CBO: Baucus’s ObamaCare bill would reduce deficit by $81 billion over 10 years

posted at 5:36 pm on October 7, 2009 by Allahpundit

Tough stuff. I think Stephanopoulos is right about how the GOP will spin it — $829 billion over the next decade to insure fewer than 10 percent more of the population? — but this does give The One political cover on his heretofore Big Lie about ObamaCare being “deficit-neutral.” Especially since CBO is the agency that’s been tormenting him for months with projections that the program will cost vastly more than the White House claims. Now, finally, they’ve handed him a politically salable option.

You can read the full 27-page letter at NRO. The money line in the section on budgetary impact: “Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.” Expect that to be a key GOP talking point given that (a) amendments to Baucus’s bill will wreak havoc with this analysis and (b) Medicare’s initial projection of $12 billion in expenditures for the year 1990 turned out to be “uncertain” too. How uncertain? Actual 1990 expenditures ended up at $107 billion, a cool 800 percent higher than Congress thought they’d be. Woe unto him who relies on any conservative estimate of how much a giant social program will cost.

Even so, I’m troubled by this Red State item posted shortly before the CBO news dropped claiming that Republicans were ready to cave on several key health-care provisions, including the public option(!). That’s implausible, but less implausible now than it was before CBO blessed Baucus’s bill as a deficit-cutter. They’ll never endorse a public option lest the base revolt, but if the White House starts pushing Baucus’s plan as a money-saver, the polls may move and purple-district House Republicans may panic. (Er, are there any purple-district Republicans left? There’s Joe Cao and, um…) Exit question: Whither Waterloo?

Update: The early GOP spin:

Any Democratic response to the CBO report will be “tricky,” says the aide, especially since the Baucus bill is still not defined in legislative language. “Democrats will have to find a way to thread the needle between their promises, the president’s promises, and the reality. The president, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have said that they wouldn’t add a penny to the deficit. Still, not one poll shows the people believing that. Costs will go up and people aren’t buying the Democrats’ claims.”

“This bill is still the worst of all worlds and the CBO’s report is preliminary,” the aide concludes.

You’ll be hearing the word “preliminary” a lot in the next few days. Meanwhile, Bob Dole puts the GOP on the back and urges them to sign on the dotted line.

Update: Gulp.

The estimate removes a major hurdle toward a vote in the committee, because several senators said they needed to see the cost breakdown before casting a vote – in particular, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who could be the only Republican senator to support the legislation.

A Senate Finance vote is not expected Thursday, but perhaps Friday, Senate aides said.

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 5

Worst. Birthday. Ever.

citrus on October 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Cheer up. It could be worse. Your birthday could be tomorrow, like mine is. Happy Birthday, Olympia Snowe caved in, the bill passed committee. :/

Mallard T. Drake on October 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Happy (early) birthday to you, I hope you get a gun. That’s what I should have asked for…well, Christmas isn’t too far away. Hopefully they’ll still be legal to purchase.

I hope you have a great day tomorrow, despite the gutless wonders in Congress :)

citrus on October 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Folks, this is a disaster. Please, hear me out. This will absolutely kill thousands and thousands of jobs. Mine included. I work for the medical device industry and I am telling you that our CEO has already contacted us and let us know, in no uncertain terms, that this will mean job cuts, and deep ones at that.
Do any of you think for one minute that these companies will absorb the cost of the surtaxes that are being proposed on this industry? It will mean a higher cost for the consumer, job cuts within the industry, and an end to cutting edge technology. I cannot emphasize enough how devastating this will be for innovation and medical advances in this country. How willing will the government be to pay for the necessary equipment to keep premature children alive? How willing will the government be to pay for defibrillators for patients who are having arrhythmias?

sandlin71 on October 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Get Kruathammer’s analysis from Special Report tonight. It’s devastating.

Buy Danish on October 7, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Details please.

Sharke on October 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Don’t forget…the politicians, bureaucrats, and unions are exempt from this nightmare. Have a nice day…!
Seven Percent Solution on October 7, 2009 at 7:41 PM

That’s what I’m talking about. Those are the kinds of arguments we need to focus on. Seriously. Am I the only one that thinks we need to dump this budget argument altogether and focus on the more horrendous parts of the bill like the individual mandate, new taxes at every level and the congressional exemption?

