Shell games in the Senate for ObamaCare
posted at 9:30 am on October 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Recall how Democrats hailed the Baucus plan in the Senate Finance Committee for not increasing the deficit? It accomplished that by keeping scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates to providers, which will drive many of them out of the Medicare business — and Democrats know it. To correct this, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a separate bill to increase those payments, which will cost more than $240 billion over the next ten years and substantially increase the deficit:
Maneuvering to boost prospects for sweeping health care legislation, Senate Democrats hope first to win quick approval for a bill that grants doctors a $247 billion increase in Medicare fees over a decade but raises federal deficits in the process, officials said Wednesday.
By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama’s conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.
If approved and signed into law, the legislation would avert a 21 percent reduction in Medicare fees paid to doctors that is scheduled to take effect in January as well as additional cuts in future years.
In other words, the “comprehensive” Baucus plan isn’t comprehensive at all, but a cherry-picking summary that ignores the rate increase Democrats plan to offer. Combined, that would put the Senate version of ObamaCare at over $1.1 trillion and cause it to increase the federal deficit. Interestingly and hardly coincidentally, this only came to light after the Finance Committee asked for CBO scoring on Baucus’ summary.
And did they attempt to split the bill so that Baucus could claim to have actually saved money? Not exactly:
In the Senate, the immediate impact of a two-bill approach is to slice $10.7 billion from the cost of the health care bill that cleared the Finance Committee bill, money that could then be spent on other priorities.
This is an extraordinarily dishonest maneuver by Democrats. I could go back to their 2006-8 rhetoric about “open and honest government” and “transparency,” but this goes beyond hypocrisy. Stabenow, Reid, Baucus, and their colleagues have conspired to lie to the American public about the true cost of this health-care overhaul. There simply is no other interpretation possible. Baucus submitted a summary with reimbursement rates he knew would be false to gain favorable CBO scoring, while his colleagues changed the reimbursement rates via legislative sleight-of-hand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















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:
I do hope you aren’t shocked or disappointed about their lies, Ed.
OmahaConservative on October 15, 2009 at 9:35 AM
This is why I was always suspicious about this bill. When I first heard that it was a deficit reducer my heart fell into my stomach, but the more I learned about it the happier I became. If I tried to tell an investor that if they give me 3 years of income first and I will give them about .2% income in return but they would have to pay me out the ying yang for the next 50 years I don’t believe I would have any takers. Yet, this is exactly how this bill is written.
txaggie on October 15, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Shocka! Dems subvert budget-neutral health care bill before it’s even written.
BadgerHawk on October 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Ah, Michigan…
SouthernGent on October 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Time to Go Galt.
flyfisher on October 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Honestly, how did they think they would hide this? They can’t be that stupid. This whole internet blog thingy is Racist!
Johnnyreb on October 15, 2009 at 9:37 AM
*crickets chirping*
*sigh*
cmsinaz on October 15, 2009 at 9:37 AM
God how I hate that woman, Jennifer Granholm, the Levin brothers, John Conyers, John Dingel…..
Michigan was a great state until the Democrats ruined it.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM
They aren’t even trying to hide what they are doing and they think we are the ones too stupid and/or wrapped up in the Jon/Kate drama to notice what they are doing.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM
You mean business as usual, right?
Spectreman on October 15, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Many invertebrates have shells.
LibTired on October 15, 2009 at 9:41 AM
+1
cmsinaz on October 15, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I see that comment a lot, but I don’t think anyone is actually going to do it.
Daggett on October 15, 2009 at 9:43 AM
This is why it’s easy to judge Democrap legislative proposals. You look at the big picture, use aggregate numbers for calculation, and listen to their rhetorical to understand.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the big picture on this. It’s welfare. Of course it’s going to cost billions.
Jaibones on October 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM
“Let me be clear…..”
Baxter Greene on October 15, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Not. Surprised. At. All.
OhioCoastie on October 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM
So let me get this straight. They’re attempting to pass a health care bill that’s allegedly deficit neutral. And just in case that bill fails to live up to that promise, they’re passing another bill to cover for it. The end result being the health care legislation is not only not deficit neutral, but will increase it dramatically.
