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

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

What’s particularly disappointing, to me, is that the GM bailout is absolutely a waste of money. And the stimulus money saved mostly gov’t jobs (where they vote in excellent health benefits, natch).

Very disappointing.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM

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

I already proved you wrong, you are just too lazy to read your own documentation.

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I think I’ve found a video of Ann in a city council meeting.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/25/video-why-california-really-really-needs-race-to-the-top-funds/

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 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

Ann, you’re a lovely woman. But thinking was clearly not God’s plan for you.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 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

It doesn’t prevent you from asking for a pony, either.

Just don’t ask me to pay for your freaking pony.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

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

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Yeah, but not with a cookbook.

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”-Thomas Jefferson

For government to “serve” or give something to one person, it must TAKE it from another.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

I already proved you wrong, you are just too lazy to read your own documentation.

Your comment had to do with actual costs, which is obviously due to the age group of Medicare.

Seriously, are YOU that fractured in thinking?

Do you understand what is administrative costs?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

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

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

That’s why my mom and pop have supplemental private insurance to fill the gap????

brtex on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Well, I am intrigued by the silkworm thing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 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

Okay, so there is no morality in government, it’s just a matter of mob rule right?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Well, I’ll never get GOP voters on this issue. It could so benefit small business to have this option. We need portability in benefits in the worst way to flourish, and I’m always amazed to see people support the big insurance companies. They are simply raping Americans right now.

Oh well, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Well, I am intrigued by the silkworm thing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

“Food is free” You just have to pay for it. Kind of like Ann’s take on healthcare.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Okay, so there is no morality in government, it’s just a matter of mob rule right?

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Well, I’ll never get GOP voters on this issue. It could so benefit small business to have this option. We need portability in benefits in the worst way to flourish, and I’m always amazed to see people support the big insurance companies. They are simply raping Americans right now.

Oh well, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Insinuating we’re stupid will swing a bunch to your cause, I’m sure.

Get out of the kitchen if you can’t answer the questions.

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Do you understand what is administrative costs?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Here you are, you don’t even have to expend the extra energy to scroll back to the previous page:

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

Vashta.Nerada on July 28, 2009 at 12:32 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 12:32 PM

Do you understand what is administrative costs?

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Do you not understand the CBO just issued its second report that ObamaCare will not save money in any significant way.

.2% of the total bill over a decade they said. If that.

The administrative costs government can save are only significant on the transactional end, which is a small part of the overall paperwork.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM

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

Tennessee had a very similar experience with their attempt at universal coverage — TennCare. Within the first few years, costs exploded far beyond the original estimates. And Hawaii had a similar experience when they tried to provide universal coverage for children.

AZCoyote on July 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

There is no moral imperitive to provide healthcare.

highhopes on July 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Well, I’ll never get GOP voters on this issue. It could so benefit small business to have this option.

Oh, gee, as the owners of two small businesses, my wife and (DMD, MBA) are just too stupid to understand how health insurance mandates, rationed care and massive tax increases will benefit us.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Okay, so it would be moral for someone to rob you to pay for their healthcare?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Perhaps you can answer this one – What incentive will there be for people to become doctors without compensation?

TinMan13 on July 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Everyone does have access to healthcare. But it is not fair to soak the rich to pay for healthcare for the 40% who pay no taxes or get tax welfare.

brtex on July 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

You still haven’t provided a straight answer to the question:

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

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Help me, Barack. I’m being oppressed by the big insurance companies and their million-dollar lobbyists.

And by the way…Ann wants a pony.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Oh, gee, as the owners of two small businesses, my wife and (DMD, MBA) are just too stupid to understand how health insurance mandates, rationed care and massive tax increases will benefit us.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Be careful on this subject with Ann. I think she works a Kaiser either as a cleaning girl or, given the amount of time she spends here, not doing her job and thereby increasing their administrative costs

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Be careful on this subject with Ann. I think she works a Kaiser either as a cleaning girl or, given the amount of time she spends here, not doing her job and thereby increasing their administrative costs