Forget the deficit, good or bad.

russcote on October 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM

I question the timing.

SouthernGent on October 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM

This estimate relies on the “savings” of cutting fraud and waste of $400 billion from Medicare. Ain’t going to happen. Dr. K blew it up tonight on Fox.

d1carter on October 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM

This estimate relies on the “savings” of cutting fraud and waste of $400 billion from Medicare. Ain’t going to happen. Dr. K blew it up tonight on Fox.

d1carter on October 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Why not double down and say that the administration can find $800B in fraud by outlawing tonsilectomies? Makes as much sense as putting a quantifiable number to something that the administration is supposed to already be working overtime to stop. Seriously, think about it. Why isn’t the filthy lying coward and his administration already going out after that $400B?

highhopes on October 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Dr. K blew it up tonight on Fox.

d1carter on October 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Dr. K saves the day!

misslizzi on October 7, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Sure, and the Baucus Diet will take 81 pounds off of ya in 10 days.

I call BS.

Not that I’m doubting the CBO…they just go by what’s given to them. Garbage in-garbage out.

If I submitted a pyramid scheme to them, the CBO could come back with, “Well, yeah. You’d make a ton of money off this. We think it could work.”

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 7, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Baucus Bill = Buy Now and Save!!

Honey I didn’t add any more to the credit card, I bought it on sale!!!/sarc

txmomof6 on October 7, 2009 at 8:15 PM

You’re simply wrong. We’re number one in costs per capita, 20 in preventable deaths, mediocre in waiting time, pathetic on infant mortality and life expectancy.
Tort reform article.
Illegal immigrants.
You need to follow Sarah’s advice and stop makin’ stuff up.

Bleeds Blue on October 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Waiting time? Universal coverage will shorten waiting times????
Infant mortality is “pathetic” in the US because we attempt to save every live birth. As opposed to France, where anybody born with the odds against them is marked dead on arrival, left for dead…and unsuprisingly, the advances in neonatal care don’t come from France.

Illegal immigrants negligible? Maybe in MN. Not in Los Angeles.

BTW, what’s the CBO figure the number of illegals will be in 2015? The interest rate? The price of a barrel of crude? 2020? 2025? What’s the first year any savings kick in?

Chris_Balsz on October 7, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Also, kindly respond to the arguments put to you in this thread regarding the unearned economic advantages Europe enjoys due to the American taxpayer footing a large proportion of their defense bills, as well as the question of free market innovation and the extent to which socialized health care systems around the world could not exist without the medical innovation financed in the US.

Sharke on October 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM

The two most devastating blows to leftists dreams for nationalized health care here in America. And there isn’t an answer for either one of them.

BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Voodoo Health Care Reformonomics, as usual.

The government gives a confabulated “estimate”, and then, later, the government lamely makes excuses for being so terribly wrong.

By then it’s too late.

And the diddled taxpayers get screwed coming and going.

Same old sh*t spewing from the same old corrupt liars.

To the same inattentive suckers at large.

This line of standard-issue Congressional BS won’t work much longer, as more and more people rouse from their slumber in this stagnant, painful, job-bleeding, house eviction rate rising, no credit, floundering dollar economy.

profitsbeard on October 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Seems to me the spin is now coming from the CBO. Why should we concede the language so much that accurate criticism is called spin?

aikidoka on October 7, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Dr. K blew it up tonight on Fox.

d1carter on October 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM

What did Dr. K say?

deidre on October 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Worst. Birthday. Ever.

citrus on October 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Cheer up. It could be worse. Your birthday could be tomorrow, like mine is. Happy Birthday, Olympia Snowe caved in, the bill passed committee. :/

Mallard T. Drake on October 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Tomorrow’s my birthday too. Thanks for cheering me up.:(

Bobbertsan on October 7, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Worst. Birthday. Ever.

citrus on October 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Cheer up. It could be worse. Your birthday could be tomorrow, like mine is. Happy Birthday, Olympia Snowe caved in, the bill passed committee. :/

Mallard T. Drake on October 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Tomorrow’s my birthday too. Thanks for cheering me up.:(

Bobbertsan on October 7, 2009 at 8:34 PM

I hope you get a gun, too!

citrus on October 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Second Time This Month CBO Says ObamaCare Too Expensive!

