The Director of the CBO says that all of the plans introduced so far would increase the long term health costs facing the government.
The Democrats and President Obama have cited two goals in their overhaul proposals — expanding coverage to the estimated 47 million Americans who currently lack it and bringing down long-term costs because the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending threatens to swamp the federal budget in coming years.
Under questioning from Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D., Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that the congressional proposals released so far do not meet that second test.
“In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs,” he said.
A non-partisan think tank agrees, and says that tax increases are inevitable under the proposed health care plans.
The House bill, for instance, is estimated to cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for it, the White House has proposed raising taxes by $544 billion, almost all on the "rich" — those in the top 5% of incomes.
That leaves a $1 trillion gap. Where will the rest of the money come from? The government claims it will be able to "save" that amount. But please name any government program that saves money over a private one. The only way government will save money is to ration care — that is, give you less medical care at lower quality. Is that your idea of reform?
When the savings fail to appear, higher taxes will have to be imposed — especially on a middle class that's been led to believe it'll get something for nothing on health care.
And why the middle class? "Because," as bank robber Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "that's where the money is."
So the President and Democrats promise their health care legislation will REDUCE long term health care costs for the government, but independent and non-partisan analyses project exactly the opposite.
Ooops?
11 comments:
Hey, guess what the CBO also says: The House healthcare plan will be DEFICIT NEUTRAL over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion SURPLUS. Cherry-pick your information much?
For Immediate Release:
July 17, 2009
CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill
Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.
"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."
The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.
Yes, but that assumes that they can "save money" by "cutting expenses." That's a big assumption. Looking back in history, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have a long record of cost overruns and INCREASING costs. If they can decrease costs here, it'll be the first time. I don't believe it will happen... and the CBO was accepting Congressional projections as to cost savings at face value.
ALso, if you'll check, this post was written and posted at 2pm on the 17th. The report you cite was the on the CBOs's second release of the day, which happened around 5 pm. Care to do the math?
And if you'll check (Google search on the title of the piece you cite) you'll see that most of the blogs who DID post on that piece did so on the 18th or later. Why? Because it came out LATE on the 17th.
Dear readers of Politics Alabama blog:
If you believe the author of this blog was going to post the information I included from the CBO (as he seems to indicate) you are as delusional as he is.
The purpose of this blog is obvious - to mislead the American people into thinking that President Obama and the Democrats in congress are out to destroy our country and the author will use the lowest kind tactics to do so. This includes cherry-picking information, disinformation, propaganda, and full-on lies. Check my comments on his other articles for proof of his dishonorable tactics. When caught in an obvious lie, he will never respond to the accusation, but instead change the subject and spin the truth. Sound familiar? He claims to be a libertarian, but his agenda is exactly the same as all right-wing extremists who are desperate to show that the party currently in power is somehow working against your best interests, even when the opposite is plainly true. You see, the facts don't matter to these people.
Now that the Democrats finally have a strong and effective leader in the White House, those on the right see their political futures disappearing faster then they ever imagined (mostly due to the complete failure of the Bush admin). The bottom line is, when people are desperate, they do desperate things and that's exactly what this blog is all about. The author's obsession with making President Obama look bad, regardless of what's true or not, is bordering on compulsion. I have to wonder if there's more than just politics involved when it comes to the unfair criticisms our first African-American President has received.
Even if you agree with the blog author's many ridiculous assertions, I strongly encourage you to seek out the truth yourself. Do your own research and never take this author's (or any writer's - including mine) word for anything. A quick fact-check on most of this author's arguments quickly shows he is trying to mislead you, so just do a little web searching and get informed and you will find the truth.
For the haters: A true patriot gives the President the benefit of the doubt, especially in times of great trouble as we're currently in. As a liberal, even I hoped George W. Bush would do a good job for this country and I supported him fully until his insistence on invading Iraq began. Just about a year ago, those on the right were screaming that "if you're not with us, you're against us" and tried to equate those that opposed the President were in un-American and in league with terrorists. Today, those same people are attacking our president with the worst kind of disgusting and untrue allegations. The hypocrisy is despicable and I realize they will never stop. I just hope some of you wake up and do what's right for the country, and not just your own interests for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.