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Ann, meet Peggy the Moocher.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Be careful on this subject with Ann. I think she works a Kaiser either as a cleaning girl or, given the amount of time she spends here, not doing her job and thereby increasing their administrative costs

You jump on here for the snark aspect of on-line discussion, I see. Every post…reminds me of the progressives on Palin.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM

From today’s Wall St Journal:

For years Medicare officials have struggled to create competitive bidding for durable medical equipment such as oxygen tanks—a thankless task rightly continued by the Obama Administration—only to have those efforts blown up when Congress hears from constituents who might lose out. This is the entitlement problem writ small: Medicare affects the income of nearly all of the 650,000 doctors in America, the thousands of hospitals, tens of thousands of insurers, drug and device makers and more—and all have political friends.

This really sums it up… coverage decisions will fall into the exact same dynamic the stimulus did: 535 people jockeying for re-election with taxpayer money.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Okay, so it would be moral for someone to rob you to pay for their healthcare?
Did you understand that question?
By your rationale, would it be morally justifiable to rob you to pay for someone else’s healthcare

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM

If healthcare is a right, then transportation is a right.

I want Ann to pay for my Maserati.

genso,we’ll need you to pay for Ann’s pony.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

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

I gave you my best answer. It is already a right. We have a federal mandate. It is already rationed, too. You have to be in a life-threatening situation. If not? You can be turned away.

So the question is moot, to me. We’re already there.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

This really sums it up… coverage decisions will fall into the exact same dynamic the stimulus did: 535 people jockeying for re-election with taxpayer money.

They bargain with the insurance companies, too. Same thing.

I’m ready for some outsiders who aren’t on their gravy train.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM

You jump on here for the snark aspect of on-line discussion, I see. Every post…reminds me of the progressives on Palin.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM

We all tried to have a reasonable discussion with you on this today and in the past. Your inability to answer questions and your parroted responses have brought this thread to its knees. I’m just having fun now….hopefully at your expense.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM

There is no moral imperitive to provide healthcare.

Reread. My point was in response to the poster’s suggestion that 50% asking for reform is “mob rule” and that morality should factor in. Hence, my response.

(Although, I personally do NOT wish to live in a third-world country where people are dying in the streets.)

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM

We all tried to have a reasonable discussion with you on this today and in the past. Your inability to answer questions and your parroted responses have brought this thread to its knees. I’m just having fun now….hopefully at your expense.

I’ve enjoyed being on-line for 15 years now, and gratefully never had to find pleasure in snark. But…to each his own.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Clothing is a right. Somebody needs to pay for Ann’s Chanel sweater.

Shelter is a right. Somebody needs to pay for Ann’s condo in Florida.

Food is a right. Somebody needs to pay for Ann’s dinner at LeCirque.

I remember when Mario Cuomo was floundering in his bid for re-election, he even declared that cable television was a basic human right.

Chainsaw, I want you to pay for Ann’s cable.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM

genso,we’ll need you to pay for Ann’s pony.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I want to get her one of those miniature ponies….it’ll fit her world view.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM

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

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

ROFL!!!

Ok, lets actually compare apples to apples, as described in the report you linked earlier…

Being almost 40, I am eligible for private insurance now. In fact, I was eligible at 18. I am NOT eligible for Medicare until age 65 (and as a white male, I have a 78 year life span).

Medicare covers 42 million people. Private insurance covers 248 million people.

Medicare receives “payments” from all workers. Private insurance only receives payments from those workers who enroll through their employer for them.

So with drastically fewer dollars…and only those dollars from subscribers, private insurance covers an estimated 60 years of life expectancy.

With drastically MORE dollars…including all those not yet eligible for coverage… Medicare covers an estimated 13 years of life expectancy.

Private insurance is solvent.

Medicare is expected to go insolvent in a decade or two.

Which is more efficient and better managed?

dominigan on July 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM

A new CBO report is out. Oops? :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I’m ready for some outsiders who aren’t on their gravy train.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM

In Ann’s universe, Waxman, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, et. al. are “outsiders”.