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907265676/culture-wars/second-time-this-month-cbo-says-obamacare-too-expensive.html

House version of ObamaCare adds $239 billion to deficit

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/18/cbo-house-version-of-obamacare-adds-239-billion-to-deficit/

hotair.com – 8/8/2009
CBO missed ObamaCare cost by $1 trillion?

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/cbo_missed_obamacare_cost_by_1_trillion/
Ok, so I guess we’re just suppose to forget about all these other stories now. This new one is the only one that’s really true. How convenient.
See,,, this is the problem when you ignore the real premise of the argument,, as RINO’s and many other Pubs like to do. It’s almost as though many Republicans are embarrassed by principle. They don’t want to argue principle. They’d rather just argue money.
I am not against socialized medicine because it costs too much. I frankly do not care if socialized medicine were to save the government trillions and trillions of dollars. Socialism and Fascism are wrong!
Mussolini made the trains run on time and he cracked down on the mafia! Yippee for Fascism! (I could use some Hitler examples but I’m no longer allowed to do that as a conservative-only libs can use Hitler now)
Socialized medicine is a fundamental argument about freedom and liberty. Will we remain free as a people to make our own decisions about where we live, what we eat, what kind of work we do, careers we make, how to invest our lives, how to make our own bread and to eat it whenever we want,,, or will we as a people turn over to others,, no,, to allow them to steal from us the ability to decide these things for ourselves??!

Will we live free or will we be slaves?! That is the question!

JellyToast on October 7, 2009 at 8:38 PM

You can’t take on these kinds of responsibilities and spend this kind of money and “save” money. It’s a big lie and they don’t expect anybody to expose it.

TheBigOldDog on October 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM

ObamaCare will be “deficit neutral” says the CBO.

Hahahahahaha. They really do think we’re idiots, don’t they?

AZCoyote on October 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Bob Dole STFU your a loser! Go to the dog track or shuffle board court and STFU you had your shot and blew it. Jiminy Carter of the Republican party!

Maine retire the Snowewoman Arizona Retire McCain I’m sick and f’n tired of washed up old fools shootin their mouth off and shootin conservatives in the gut. GO AWAY QUIETLY!

dhunter on October 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Looks like an inside job to me.

Saltysam on October 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM

It could cause gold coins to rain down from the clouds and it would still be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

jimmy2shoes on October 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM

There is one thing that really makes this whole CBO thing look fishy to me. Wasn’t the head of the CBO recently called to an appointment with Mr. Man Obama? Anyone care to take a bet as to what he was told there?

And then…suddenly…a mysterious CBO estimate (and as has been said before the ONLY ONE showing ANY kind of savings on Obamacare) comes out RIGHT when Obama could need it for political advantage. Seems just a bit TOO convenient to me…

Highlar on October 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Depressing.

red26 on October 7, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Well the CBO has been the gold standard in this debate up until now so I don’t think we can dismiss their findings. Still I’m not particularly impressed by a new government program that “only” costs $829 bil especially when most Americans say they don’t want it.

Hera on October 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM

It could cause gold coins to rain down from the clouds and it would still be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

jimmy2shoes on October 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM

I think it’ll be more like golden showers

Playing the melody:

Urine the Money

profitsbeard on October 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Another question I have…is this CBO estimate the full report, or just a preliminary report? Because a full, detailed report could look much different than a quick, preliminary overlook at the plan.

Highlar on October 7, 2009 at 9:39 PM

$89 Billion over 10 years

Yeah, right. In D.C. speak that’s chump change, almost a rounding error.

Given the tiny amount and the timing of this.. It’s Bull!

This isn’t the first time The One has faked something. This is a fake number.

And when was the last time the government estimates were even in the ball park of the actuals?

CrazyGene on October 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who could be the only Republican senator to support the legislation.

