Bend it like Barack – into the red

posted at 10:55 am on July 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Economists love nothing more than curling up in front of a fireplace with a financial analysis of government policy, allowing the numbers to wash over them like a John Updike novel — or in this administration, more like a Stephen King horrorfest.  For the rest of us, though, the numbers and calculations can prove daunting.  Keith Hennessey puts the CBO’s latest killer analysis of the House health-care reform bill into graphic form, where everyone can be horrified equally.

For a baseline demonstration of the numbers, Hennessey charts the spending and taxes in the House bill, along with the expected revenue of the proposed tax increase — the “surtax” on the rich — over the next ten years:

Despite Barack Obama’s promises, the cost-saving techniques in ObamaCare only offset about a quarter of all the new spending in the plan by 2019.  The offsetting tax increase, Rangel’s surtax, will only generate $87 billion a year by that time, slightly more than half of the next spending increase — and note that revenues almost flatline while spending increases at a much higher rate.  What does that mean for the second decade?  Hennessey has a chart for that, too:

Click on the image if you need a better look at the data.  By the time we get to 2029, ObamaCare will run a $205 billion deficit in that year alone, almost as much as the CBO estimate of the program’s entire first decade.  It’s a devastating analysis of ObamaCare, one which Hennessey calls a TKO of the proposal.  These charts certainly make that case.

Be sure to read all of his analysis.  Curl up in front of a fire.  In fact, throw John Conyers’ copy on the logs, since he won’t be reading it before he votes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Just turn it upside down. See! All better now!

SouthernGent on July 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The Gubmint gets direct access to your bank account.
Its in the bill.

Itchee Dryback on July 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM

ok, now you are really scaring me….why isn’t this being played up?

cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Oh, great….an AnninCA healthcare thread. I say we make her our new healthcare czar. In that regard, don’t piss her off, you might not get the care you want or need.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The public option SHOULD be simple. Offer the plan at a price that’s affordable. Raise the taxes on the truly wealthy as a subsidy for the costs.

The mentality of these statists hacks me off. Just go steal another persons property and give it others under the threat of law. F’off! And I say that as a non “truly wealthy” person.

WashJeff on July 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM

The CBO is required, by law, to use static analysis when calculating the affect of tax changes.
In reality, these tax increases will only bring in a small fraction of the revenue that the CBO is projecting.

MarkTheGreat on July 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Outrageous admin costs????? Are you inferring that Gov’t is slimmer than the private sector??? Really????

What I really love is that someone always justifies new spending by thinning another person’s pocketbook. Why do we insist on penalizing success??? These people never say “tax me to pay for this new program”…it’s always, “tax someone else so that I can get something for free.”

search4truth on July 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM

The public option SHOULD be simple. Offer the plan at a price that’s affordable. Raise the taxes on the truly wealthy as a subsidy for the costs. And let people choose.

The private insurers? They can start working on those outrageous admin costs.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Did you not even look at the graphs up top?

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Outrageous admin costs????? Are you inferring that Gov’t is slimmer than the private sector??? Really????

Yes, substantially. That’s the “rub” and why the healthcare lobbyists are spending millions to fight this.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The public option SHOULD be simple. Offer the plan at a price that’s affordable. Raise the taxes on the truly wealthy as a subsidy for the costs.

Now all we have to do is define “truly wealthy”, and once we have that number, anyone over it will find ways to get themselves one dollar under it to escape being targeted.

Seriously, this crusade against the “rich” is getting out of hand; most of them are inheritance-babies like Ted Kennedy.

Bishop on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

ok, now you are really scaring me….why isn’t this being played up?

cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I wonder what happens if there are insufficient funds in the account to cover the government withdrawal.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Ol’ man river,
Dat ol’ man river
He mus’know sumpin’
But don’t say nuthin’,
He jes’keeps rollin’
He keeps on rollin’ along.

He don’ plant taters/tators,
He don’t plant cotton,
An’ dem dat plants’em
is soon forgotten,
But ol’man river,
He jes keeps rollin’along.

Limerick on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

AREN’T inheritance babies.

Bishop on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Why do people bother with Ann any more? She doesn’t listen to anything that’s written or explained about the plan. She just wants her binky. She wants to be chattel.

lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Yes, substantially. That’s the “rub” and why the healthcare lobbyists are spending millions to fight this.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Can someone else here explain this for me??? I’m speechless right now……

search4truth on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Oh yeah, I saw something about that. Silly idea.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Your cavalier attitude towards some of the dirty little details is outrageous. This plan isn’t about aspirin and liver transplants for all, it is about control, rather continued control for generations to come. If that isn’t enough to make you shake your head a little and digest some of the facts, I have no idea what it would take you wake you and your ilk up.

sherry on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

ok, now you are really scaring me….why isn’t this being played up?

cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I’m pretty sure that part is meant to allow direct withdrawals for premiums. I wouldn’t get too hyped up about it.