Those of us who actually invest and work for a living are merely venal profit-seekers who get in between Ann and her pony.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM

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

I gave you my best answer. It is already a right. We have a federal mandate. It is already rationed, too. You have to be in a life-threatening situation. If not? You can be turned away.
So the question is moot, to me. We’re already there.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

The question shows the discontinuity between the two points, it’s either one or the other.

If something is rationed, then you don’t have “Right’ to it. If you don’t have a right to something, then you don’t have a right to rob someone at gun point to pay for it, plain and simple.

Couch it in all the vague terminology you want, but those are the stark facts.

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM

blockquote>Which is more efficient and better managed?

dominigan on July 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I’m sorry, but that argument went way over the 3-word maximum which counts as reasoned discourse in Ann’s world.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Chainsaw, I want you to pay for Ann’s cable.
guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I’ll chip in for her pony.

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Couch it in all the vague terminology you want, but those are the stark facts.

I’m not following your logic. We have the right to vote, but it’s rationed. In some states, felons aren’t allowed, even if they are released. In some states, you must show proof of residence. In some states, you can’t cross party lines. That’s rationing, in a sense.

We have the right to bear arms, but in some states, you have to have a background check. If you’ve been convicted, you lose that right.

Etc.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

We have the right to vote, but it’s rationed.

I sure wish it was tightly rationed in your case, yeah.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

I’ll chip in for her pony.

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Genso’s already on the hook for her pony.

I need you to cough up for her cable and a new pair of Manolo Blahniks.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I sure wish it was tightly rationed in your case, yeah.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Ouch!! That’ll leave a mark.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Ouch!! That’ll leave a mark.

Whew! You got some ego.

I never give power over to anonymous snarkers. That would be silly and stupid.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

That would be silly and stupid.

God forbid she should ever be silly and stupid.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

They bargain with the insurance companies, too. Same thing.

I’m ready for some outsiders who aren’t on their gravy train.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM

No it’s not the same thing. Insurance companies can’t print money and run up $2 trillion deficits.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

My point was in response to the poster’s suggestion that 50% asking for reform is “mob rule” and that morality should factor in. Hence, my response.
(Although, I personally do NOT wish to live in a third-world country where people are dying in the streets.)
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM

How does morality factor in when the rich are seen as an living ATMs with endless supplies of cash to be plundered?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

No it’s not the same thing. Insurance companies can’t print money and run up $2 trillion deficits.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

And insurance companies can’t send a policeman to my house to haul me off in shackles when I refuse to cough up my taxes for Ann’s pony.

Does anyone else suspect that Ann is one of the 50% of the population who pays no federal income tax? Being in that position simplifies these issues, ya know?

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM

God forbid she should ever be silly and stupid.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

We are waaaaay past that point.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM

It would be far more moral to ensure that people have access to healthcare.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM

So the means justify the ends right?
How do you resolve the discontinuity of some people’s moral right of “access to healthcare.’
[Whatever that means]
With someone’s right to their earnings?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:04 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Your examples work against you.

As you mentioned, we have the right to bear arms… as defined in the Constitution. Some restrictions have been placed around that right… such as concealed-carry laws, etc.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION!

If you don’t like that fact, then push for a Constitutional Amendment to add that “right”. Otherwise, stop mis-interpreting a very clear document.

The Federal Government does not have the defined power to even get involved AS A PROVIDER. They can regulate healthcare (as part of the Commerce Clause?), but they have NO AUTHORITY to provide services.

If I’m wrong, please cite the article/section/clause in the Constitution to support your argument.

dominigan on July 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

What are Manolo Blahniks anyways?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I read earlier that the Senate is reaching a bipartisan agreement on this lunacy. They plan on controlling costs by the government managing chronic diseases. I am a Type 1 diabetic with insulin resistance (double whammy). So a 25 year old Communications major will override the decisions of my endocrinologist (among others). I wonder how that will turn out.

Jed_Eckert on July 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

So the means justify the ends right?
How do you resolve the discontinuity of some people’s moral right of “access to healthcare.’
[Whatever that means]
With someone’s right to their earnings?