Which will make it a “bipartisan measure”.

ddrintn on October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Figures lie and liars figure!

chickasaw42 on October 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM

Our only hope I think is that the true Republicans shut down the Senate and never let this bill come to pass.

I’m scared for this country and my family.

We’re not going to make it to 2010 without serious damage are we?

gophergirl on October 7, 2009 at 10:18 PM

I am not certain why AP is shocked. You cut Medicare by 400 Billion, you raise taxes on every single American, why should anyone be shocked the deficit will go down.

Still places the burden on the shoulders of the American people. A burden they can ill afford.

The American people still are forced onto government care and charges them for it, if you don’t want to pay for government care, you will then be taxed for rejecting it.

Nothing has changed here people.

kcarpenter on October 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Gulp is right.

It may be deficit neutral, but somebody is still paying taxes or fines to make it so.

PattyJ on October 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Total F*cking Bullsh*t.

When I see the ‘rats successfully yank 400 billion away from Medicare without coming away with a couple of bloody stumps for arms, then I’ll believe this crock.

Otherwise the bookkeeping on this scheme is total fiction.

CPT. Charles on October 7, 2009 at 10:50 PM

That’s a load of crap, and I’m not buying it. The CBO juggled these figures for 0bama, and the numbers are utter bullshyte.

This covers nobody’s arse, and those who vote for this bill deserve not only to lose their office, but to be run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.

Sekhmet on October 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Megan McArdle weeks ago:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/health_care_reform_starts_look.php

the real game changer is that the CBO is willing to score health care savings on the grounds that the bill contains automatic spending cuts.

I assume that the CBO is going to score all these largely imaginary savings, and that this will make it very hard to keep the bill from passing, because legislators are, natch, more concerned about the appearance of fiscal rectitude than actual conservative budgeting. Conservatives can, and should, raise the reasons to believe that htis bill will cost more than its CBO score allows. But frankly, the public is probably going to accept the CBO numbers.

Dash on October 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM

THE SENATE BILL WILL NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT! The CBO blog says that only if all provisions in the bill are enacted and carried out, which doesn’t usually happen, will it reduce the deficit:

These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments. The projected savings for the proposal reflect the cumulative impact of a number of specifications that would constrain payment rates for providers of Medicare services. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed or not fully implemented. (If those changes arose from future legislation, CBO would estimate their costs when that legislation was being considered by the Congress.)

The bill calls for $400 million in Medicare cuts, which will NOT HAPPEN.

Amy Proctor on October 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM

This is what always happens when the opposition is primarily cost. They just lower the cost, by hook or by crook, and thereby disarm the opposition. What happened to opposition on principle?

Skipper50 on October 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM

How does CBO justify these “new” numbers? Let’s see the analysis and the conclusions. Why did CBO predict losses one week and savings the nest? This appears like complete nonsense of bullsh*t, Show us the numbers!!

BottomLine5 on October 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Allahpundit, the only spin is coming from the Democrats when they say the CBO claims the healthcare bill will reduce the deficit because the provisions in the bill won’t pass or be substantiated. The CBO said essentially “it’ll reduce the deficit IF….” “but that almost never happens.”

Amy Proctor on October 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Folks, this is a disaster. Please, hear me out. This will absolutely kill thousands and thousands of jobs. Mine included. I work for the medical device industry and I am telling you that our CEO has already contacted us and let us know, in no uncertain terms, that this will mean job cuts, and deep ones at that.
Do any of you think for one minute that these companies will absorb the cost of the surtaxes that are being proposed on this industry? It will mean a higher cost for the consumer, job cuts within the industry, and an end to cutting edge technology. I cannot emphasize enough how devastating this will be for innovation and medical advances in this country. How willing will the government be to pay for the necessary equipment to keep premature children alive? How willing will the government be to pay for defibrillators for patients who are having arrhythmias?

sandlin71 on October 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Send your post to your local paper and every congressperson.
Baucus is is disgrace.

batterup on October 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM

When I loose health insurance from my employer, why shouldn’t I just accept the $3800 govt fine for not having insurance vs paying the $8000 cost (Kaiser calc) for a govt plan? They still aren’t going to turn people away at the ER. We’re 35, so maybe we have another 10 or so years before any real health problems happen. Why not???

txhsmom on October 7, 2009 at 11:07 PM

And if you don’t buy insurance you can be fined. Heh, good luck collecting that fine from me.

tbear44 on October 7, 2009 at 11:08 PM

I wonder how many throats Rahmbo had to step on over at the CBO to get these convenient numbers.