There are lots of things to be upset about it, but I don’t think this is one.

lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 11:38 AM

search4truth on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

In Ann’s world there are unicorns and the Government never spent $10,000 on toilet seats.

kingsjester on July 28, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Outrageous admin costs????? Are you inferring that Gov’t is slimmer than the private sector??? Really????

Yes, substantially. That’s the “rub” and why the healthcare lobbyists are spending millions to fight this.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Sorry, but it has to be said: you are just plain ignorant.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Now all we have to do is define “truly wealthy”, and once we have that number, anyone over it will find ways to get themselves one dollar under it to escape being targeted.

Seriously, this crusade against the “rich” is getting out of hand; most of them are inheritance-babies like Ted Kennedy.

Bishop on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

As noted above, hyperinflation will take care of all that. Think of all the millionares in Zimbabwe.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I wonder what happens if there are insufficient funds in the account to cover the government withdrawal.
a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Same for not buying the plan in the first place: Fines and penalties. If you can’t afford the fines then Federal repo-men show up one night to take your boat or car or tools or whatever else might act as sufficient collateral.

This plan is awesome; you will get “free” health care even if it means having to live in a van down by the river.

Bishop on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The only problem with the analysis is that the true cost of the program will be many times what is estimated.

It would bankrupt the country.

Except that Cap and Tax might get there first.

But they really don’t care do they?

Power is much more important to them than keeping the serfs happy.

notagool on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Sorry, but it has to be said: you are just plain ignorant.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Why are you sorry to say it. She is. Never apologize for speaking facts.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Can someone else here explain this for me??? I’m speechless right now……

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Can someone else here explain this for me??? I’m speechless right now……

search4truth on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

She does have a way about her. Flitting from blossom to blossom,..only pausing to sample, then moving on.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

We simply disagree on this issue.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

A person would have to be smoking crack to believe any of these chart projections. A better rule of thumb is to triple whatever the worse government projection is. However when it comes to health care the record is even worse.

Massachusetts costs have already tripled in three years and Medicare went from a projected cost of 9 billion to 66 billion in 30 years.

This is minimum a several trillion dollar fiasco.

patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM

That yellow “Tax increases” line will also go up over the years as they have to raise taxes on everyone and everything in the country to try and keep up with the spending!

rising21 on July 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I would like to publicly apologize to my friends here at HotAir. I should have just ignored the ridiculous comments made by Ann.

Friends, countrymen….I humbly apologize. :)

search4truth on July 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM

We simply disagree on this issue.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

No…people who simply disagree state their side and move on. You hi-jack these threads with idiotic drivel.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Tolerance, folks. :)

If you get riled everytime someone disagrees with you on policy, that tent is gonna shrink to nothing.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM

lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 11:38 AM

ok…just don’t like the sound of it….

cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM

We simply disagree on this issue.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

People can disagree on opinions, they can’t disagree on facts. If you somehow believe that the government is more efficient than the private sector, than there is no point trying to teach you anything.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Why do people bother with Ann any more? She doesn’t listen to anything that’s written or explained about the plan. She just wants her binky. She wants to be chattel.

lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

She claims to have had a surgeon as one of her lovers,..I wonder if there was some unpleasantness when it broke off and she now hates the medical profession. OTOH, Ann might really be a 260 lb guy posting in dirty boxers and a wifebeater, whilst nibbling Cheetos and having a cold brewiski.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM

OTOH, Ann might really be a 260 lb guy posting in dirty boxers and a wifebeater, whilst nibbling Cheetos and having a cold brewiski.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM

As opposed to an airhead living in a bankrupted state? Hmmmmmm….I’ll have to think about which I prefer.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

People can disagree on opinions, they can’t disagree on facts. If you somehow believe that the government is more efficient than the private sector, than there is no point trying to teach you anything.

Speaking of facts…I note you didn’t comment.

I’ll try again.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Cahi.org… figures… out of Chicago. Gee, why am I not surprised at this “source”.

CC

CapedConservative on July 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

In donkeycrat speech, that’s a $51 Billion budget cut!