"I have to wonder if there's more than just politics involved when it comes to the unfair criticisms our first African-American President has received." - Nicely phrased! Very subtle accusation of racism, there. Well done.
"Even if you agree with the blog author's many ridiculous assertions, I strongly encourage you to seek out the truth yourself. " - Join the club. That's why I post links to articles... so people can read the source material in addition to what I excerpt and what I think about it.
I also trust the intelligence and independence of my readers... and I certainly don't expect to be considered an authoritative source. This is a political COMMENTARY blog, you understand? I don't demand or expect that everybody will agree with me... no matter what you seem to think.
I would, however, like to thank you for that impassioned plea. It wasn't the most coherent thing I've ever read, but it was one of YOUR more coherent pieces. May I suggest, however, that when you make statements like "This includes cherry-picking information, disinformation, propaganda, and full-on lies", that you provide examples? Otherwise it's just a baseless and unsubstantiated claim... an accusation, if you will, with no foundation.
Just wanted to offer that for your future consideration.
Thanks for the insults, I personally couldn't care less what you think since you are hypocrite and a liar. You plead for me to stop the insults, but then dish them out yourself without hesitation = hypocrisy. I'm posting here, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of your readers who are being constantly mislead by you.
Let me get this straight: According to you, it's okay to lie to your readers because you assume they're intelligent enough to find out the truth themselves? Come on....
Examples of your dishonorable tactics can be found in just about every post on this blog. I've called you out on lying, cherry-picking, disinformation and propaganda time and time again. Those are the examples which can be found by reading my comments to your articles. Claim they're baseless all you want, your readers are free to judge for themselves.
Well, Seeker, the problem is that you never actually back up anything you say, including accusations that PA is lying. As a reader of Politics Alabama (and, if I may say, a pretty independent thinker) my opinion is that you are the hypocrite.
You put forth claims and then try to assert that the claims you've made are their own proof. Circular logic much? "X is true because it is true" is not a logical argument in the slightest. Haven't you been in college yet? COM 2241, Fundamentals of Speech. A statement made WITHOUT backup and support is a CLAIM. A statement made WITH backup and support is an ARGUMENT.
What you are doing, my dear child, is making claims.
"Thanks for the insults" - You think I insulted you in that coment? Have you looked at what you've posted about me, and compared the two? Try that once, and let me know what you discover.
"Let me get this straight: According to you, it's okay to lie to your readers because you assume they're intelligent enough to find out the truth themselves?" - No lie, child. I post my opinion, backed up by links to supporting source material... people are smarter than you give them credit for.
"I've called you out on lying, cherry-picking, disinformation and propaganda time and time again." - Too bad you're not accurate. Every time I post an opinion you disagree with or quote a source you don't like, I've "lied." Gorw up a bit, will you?
Yes, I've insulted PA on many occasions, and stand behind every one because he deserves every one due to his dishonorable tactics. Only a hypocrite (like PA) would plead for me to stop using insults and then insult me right back. It's ok if he does it I guess...
It's bad enough PA has to lie to his readers to push is agenda, now he has to lie about being caught in these blatant lies. Typical for someone with zero credibility. Notice when I call him out on his lies and he is obviously in the wrong, he won't address his lie, but instead change the subject and use personal attacks. What does that tell ya?
Seeker, coming from you, complaining that someone else is using personal attacks is laughable. When you STOP using them, THEN you can complain when somebody else does. All I can say is, if you don't want to get hit, don't throw punches at the other guy.
Where did I complain about insults? I thanked PA for them. Thanks also for trying to twist my words which is typical BS from this dude. I am however calling PA out as a hypocrite for complaining about insults and then dishing out insults himself. The truth hurts don't it?
"Notice when I call him out on his lies and he is obviously in the wrong, he won't address his lie, but instead change the subject and use personal attacks. " - Sounds like a complaint to me.
"The truth hurts don't it?" -
Does it?
Post a Comment