VibrioCocci on October 7, 2009 at 11:09 PM

CBO says Baucus’s bill will reduce the deficit if:

* the gold in Fort Knox starts reproducing.

* people stop getting sick and just die instantly.

* a Libertarian movement takes over congress and the senate in 2010 and repeals wasteful spending.

* with sanctions lifted from Cuba, everybody goes there to use their wonderful health care plan.

CPL 310 on October 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Repeal Porkulus if you want to trim the deficit.

RedNewEnglander on October 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM

There is no way in h$ll this bill will ever reduce the deficit. It will greatly increase taxes, it will have huge cost overruns like all programs that come out of Congress. If the healthcare bill is passed we will see much larger deficits going forward. And Medicare and Social Security are both going broke.. this will add another layer onto the going broke bottom line.

Dasher on October 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Using Biden’s logic maybe, but excuse me while I don’t buy it.

- The Cat

MirCat on October 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM

America, it’s been swell. Lets all hold hands and sing an REM song.

DFCtomm on October 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM

And in related news:

THE UNICORNS ARE BACK!

Their pure gold feces will be collected by hordes of federal government workers and applied to the deficit.

LegendHasIt on October 7, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Health care in the US is a $2.5 trillion dollar business per year. Tell me how this will not escalate into $2.5 trillion in taxes sometime in the near future.

Other problem the bill as constructed will increase taxes in 2010, but there will be no benefit until 2013, so you will have 3 years of taxation going into the general fund, ostensibly to fund health care… like excess Social Security going in to IOU chits. That helps make the bill more “affordable” but it won’t be. The money will be spent on pork projects, and union bailouts.

Dasher on October 7, 2009 at 11:51 PM

The Baucus Bill is a dead fish.

Baucus can only claim a savings when he cuts Medicare. And they have to find 400 billion in waste – which they won’t.

And they have to add a bunch of fees and taxes – which will cause everyone seeking medical care to pay more even though they’re not being taxed directly.

And they have to tax Cadillac Health Care plans – which the Unions are furious about because they have them.

And it doesn’t have the robust Public Option that the left is demanding.

The Baucus plan has something in it that everyone can hate. It’s DOA. Yeah the CBO can “claim” they reduce the deficit by 81 billion … uhm … yay? It’s still DOA.

Additionally – there is a push now by even Democrats to put the final bill on the internet for 72 hours prior to voting. If that happens – you can be sure all of us will be going through it to find all the hidden taxes and broadcast all the potholes in the thing to the masses.

Of course – they are likely to throw it up on a Friday right when Rush goes on the air – then they’ll vote first thing on a Monday just to limit the damage the Conservative media can do.

But I think we’ll be okay here.

We need to savage the bill when it comes out and make sure everyone knows how bad it is. That’s the next fight.

HondaV65 on October 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM

Makes me wonder if the earlier CBO jousts with Obama was all a show in order to grow the perception that they were un-biased and fiscally conservative (as accountants should be).

They got some trust from moderates and conservatives with those earlier reports. But when their opinion is courted and the whole country is waiting on their analysis, they back Obama.

The whole thing doesn’t smell right.

connertown on October 8, 2009 at 12:12 AM

But this bill has 10 years of taxes and cuts to pay for 7 1/2 years of services. That leaves a big hole at the end.

J_Crater on October 8, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Look at the RINOs they dreg up: Frist, Dole and every other squish and loser.
You can see here how we got to this point.

TexasJew on October 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM

Will the Republicans cave?

Will anyone stand for liberty?

Illegals will get your childrens taxes.

This is a tax-laden bill. Why is that not being used as a means to critique this bill?