BTW, does anyone else see a resemblance to certain unemployment graphs and predictions made by this administration?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM

You guys sure take it down to the bottom level when you disagree.

Man, personal attacks galore!

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Speaking of facts…I note you didn’t comment.

I’ll try again.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Did you even read your own source? Here’s a snippet.

The average annual cost per person under Medicare is more than double that under private health insurance. In 2003, the average medical cost for Medicare is estimated to be about $6,600 per person per year, while the average medical cost for private health insurance, excluding out-of-pocket cost is $2,700 per person per year.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You guys got it all wrong. The ‘savings’ will be on the individual front – meaning each person won’t be paying for health care directly – which leaves excess cash for the government to take through taxes to pay for health care. See?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I remain convinced that public option is not only feasible, but it’s smart for business. It would be a boon economically in a very short while.

And I don’t agree with any of you that corporate insurance companies have been operating fairly with people at all. They buy Congressional votes, and shame on you all for supporting that nonsense. It’s plain old lobby control going on, to the detriment of people.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Vashta…come on. That’s not the reason for the source. It’s comparing admin costs, which you were so shocked about. I proved my point. Admit it.

The overall costs is due to the group, of course. The majority of healthcare costs in a lifetime will, naturally, be at the end of the life.

That’s just commonsense.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM

You guys sure take it down to the bottom level when you disagree.

Man, personal attacks galore!

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Please don’t misinterpet. I like Cheetos and beer.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Sorry, but it has to be said: you are just plain ignorant.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009

Ignorance is correctable with the simple application of facts and evidence. Ann is something quite other than ignorant.

SKYFOX on July 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM

lorien1973,

Why do people bother with Ann any more?

I agree. It’s about as productive as arguing with a chatterbot.

Mike Honcho on July 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM

smart for business

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I’m not sure you understand the meaning of this phrase.

As for buying Congressional votes…please. That’s the game in DC played by everyone to some degree, but raised to artistry by the unions who will be the big beneficiary of this healthcare plan….just like the in the auto bankruptcies.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM

A few questions, AnninCA :

Do you actually Believe that the government won’t screw up this form of healthcare?

Do you actually believe that the costs won’t skyrocket?


Is healthcare a right?

If it’s a right, how can it be rationed?

What is your Moral justification for robbing the rich to pay for healthcare?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM

And I don’t agree with any of you that corporate insurance companies have been operating fairly with people at all. They buy Congressional votes, and shame on you all for supporting that nonsense. It’s plain old lobby control going on, to the detriment of people.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Did you know that Fannie Mae had a huge stable of lobbyists under contract?

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM

If it’s a right, how can it be rationed?

What is your Moral justification for robbing the rich to pay for healthcare?

The wealthy had the tax cuts under Bush, which more than a few admitted weren’t necessary. Now, when you start dropping that “wealthy” figure down to 250,000 and including couples? I think you have a problem. That’s not wealthy in several areas. That’s middle-class.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Did you know that Fannie Mae had a huge stable of lobbyists under contract?

I’m not surprised. What happened under Frank was a complete travesty. Never should have happened. And Obama has unleashed the corporatists.

Why you guys support that? Beyond me.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:03 PM

which more than a few admitted weren’t necessary

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Which “more than a few?” Oh…you mean liberals?

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Do you actually Believe that the government won’t screw up this form of healthcare?

Medicare has problems, but it’s effective, too. Nothing is perfect, of course.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

AnninCA :

If O’crap care is such a fantastic system, why do they need to rush it through so quickly?

If it’s going to be so great for everyone, why aren’t the Demonrats taking their time to adsorb all the accolades from the public on their brilliance?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Which “more than a few?” Oh…you mean liberals?

Oh, Like Donald Trump, etc. Quite a few talked about it and said, raise taxes. We pay too little.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM

If O’crap care is such a fantastic system, why do they need to rush it through so quickly?

I don’t know. I agree with many people writing on this that Obama’s entire strategy is confusing.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM


If it’s a right, how can it be rationed?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Okay, answer the first question.

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Vashta…come on. That’s not the reason for the source. It’s comparing admin costs, which you were so shocked about. I proved my point. Admit it.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Your own source proves you wrong:

The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit.

Medicare covers 42 million people versus numerous private insurers/employers covering a total of about 160 million people. If Medicare’s claim costs were the same as in the private market, Medicare’s administrative costs would increase to perhaps 6-8% of administrative costs and claims.

