The CBO just released a report that details how the House's new health care repeal law will add 230 billion dollars to the deficit by 2021. From 2012 to 2019 it would add 145 billion dollars to an already mammoth deficit. Boehner's response?
“I do not believe that repealing the job- killing health-care bill is going to increase the deficit.”
So, he doesn't believe it, hmm? I guess it's OK now to believe whatever we want. I guess that also means that he doesn't "believe" the CBO's other report that says the health care bill will actually reduce the deficit. Of course it can't work. That would mean (gasp!) they would....WIN! Waaaaaaah!!!!
I'm trying to figure out why they are going for repeal first. Didn't they get the memo about unemployment? Of course, they are really screwed there because their ideology is at loggerheads with itself. They got elected because the people of this country thought the Democrats were doing a crappy job at helping them get jobs so it was the GOP's turn. But the GOP wants the government to get out of the way so.....what now? Oh, yeah, cut taxes...cut spending and everything will be fine.
Belief is a wonderful thing.
7 comments:
I guess you haven't seen what Paul Ryan put out as to why the CBO said what it did.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-actually-obamacare-will-increase-budget-deficit-700-billion-over-10-years_526794.htm
CBO is accurate with what it is given but it wasn't given the full picture according to him. Since Health Care run by government has NEVER been efficient or kept cost down, you can say that this new information aligns with historical knowledge and as such, he is probably right?
"If you take out all the double-counting — if you add the counting they didn't count — it adds a $701 billion deficit. So, what CBO cannot do is tell you 'we're not going to count the budget gimmicks that are in this legislation.' They just have to estimate the bill as it's written, with all the gimmicks included. So, people around here know how to write legislation to manipulate the kind of cost estimate you're gonna get from the Congressional Budget Office. I sent a letter to the CBO, I asked them 'Well, now look at these budget gimmicks, ignore these budget gimmicks. What then?' And it's what I just told you, this thing is a huge budget-buster. So, what they have is a piece of paper that they've manipulated to say this thing reduces the deficit.
In other words, Democrats had to cook the numbers, present it to CBO to report, and then get trumpet this as a sales pitch for Obamacare. Only the foolish would believe this is different from historical evidence and from red flags being raised about the viability of this program.
I, with my limited knowledge of all things, haven't heard of ANY large government program that at or under budget. If you have, I am happy to hear about it.
But 6Kings, Democrats only do good things for the people. Even when they make mistakes, they still had noble intentions. Republicans are evil, wretched subhumans.
You have to remember the essential mindset of the liberal/progressive partisan.
Just heard where Bernanke says employment may not return to normal for 4 or 5 years. I bet that clogged up the toilets in the White House.
You know, 6Kings, sooner or later the Right in this country is going to have to start governing without abstractions or universals, as Burke would put it. I'm going to be talking about this more next week but sooner or later you (and the people you support who just got elected) are going to have present concrete solutions to our nation's problems. Right now there is a lot of language that is decidedly lacking in how exactly to solve these problems.
Of course, you don't want government to solve many of them which is honestly quite silly when you think about it. You talk about budget cutting but you really don't about the concrete or the specifics. Nor do you talk about what sort of impact that would have on our culture. I don't think you have any clear indication of what a smaller government would actually mean.
Juris-it may not. That's what happens when 20 trillion dollars is pissed away by criminals.
I hope the Weekly Standard is taking into account all the health cost savings there will be from not having to cover people who die because they couldn't afford to buy health insurance. But, let's say, the GOP is successful in rolling back what they call "Obamacare." Will California Blue Shield also roll back its proposed 30-59% rate hikes, too?
http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106,0,6975599.story
(Hmmm. I kind of doubt it. That's easy money for insurance company CEOs. And the greater the efficiencies, the greater the profits, right? Especially when the company can decide who can receive what treatments. If you believe in "death panels," private sector health insurance companies already have great experience doing that.)
sooner or later the Right in this country is going to have to start governing without abstractions or universals
Now this I would agree with in that they better start acting instead of talking about reform. I, just as most here would agree, that people are sick of empty promises and want action. Leaders need to step up and grow spines to get some real solutions put in place instead trickery and putting off the hard choices.
Of course, you don't want government to solve many of them which is honestly quite silly when you think about it. You talk about budget cutting but you really don't about the concrete or the specifics.
Here is where our views diverge. I want government to stay out of 'fixing' things unless it is spelled out as a responsibility i.e. defense or a last resort. Not just another option...LAST RESORT. I and others have pointed out why....they are supremely corrupt (or at least easily influenced) and inefficient. I don't see it as silly but quite responsible. I think silly describes your view of government as an answer to the nation's woes.
I read an article a while back (I can't find it any longer) but the gist of it was that the Dept of Health and Human services spent 85% of its budget on administrative costs and 15% on assistance to people. United Way, one of the most inefficient private charities, spent 15% on overhead and 85% on assistance. It is just one example of why the government is not the panacea for much of what they are sticking their hands into. We haven't even touched on the invasive and meddling nature that government solutions require just to function.
Understand that this doesn't support your meme about 'Conservatives hate government'. We aren't anarchists! We want it smaller and less intrusive where possible but still functional and effective.
You know, if this needed course correction doesn't take place on a managed and deliberate plan which may include some very harsh changes, we will get the correction at some point and it may turn into a disaster of epic proportions - one that nobody wants.
Good points noodleman. The right is screaming about rates rising but we all know they would've gone up anyway. Doing nothing would've resulted in higher costs and all the problems they say we are going to have as a result of the new law. I don't think the new law is going to be iron clad perfect but it prevented a spiraling disaster.
Ha, even the WSJ is calling you acolytes of the Obamacare church foolish.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/wsj-if-you-believe-obamacare-will-saves-money-youll-believe-anything/
Sorry Santa, those are not good points. There were a number of options that would have addressed some of the issues around health care that would not have been as invasive or costly yet this legislation was pushed through for political reasons more than anything else. Heck, most hadn't even read or understood it. Irresponsible.
Post a Comment