I really don’t see how anyone cannot see that there will be a Revolution of some kind. Despite Ace and Allah’s disputing the possibility, it looks like the seeds are sown. What form the Revolution takes I don’t know, I’m hoping for a peaceful one. A tax revolt? A third party?

One things for sure. The Republicans are not going to pay any heed to the Constitution. Bush really did a number on you all. Despite what you all say, the Republicans are still going to shove their guy in your face.

True_King on October 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM

This is why they insisted that it be summary language only. They were smart and have probably done what they had to to get this thing passed… So here we go done that road we have so often been able to avoid.

petunia on October 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM

And where has the GOP been for months in making the argument about the bill’s overwhelming assault on individual freedom and sovereignty? This was always the more compelling argument against any of these bills, and against this entire new administration. This caviling over money was a loser’s game from the beginning.

rrpjr on October 7, 2009 at 5:53 PM

When has the GOP ever represented individual freedom and sovereignty? Nothings changed. The only reason it so noticeable now is because our losses are coming in hard and fast. For far too long Republican voters accepted whatever came their way as long as it was a Republican who was doing it, including the expansion of government at the expense our liberty, it’s just harder to notice because they do it slower.

The Republican party does not believe in individual freedom and sovereignty. They just don’t.

America, the future holds tough times and no politician has the courage to lead save maybe one. We are going to have to hold tough and pushback powerfully when the time is right. We aren’t quite there yet, but its not that far away.

True_King on October 8, 2009 at 1:43 AM

How will they save all this money? DEATH PANELS. XP

Orange Doorhinge on October 8, 2009 at 3:15 AM

Keemo from Montana…how is the petition to recall Baucus coming? Montana needs to get this guy out.

yoda on October 8, 2009 at 4:07 AM

When did they exempt CBO analysts from the LSD laws?

hillbillyjim on October 8, 2009 at 5:05 AM

If the GOP caves on the public option – you will see a third party under the umbrella of, “if they’re willing to take the country down, the least we can do is take them down too”. Above all, you don’t want these guys to win, because if they do, the nation loses -throw them all out!

Don L on October 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM

Don L:

I just called my Senators and left messages with their offices..for all the good it will do.

I know what you mean by a third party, but it would be a disaster for conservatives, it always is. Go after the Senators themselves, not the entire party…most of which has been pretty damn firm against this.

BTW, it is not really about the Republicans. If someone like Snowe caved, the Democrats could try to claim some of kind of bipartisan support, but it does not matter.

The Democrats have the votes to do this without the Republicans. They are the ones who are trying to cram this thing down our throats. They are the ones with the cap and trade nonsense…making this about Republicans just misses the larger issue, that being that Democrats have the majority. Getting rid of that majority is a lot more important than a couple of Republicans.

Terrye on October 8, 2009 at 7:02 AM

I just heard on Fox that this plan shoves a lot of the costs onto the states.

Terrye on October 8, 2009 at 7:10 AM

In fifteen year’s time, when the system has finally imploded and become completely unworkable, come talk to us.

Not only do we have ideas, but we also have cookies.

Good Lt on October 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Thanks for the kind invitation, Lt., but I think that after 15 years of poor healthcare, a reduced military, and massive job losses, our country will fall to whichever enemy decides to pick us off. If it doesn’t happen sooner.

Why does our government seem intent on suicide?

KyMouse on October 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM

I just heard on Fox that this plan shoves a lot of the costs onto the states.

Terrye on October 8, 2009 at 7:10 AM

That makes sense. Let the states raise your taxes. That way the filthy lying coward in the White House can claim his efforts didn’t raise taxes when in fact they not only did cost the taxpayer more, subsidize abortions with federal dollars, and make the productive pay for illegal aliens healthcare….. he distributed the tax burden to the various states.

highhopes on October 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM

When did they exempt CBO analysts from the LSD laws?

hillbillyjim on October 8, 2009 at 5:05 AM

Not only that. Watch the filthy liar now claim that the CBO is a wonderful non-partisan organization when the last time they came out against his plan they were an evil corrupt organization which couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth.

highhopes on October 8, 2009 at 7:51 AM

And they impugned Palin for the use of the words “Death Panels?” This is…

Death to the elderly
Death to our economy, or what’s left of it
Death to our health care system

We need to clean house. I just have no idea how we do it
with all the corruption that’s in Washington.