Note that the tiny difference in admin costs can be attributed to private insurers need to cover taxes, commissions, and profit. Also note this:

Medicare costs include those reported by Medicare, plus an allocation of some overhead costs that are included in other parts of the Federal Budget, but are estimated per this study to belong to Medicare.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I don’t know. I agree with many people writing on this that Obama’s entire strategy is confusing.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM

His only strategy is more government control. And he hides this real desire behind the inane postings of people like you. Good job of distracting everyone.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Okay, clearly since she’s in the wrong AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM ,
is trying to lead things off-topic.

One could take the bait and say – hey there’s nothing stopping people from paying more is there?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Is healthcare a right?

We have already agreed it is. Uninsured are automatically taken care of in hospitals, and we foot the bill.

The problem is that they must be in crisis to receive care, so many can’t afford medicine, wait until it’s critical, land in ICU, and THEN we pay for it.

I don’t know if this is taken into account in the figures. I do know that a Texas hospital finally analyzed their ER bills and found that 11 patients constituted 80% of the costs. 11 patients. Millions of dollars were spent on the same people, due to repeat ICU traumas over chronic conditions.

That seemed very powerful to me and downright stupid of us.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Obama’s entire strategy is confusing.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Okay, and this is the genius that is supposed to run our healthcare system?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

In the first chart…..right out of the gate; they calculate percentages for the gov’t based on “Claims Paid” and for the private sector based on “Premiums Paid”(income to the insurance company). In other words, the more that Medicare pays out…the more “Efficient” it looks. Kinda like spending our way out of debt, no?

Here’s a bit of info from a little more reliable source.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html

It was done during the HillaryCare debate, but it still holds true.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Medicare has problems, but it’s effective, too. Nothing is perfect, of course.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

“Nothing is perfect”???

Do you have any idea how many TENS OF TRILLIONS Medicare and Medicaid are in the hole? Their ENTIRE reason for being was for the government to provide health care to seniors by negotiating prices. And you STILL need to buy private health insurance to be 100% coverage. I’ll have you talk to my parents about that last part.

You people are truly out of your minds.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

We have already agreed it is

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Who is this “we” of which you speak?

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Bend it like Barack

I thought this was referring to the truth.

Blaise on July 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

His only strategy is more government control. And he hides this real desire behind the inane postings of people like you. Good job of distracting everyone.

Actually, your topic is the one off-topic. That’s about Obama and some notion that he’s out to control the world or something.

Maybe the birther thread is better for you?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Who is this “we” of which you speak?

We….as in the US. It is a federal mandate. You cannot turn away a patient in life-threatening condition.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Anninca is in the thread, therefore, I’m out. She’s a moron. Nothing will ever change that.

Bend it like Barack.

txag92 on July 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Oh, Like Donald Trump, etc. Quite a few talked about it and said, raise taxes. We pay too little.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Anecdotal isn’t very good but I will respond in kind. There are literally MILLIONS of “ME” (income category) and MY taxes will go up and I am OPPOSED. Do we all “trump” Donald?

CC

CapedConservative on July 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Is healthcare a right?

We You have already agreed said it is.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Okay, the second part of that question is how can a right can be rationed?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Medicare has problems, but it’s effective, too. Nothing is perfect, of course.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Medicare is running a $200 billion deficit this year alone. Now re-read your comment.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Okay, the second part of that question is how can a right can be rationed?

Gee, this seems easy to me. You offer a basic policy. However, people are always free to purchase “more,” just as they do with Medicare now.

Heck, you’re free to pay cash, if you like.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Medicare is running a $200 billion deficit this year alone. Now re-read your comment.

So you suggest doing away with it? Just kick the oldsters to the curb, eh? LOL*

Great thinking. That’ll sell.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Ron White: “You can’t fix stupid”

CC

CapedConservative on July 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Actually, your topic is the one off-topic. That’s about Obama and some notion that he’s out to control the world or something.

Maybe the birther thread is better for you?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM

This whole healthcare thing is about Obama. The dems did nothing during the Clinton years to help improve anything. It was all or nothing for them. After Hillarycare failed, they ran off an hid from it. To suggest that this is really about helping those poor people who don’t have insurance is more fanatical and idiotic than the birthers. This is about liberalism and Obama is the man now. Period.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

which more than a few admitted weren’t necessary

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Nothing stops them from paying more if they feel obligated to do so.

Can you show how robbing the ‘rich’ will pay for health care, which all experts agree can not be done?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

So you suggest doing away with it? Just kick the oldsters to the curb, eh? LOL*

Great thinking. That’ll sell.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Well what the hell do you think Obama’s plan is going to do?