Aren’t we just repeating ourselves? They already are paid for out of tax dollars. Your hospital bills the government for the uninsured.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Wow, look at this “reasoning” by Olympia Snowe:

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe said the committee’s plan would not require employers to obtain insurance for workers, but if the workers get government subsidies to buy insurance, employers would cover the subsidy.

Well, we know where that bimbo is headed. I don’t have to “obtain” insurance for my employees.

I just have to “cover the subsidy”.

Paging George Orwell…

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM

What are Manolo Blahniks anyways?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM

$800 shoes.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Seeing as your are in CA you are alreay there!

stacy on July 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

If I’m wrong, please cite the article/section/clause in the Constitution to support your argument.

No, of course, you’re correct. There was always an unspoken ethical standard that doctors USED to have…to uphold a vow to help people. In the past, they treated people for nothing or took it out in trade. However, today they seem to be more focused on becoming wealthy.

The discussion was over rationing rights, however, and I think my examples illustrate that rights are rationed. Always have been.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

They already are paid for out of tax dollars. Your hospital bills the government for the uninsured.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

1. No, they don’t. They write it off and jack up the price of care for everyone else. Which is why they bill my insurance company $15 for a Tylenol.

2.”The government” has no money. None. Zip. Zero. Government has only the taxes they extort from people like me. But, since you don’t pay taxes, that distinction eludes you.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM

However, today they seem to be more focused on becoming wealthy.

So, having diligently studied for 12 years in order to get into a university. And then diligently studied for 4 more years in order to get into medical school. And then diligently studied and worked her butt off for 6 more years of medical training. And having taken on $250,000 in education debt…my wife should trade her services for cheese?

So that you, who probably never broke a sweat in your entire life can have “free” healthcare?

Your sense of entitlement is nauseating.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

1. No, they don’t. They write it off and jack up the price of care for everyone else. Which is why they bill my insurance company $15 for a Tylenol.

:)

ER rooms are the new moneymakers for the hospitals. Oh yes, you pay for every single uninsured person treated. And yep….it IS about 15 bucks for an aspirin.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

So the means justify the ends right?
How do you resolve the discontinuity of some people’s moral right of “access to healthcare.’
[Whatever that means]
With someone’s right to their earnings?

Aren’t we just repeating ourselves? They already are paid for out of tax dollars. Your hospital bills the government for the uninsured.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

You haven’t answered the question, does someone have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

So that you, who probably never broke a sweat in your entire life can have “free” healthcare?

I worked 60 hours plus for many, many years, buddy. A good day was when I got home in time for dinner.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM

This just in…Founding Fathers’ cockamamie theory of Rights bestowed upon us be our Creator has been de-bunked by brilliant Constitutional scholar AnninCA, who demonstrates conclusively that rights are, in fact, subject to “rationing”.

Astounded HA commentators, blinded by Ann’s brilliance, immediately vote to “ration” her rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ponies.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM

You haven’t answered the question, does someone have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM

You haven’t answered the question, does someone have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?

You mean taxes? Yes, I’m afraid this will require taxes. I think in the long run, it’ll work. Now, granted that I’m more liberal than you, but here’s how I view it.

It’s like the Guaranteed Student Loan program. Short run? Looks expensive. However, graduates pay a lot more in taxes, so in the long-run? Good investment.

I think this is the same. Short-term? We’ll have to raise taxes. Long-term? I think we’ll start to get a handle on runaway medical costs.

It won’t be a quick solution. It will probably plod along for quite a long time, but in the end, it’ll make sense.

Portability is the key. We’re in a global economy. The old notion that if you’re loyal, you’ll be kept on forever by employers? That’s gone.

Therefore, if the country is going to survive this new economic environment, we have to address this issue.

Otherwise, I think you are ushering back in a rebirth of union protections. I really do.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

If this doesn’t pass, I predict EFCA will have a rebirth of support.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

A new CBO report is out. Oops? :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM

This article may set a Desperation Spin record.
The CBO report referred to here is the same report Ed cited yesterday — the one showing that the House health care bill would far worsen the federal fiscal imbalance, not only in the short term but in the long term.
Confirmation that it is the same report can be found by locating the quotation from the Reuters piece in the report itself: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf. See p. 5.
The real money quote still stands: “In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year-budget window.”
It’s not a new report. It’s the same devastating indictment with a fresh, desperate spin.