Nalea on October 8, 2009 at 7:52 AM

Sure it has been mentioned… but continue to star, highlight, mark… this assumes several things:

1. A $400B cut in Medicare
2. A tax on certain medical supplies
3. $120B from some “other source” of taxes
4. Increases in taxes won’t affect pricing

etc….

A lot of assumptions in there just to get to essentially “neutral” on the deficit.

mankai on October 8, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Bad news- This will give the Dems the talking points they need to snow (and Snowe) the people and get the votes. By the time it sinks in to the public conscience the fact the CBO was; 1. Scoring a concept 2. The concept pay for itself by raising taxes on everything 3. It is not going to be remotely like any bill passed, the real bill will be in place.

Good news- We have a year to prove this, and the law doesn’t really go into effect right away.

If there is a God in heaven, PLEEEESE someone vote Snowe out of office, and have her take Graham with her.

When you are in a war, the last thing you need to worry about is which way the knife thrusts will come from. It is bad enough fighting off the enemy, only to find the wounds you get were from your own people.

archer52 on October 8, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Isn’t this the same cheap sales pitch that has the gullible buy something they don’t want because they are “saving” a huge amount if they buy now before the sale ends…”Look how much we saved honey, it was only $100 and the original price was $300! We’re $200 ahead, so If I spend another hundred, we still made a hundred bucks on the deal!!”

Itchee Dryback on October 8, 2009 at 8:34 AM

These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation.

This is the key thing to me. This is a very early preliminary report from the CBO, and they say that this $81 billion is good ONLY if EVERYTHING is implemented exactly as the bill says, and STAYS that way for the next TWENTY YEARS???

Who are they fooling? At least they qualify it by also saying that something like that almost NEVER happens.

Highlar on October 8, 2009 at 8:39 AM

It remains to be seen if people will be willing to forego benefits for 2 years while taxes and medicare cuts are implemented.

But the news is good for reform. And we do need to address the rising healthcare costs.

I’m not wild about this version, but I can’t see that the GOP should not consider it carefully, given the savings costs nationally.

Otherwise, they really are simply obstructing.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Mr. Rove explained the trick they are using to make it appear that the health care bill will reduce the deficit. The new taxes will start immediately but the costs or payouts for health care will not start for several years. They will get a head start on money coming in but not spending it right away. I’ll bet by the end of the 10 year period that was studied, the money coming in won’t be enough to cover the costs going out. A. because some of it was diverted or stolen in previous years or b. that was the plan all along. Of course, then there will be a need to increase taxes. States will suffer the most with increases to medicaid so those taxes will go up as well.

Kissmygrits on October 8, 2009 at 8:57 AM

THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL

The CBO scored a CONCEPT. No legilation exists yet.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-is-no-baucus-bill.html#

percysunshine on October 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Mr. Rove explained the trick they are using to make it appear that the health care bill will reduce the deficit.

Yes, and to implement the taxes and cuts in the middle of a recession strikes me as being a foolish idea.

But, we’ll see. Arguing that the CBO is unfair would be dumb at this point. Can’t have it both ways.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Otherwise, they really are simply obstructing.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Obstructing what? Unconstitutional individual mandates? Stripped liberties, massive spending which kinda, sorta saves money if ALL projections hold for 20 years…while getting 7 1/2 years of services for 10 years in taxes….

…uh yeah, I AM SIMPLY OBSTRUCTING. You been in the CA sun too long.

NickelAndDime on October 8, 2009 at 9:05 AM

NickelAndDime on October 8, 2009 at 9:05 AM

I simply said they should consider it carefully and have good reason to vote no.

New poll out today shows that people want bipartisanship on this.

GOP needs to articulate clearly why this isn’t a good bill, and ranting about constitutional rights isn’t going to cut it.

They need solid reasons.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM

The Republicans need to start hitting hard and hitting often on all the new taxes that are contained in this bill. Especially the taxes on medical devices that will make those devices much more expensive and eliminate any incentive to develop new devices.