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Okay, if you propose that Healthcare is a “Right”, then what can’t be connected to such a vague and opened ended commitment?

I Need a new Lamborghini to be ‘Healthy’

I need a new beach house to be ‘Healthy’

Where does it stop?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Well, in any case, I think Obama blew this one. He gave the stimulus money and bailed out GM. Now, people are freaked over the deficit.

And people will, as usual, lose one more time.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Where does it stop?

Government should serve people, you know. That is part of the social contract.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Government should serve people, you know. That is part of the social contract.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

This has to be AP in disguise jacking up thread counts….nobody is this idiotic in real life.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Government should serve people, you know. That is part of the social contract.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Can you define this statement? Exactly how does government ‘serve’ people?
What are the limitations of this ‘social contract’ of which you speak?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Okay, the second part of that question is how can a right can be rationed?

Gee, this seems easy to me. You offer a basic policy. However, people are always free to purchase “more,” just as they do with Medicare now.
Heck, you’re free to pay cash, if you like.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Okay, now you’ve changed your mind – if you limit what it covers, then it isn’t a right then after all?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Can you show how robbing the ‘rich’ will pay for health care, which all experts agree can not be done?

I had honestly presumed they were going to put together a plan that had a bit of this, a bit of that, etc. So far, nobody seems to be able to come close.

We’ll see. Maybe more solutions will be offered.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Medicare is running a $200 billion deficit this year alone. Now re-read your comment.

So you suggest doing away with it? Just kick the oldsters to the curb, eh? LOL*

Great thinking. That’ll sell.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I take back what I said about you being ignorant. You are intentionally stupid.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Sorry, but it has to be said: you are just plain ignorant.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Not ignorant. Brainwashed. In Ann’s world, the two words “healthcare lobbyists” trump everything.

This is how the Left works. They throw out little snippets that the dumb can endlessly parrot…snippets that make them feel like they’re canny political observers.

You know the stuff: Bush lied/Halliburton/Guantanamo torture/public option.

Just throw one of those little slogans around, smile condescendingly and…foreclose all rational discussion.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Can you define this statement? Exactly how does government ’serve’ people?
What are the limitations of this ’social contract’ of which you speak?

In my perspective, we negotiate that everytime we vote. When you have 50% of people absolutely wanting healthcare reform, that’s substantive. That’s important to hear, too.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Looks like this is all about the government’s right to dictate both income, behavior and taxation.

The only logical conclusion is work camps.

disa on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Just throw one of those little slogans around, smile condescendingly and…foreclose all rational discussion.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Of course. They’re smarter, doncha know?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

In my perspective, we negotiate that everytime we vote. When you have 50% of people absolutely wanting healthcare reform, that’s substantive. That’s important to hear, too.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 P

So much for that stuffy old Constitution. Let’s just go with Ann’s perspective every two years.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

delete the “both” since I added behavior to the list…

disa on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I take back what I said about you being ignorant. You are intentionally stupid.

and you are frankly disingenuous. You expressed shock over the outrageous idea that government overhead was less than private. I proved you wrong.

And you do not have the guts to even acknowledge that you were dead wrong.

That’s disingenuous.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Everyone should download a copy of H.R. 3200 and read it. If you like government in every aspect of your life including your bank account then you’ll love this beast. You will be told when you can see a doctor, what doctor you can see, and, a government board will determine if you get critical care. You will also be given periodic “counseling” to inform you of your options for dying. This is the most frightening socialist manifesto I have ever seen and the really sad part is that the masses have no idea what is being done to them.

rplat on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Well, in any case, I think Obama blew this one. He gave the stimulus money and bailed out GM. Now, people are freaked over the deficit.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

The people are freaking out about a 400% increase of the deficit in a year? What do you think got into them?

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM

The constitution doesn’t prevent us from asking for healthcare. LOL*

Now whose being silly.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM

In my perspective, we negotiate that everytime we vote. When you have 50% of people absolutely wanting healthcare reform, that’s substantive. That’s important to hear, too.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM

So, no, you can’t define your statements. Not surprising.

Can you prove, other than 50% voting for ’0′, that 50% want health care reform of the magnitude you propose?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Of course. They’re smarter, doncha know?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Yeah, while they’re telling us that everything is not black and white, that issues are more complex, they live in a world of one or two-word slogans.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Government should serve people, you know.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

It can only “serve” people if it first takes from some, so answer the question, Where does it stop?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4