Chuckles3 on July 28, 2009 at 1:24 PM

It’s not a new report. It’s the same devastating indictment with a fresh, desperate spin.

Chuckles3 on July 28, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Yep, it’s Reuters. They have their nose so far up Ogabe’s butt it makes a dimple just below his belly button.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM
So, long story short, someone DOES have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?
Good, glad you cleared that up!!

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

You mean taxes? Yes, I’m afraid this will require taxes. I think in the long run, it’ll work. Now, granted that I’m more liberal than you, but here’s how I view it.

It’s like the Guaranteed Student Loan program. Short run? Looks expensive. However, graduates pay a lot more in taxes, so in the long-run? Good investment.

I think this is the same. Short-term? We’ll have to raise taxes. Long-term? I think we’ll start to get a handle on runaway medical costs.

It won’t be a quick solution. It will probably plod along for quite a long time, but in the end, it’ll make sense.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

So, the graphs up top showing what happens in the 2nd decade mean nothing?

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

So, long story short, someone DOES have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?
Good, glad you cleared that up!!

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Well, Chainsaw, if a not-very-bright woman wearing a balaclava jacks you for pony money, you’ll know who it was…

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Let me get this straight: you think, you think it will work. You are willing to risk bankrupting this country, throwing us into a depression, forcing a few hundred thousand (read that again) out of work, and, I REPEAT AND, you are willing to allow the DMV to make life and death decisions BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WILLL WORK.

Just what kind of idiot are you?

Jed_Eckert on July 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Sorry that should be a period, AnninCA just announced that she’s perfectly okay for anyone to take her hard earned money to pay for “medical “ care.

So, long story short, someone DOES have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care.

Good, glad you cleared that up!!

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:29 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Let me get this straight: you think, you think it will work. You are willing to risk bankrupting this country, throwing us into a depression, forcing a few hundred thousand (read that again) out of work, and, I REPEAT AND, you are willing to allow the DMV to make life and death decisions BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WILLL WORK.

Just what kind of idiot are you?

I think it’s definitely necessary. Otherwise, as I say, the alternative approach is EFCA.

And you’ll see a rebirth of unions demanding healthcare benefits.

Pick your poisen carefully.

People will not go without coverage, folks. They simply aren’t going to roll over.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

No, of course, you’re correct. There was always an unspoken ethical standard that doctors USED to have…to uphold a vow to help people. In the past, they treated people for nothing or took it out in trade. However, today they seem to be more focused on becoming wealthy.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Bashing doctors is this year’s purple, I guess.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Gotta get off this thread.

I was cut Ann some slack in the past, but her sense of entitlement on this issue is just too nauseating.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

So, long story short, someone DOES have a right to ROB YOU at gun point to pay for their medical care?
Good, glad you cleared that up!!
Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Well, Chainsaw, if a not-very-bright woman wearing a balaclava jacks you for pony money, you’ll know who it was…
guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Red-faced and ROFLMAO!

Chainsaw56 on July 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I was cut Ann some slack in the past, but her sense of entitlement on this issue is just too nauseating.

guntotinglibertarian on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

See you elsewhere…it was fun til it got boring.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Anna, comparing government run health care to the Guaranteed Student Loan program is insane. Student loans are repaid by the person receiving them. If grandma spends $125,000 to cover her last bout with lung cancer who pays that back?

darcee on July 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Bashing doctors is this year’s purple, I guess.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I suspect her surgeon bf broke it off. Most people just go on about their lives.

a capella on July 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Time to get off the computer Obamabot, your healthcare Messiah is getting ready to do another one of his staged townhall meetings.

Maybe you can get some better talking points.

Knucklehead on July 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

I think it’s definitely necessary. Otherwise, as I say, the alternative approach is EFCA.

And you’ll see a rebirth of unions demanding healthcare benefits.

Pick your poisen carefully.

People will not go without coverage, folks. They simply aren’t going to roll over.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Heed your own advice, and look to GM and chrysler, spending more on Health coverage than they did on steel to make their cars. So now when our government goes belly up trying to feed union leeches who bails it out.