MarkTheGreat on October 8, 2009 at 9:11 AM

and ranting about constitutional rights isn’t going to cut it.

They need solid reasons.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM

But that’s my point, constitutional rights are simple, solid reasons. Just how is that an invalid arguement?

NickelAndDime on October 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Why must we all bend over for this massive change…all at once…for a gain of ~10Mil insured? It just doesn’t make sense. This can be done smartly.

There is a simple engineering principle. “Build a little, Test a little, learn a lot”. It can be applied here. Increase competition by breaking down state barriers, introduce targeted tort reform, create e-record devices that individuals can own, etc…

We can get the low hanging fruit, evaluate, and come back for more. Emploding the system for 3-4% of the population is lunacy.

NickelAndDime on October 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM

A. Don’t believe it.

B. There are other ways to cut $10B/year from the deficit than forcing me into Govt Ins.

Akzed on October 8, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Worth a read because it concludes with common sense:

The federal government and then the states created the very problem in health insurance that the various bills circulating in Congress will exacerbate: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/07/healthca...

onlineanalyst on October 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Here is a better link to Tucker’s article: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/07/healthcare-reform-for-the-part

onlineanalyst on October 8, 2009 at 9:41 AM

and ranting about constitutional rights isn’t going to cut it.

They need solid reasons.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM

If constitutional rights aren’t solid reasons, then their claim that health care is a RIGHT holds about as much water as a fork. Constitutional rights are the solidest of reasons. This kind of BS is the specific reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to begin with.

jimmy2shoes on October 8, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I am calling Snowejob’s office again for the millionth time. I urge everyone else who wants to, to do the same:

(202) 224-5344

(If they ask for a zip, just say 04101, Portland)

ErinF on October 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM

What is the “gulp” crap???

Quit being a sissy. God I’m so sick of the scaredy-cat bs fomr some people.

Anyone with a freaking brain knows you can’t SPEND 800 BILLION and reduce a defecit.

Gulp? My ass.

Keep stickin it to’em.

moonbat monitor on October 8, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Kissmygrits on October 8, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Congressmen won’t spend extra money coming in for a few years? Ha!
That’s like giving cash-back to a new car buyer.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Let’s think those points through before assuming they’re reasonable. Because they’re not.

SnowSun on October 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Hmmm… Snowejob’s office is perpetually busy. Haven’t been able to get through yet, but I’ll keep trying.

ErinF on October 8, 2009 at 10:19 AM

The constitutional stuff works with you guys, but not with moderates/Independents, etc.

And, frankly, if the GOP can’t articulate well about why the bill is bad, then they need to go find some other kind of work.

This isn’t just a game.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Wednesday, October 7, 2009
THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL
The internet is alive with the sound of people analyzing the CBO’s “scoring” of the Max Baucus aka Senate Finance Committee Health Care Bill. Before everyone gets too deeply into their thoughts, please keep in mind the following (get ready, all CAPS, bold, indented signifies a really important concept):

THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.
The CBO scored the concepts described by the Baucus Committee. There is no legislative text. None. Baucus and his Democratic colleagues refused to reduce their concepts to actual legislation prior to a vote. Here is the CBO’s disclaimer:

CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.
The Baucus Concepts are disasterous, but that’s for another post. For this post, let me get across a simple concept: THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Your esteemed Senators on the Senate Finance Committee will not be voting on legislation because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Your esteemed Senators have so little respect for you that some of them are willing to vote in favor of legislation which does not exist because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-is-no-baucus-bill.html

drjohn on October 8, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Have not had a chance to read all the posts. If this has been said before I apologize to those who have said it before me.

This is about more than health care and health insurance. If this passes, and I have no reason to believe it will not based on the spineless schmucks in Congress, it will open the door for government to control every minute detail of our lives. Choices that are personal will become public, edicts will rain down covering every human activity from eating to sex, and we all better fall in line or risk severe penalties. All in the name of health care.

Say goodbye to your ability to choose and your freedom.

rukiddingme on October 8, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Wow. Either Snowejob’s staffers have taken their phone off the hook, or she’s being inundated with calls…

ErinF on October 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5