat next to doug elmendorf from cbo and he was asked by distinguished members of the committee where the savings would be from tort reform, an insurance reform, in an amendment like this, and he said, no, it is very small. negligible savings, and you really cannot pick up defensive medicine because there are so many reasons for there to be. that distinction cannot be drawn for innumerable reasons, from good ones too bad ones like having a friend with an ownership interest in an imaging clinic where you want to keep sending people. there is a lot of defensive medicine practiced, and not all that is a bad thing. some of the key to america healthy and this type of legislation simply cannot be documented to save significant funds, at least according to cbo. the last point i want to make is they always try to hit at the jury system and we all know that the jury system can be disruptive and uncomfortable. but under our constitution, it is supposed to be. it is often the last refuge of the individual when they are badly injured, when the forces of society are against them, when money for in

elmendorf said this morning when we discussed a similar issue, both the congressional but ought -- congressionalet office and joint committee when we estimate the effects, when we do distribution analysis, we see the economics of payroll taxes as generally ultimately falling on the employee. >> wateville, thank you very much. -- wonderful, thank you very much. let me quote from mr. obama during the campaign. "middle-class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than 2 under $50,000 will see their taxes increase -- making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." this bill violates that promise and we want to help the majority, help the president make good on his promise. pass this amendment and we will make sure that families making less than 2 wondered $50,000 do not see their taxes -- $250,000 do not see their taxes increase. it is just that easy, it is that simple. these taxes increase over 10 years. they're not the major pay force in this bill. they are the punitive penalties designed to force people into the mandate. obviously, we have a policy problem with that