Yes, pick your poison VERY carefully.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

There was always an unspoken ethical standard that doctors USED to have…to uphold a vow to help people. In the past, they treated people for nothing or took it out in trade. However, today they seem to be more focused on becoming wealthy.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

What time period did you come from? The 1850’s? Maybe you live where:

1) College and medical schools are free
2) nurses work for free
3) secretaries work for free
4) utility companies provide free electricity, phones, … to doctors
5) landlords waive rent for doctors
6) They can pull up to any gas pump in the land and fill up for free. Even get a Big Gulp handed to them by an adoring population
7) the families of doctors can make do with the occasional chicken as payment
8) and, or course, where there are no lawsuits

Jed_Eckert on July 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

nna, comparing government run health care to the Guaranteed Student Loan program is insane. Student loans are repaid by the person receiving them. If grandma spends $125,000 to cover her last bout with lung cancer who pays that back?

darcee on July 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM

I think Ann is volunteering. Good on her!

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Just to clarify the charts, cuz it took me a minute to understand, these are not cumulative amounts. These are deficts per year. If someone made another chart showing the cumulative amount of the deficit compared to revenue the difference would be enormous. Talk about your hockey stick curves….

Mallard T. Drake on July 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Bye to my snark friends! :)

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM

ER rooms are the new moneymakers for the hospitals. Oh yes, you pay for every single uninsured person treated. And yep….it IS about 15 bucks for an aspirin.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM

That’s why they’re spring up all over LA, Right?

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM

That program is about like his consumer protection program…completely phony.

About to be like his healthcare reform…which is turning out to be medicare reform.

This won’t work. He’ll lose support.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Proof that Ann is a lame-brain. This was found on the mortgage modification thread. I don’t recall her saying anything like that on this thread.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

That’s why they’re spring up all over LA, Right?

Touche’….:)

We’ve lost 7 major hospitals. BUT, do remember, this is LA. We are over-run with major trauma (gang fights) and illegal immigrants.

We are somewhat unique.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

dominigan on July 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Don’t frame your argument this way, it leads into the “living breathing document” discussion.

Instead, emphasize that the BOR is a collection of explicit limits on Government power. It in no way enables us to do anything. We have the RIGHTS and do not need permission to exercise them.

The main body of the document establishes what powers we have delegated to the federal government, and the BOR explains the limits of how those powers may be used.

And no….providing healthcare is not one of the powers authorized to gov’t….even under the elastic clause.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

There was always an unspoken ethical standard that doctors USED to have…to uphold a vow to help people. In the past, they treated people for nothing or took it out in trade. However, today they seem to be more focused on becoming wealthy.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

I probably shouldn’t feed the troll. AnninCA, why don’t you do your job for free and take it out in trade?

I heard a Medved teaser for his show today referring to a Bill Maher comment about how the profit motive should be removed from health care. I assume that means doctors and nurses and health care entrepreneurs should work for the love of their profession and not worry about money. This from a guy that makes millions to sit on TV and complain about the world. Why doesn’t he work for cost?

Liberals are hypocrites. They love to say that they’d be happy to pay more taxes, yet not one voluntarily pays more than they are required to on their 1040 forms. Likewise, those who decry the profit motive aren’t ashamed to take home as big a paycheck as they can get.

The profit motive is the second best motivator their is, right behind a gun to your head. When will liberals join reality and realize that human nature rarely is motivated to share for the community good. They promote the community good if there is something in it for them.

Show of hands, how many people would wash a rental car before returning it to the rental agency. Uh-huh. Point made.

Mallard T. Drake on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

We’ve lost 7 major hospitals. BUT, do remember, this is LA. We are over-run with major trauma (gang fights) and illegal immigrants.

We are somewhat unique.

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Just a snapshot of what the rest of the country will be like once your liberal policies are in place. Such a good track record for you intelligent lefties out there.

genso on July 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM

AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

you trot this out in every thread. Hospitals in MA are going under because of universal healthcare. Your hospitals are going under because of government intervention.

lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4