Serious question: Why the CBO? Why can't the Republicans rate their healthcare-bill?

[DetlefK]

They wrote the bill. Why can't they publish their calculations and projections how the bill will perform along with the bill?

Instead of throwing some crazy, untested idea out there, why not publish it along with the models, formulas and calculations the Republicans used to test their idea?

How come it's somehow reasonable to blurt out some bullshit and then to ask the experts whether the bullshit you just blurted out makes sense? Shouldn't you know that before blurting it out?

[Parmenides72]

1. The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan. Partisan ratings would be dubious.

[Phoenix61]

2. Oh, they know

they just don't want us to know.

[TXCritter]

3. Republicans hate science.

Thus, they hate data and math. Only micro-accounting is acceptable math. All else is blasphemy.

[Scoopster]

4. They. Don't. Care.

Their only goal is destroying Obama's legacy. They don't give a shit what happens as a result, because they already know they're gonna make millions from it.

[rgbecker]

5. You are atributing to the GOP way more honesty and intelligence than they deserve.

This Republicare bill is simply a ruse to make the press and public think they give a shit about reform when in fact they will simply end up gutting Obamacare piece by piece until all the insurance companies pull out and the system collapses.

The CBO will rate the plan as marginally budget neutral to allow a vote, where it will most likely fail in the Senate. After that it will be a matter of a year or two and Obamacare will be decimated and a vague memory of what did actually cover millions that otherwise could not be admitted to a hospital should a need arise.

[flamingdem]

6. Who is getting paid off at the CBO?

They have moles throughout the government now

[pnwmom]

7. Why should we trust any numbers they put out? n/t

[DetlefK]

8. It's not just numbers. They should publish all of the calculations.

What raw data they used and why.
What the margin of error for the raw data is.
What theoretical models they used and why.
What formulas they used and why.
What their predictions are and what margin of error their predictions have.

Everything.

It's not just "hard science" where it's done that way. Have you ever read a paper about psychological studies? They contain so much and so detailed statistical analysis it will make your head spin.

But not politicians, noooo.
We can't expect them to know anything about economics or statistics.
We can't expect them to explain why they are using this particular model (e.g. tax-cuts create jobs) for their prediction.