This sounds suspiciously like Obama’s plan for avoiding tax increases on the middle class. Pass on the expenses to the states and let them take responsibility for paying for it.
Doughboy on October 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM
No Blue Dog Dem or member of the GOP who doesn’t denounce this and, in turn, doesn’t vote against this should be returned to office.
Before the days of constant coverage and the prevalence of the Internet, I’d expect this kind of thing. Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this without a thorough lashing.
What incredible dishonesty.
BuckeyeSam on October 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Dishonest democrats. Dishonest politicians, all of them.
But the media doesn’t know how to report truths, so what does it matter?
bridgetown on October 15, 2009 at 9:47 AM
It is time to have these people examined by a doctor to determine if in fact their brain stems are connected.
milwife88 on October 15, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Is Stabenow still married to her whoremongerer, Thomas Athans?
OmahaConservative on October 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
At what point in our history did we lose control of our government? When will we get it back? Can we actually elect people who are not criminals, or liars, or trying to ruin America? Is this point in our history the reason the founding fathers wrote the second amendment?
Just thinking out loud.
kam582 on October 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Accidents happen.
/
Vashta.Nerada on October 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Do we really need a Congress? Maybe one could convene every 20 years or so….
gwelf on October 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM
My God! A picture of Stabacow on the top, first thing in the morning is really really tough to take.
Yep, she’s still married to Tommy. Apparently his prostitute activities don’t bother her, but then look at Hillary. Stand by your man baby!
ORconservative on October 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
As distasteful and dishonest as it is, it’s a smart move on their part.
After all, who’s going to want to vote against the docs in a stand alone bill?
Expect them to do the same with a separate bill to restore most, if not all, of the half trillion in Medicare cuts made in the Baucus bill.
TXUS on October 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM
They can’t hide their crooked deals and the whole bill is causing the dems to implode. Hopefully they will take Snowe and Shamnesty with them.
dogsoldier on October 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM
February 3, 1913
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM
It seems worse than that, unfortunately. The Baucus bill uses tax increases and medicare cuts over ten years to pay for only six years of benefits, and still needs another bill to borrow $247 billion to cover all of the spending. It isn’t a case of ‘just in case’; they already know that the money is needed.
Vashta.Nerada on October 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I like the way NH pays its state-level congressmen, $200/ 2years.
NickelAndDime on October 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
You forgot to mention her tubby daughter. How fat is she? She makes Meghan McCain look hot.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
How the Senate expects to get away with this bill is puzzling, unless they’ve completely forgotten about the Medicare reform efforts from 20 years ago which had seniors attacking House Budget Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski’s car outside the Capitol.
To cut Medicare benefits and raise costs for three years before any so-called benefit shows up is an even worse idea than Rosty’s plan, since seniors — the people most likely to pay the price in improper health care with their lives — are not going to sit back and take lower benefits for three years just so Democrats can reach their health care Shangra-la sometime down the line.
jon1979 on October 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Perhaps. That is certainly a good point. I was wondering if we have ever had as many slimy congress men and women as we seem to have now.
kam582 on October 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Some of us are already doing it, to the extent we’re able.
BadgerHawk on October 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Thisis the pic of Stabencow that Ed should have used.
aquaviva on October 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
I love the language on that. It’s pretty much a ticket to take as much as physically possible and still get re-elected.
BadgerHawk on October 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I would venture to guess the answer is yes, we have always had slimy congressmen. The impact is greater now, though, given that the federal government is SOoooooo much bigger and intrusive than it was prior to Feb 3, 1913.
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
With this kind of corruption and dishonesty, our country is doomed.
Sorry for my continuous pessimistic state, but I honestly don’t see a way out of the [censored]-hole that we are in.
therightscoop on October 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
The dems. lying?!…Whatever.
ohiobabe on October 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
When you overlook/shrug off something as offensive as adultery and stop taking your vows seriously, nothing has meaning any longer and you operate without a moral compass.
OmahaConservative on October 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Do I hear someone banging a triangle and saying, “Come and get it!”
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Me too.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I’m wondering what date the concept of congressional pensions was turned into reality. Removing that would do wonders for our representation.
Vashta.Nerada on October 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Doesn’t this fall into the same category of Obama’s claim that illegals would not be covered, while days later advocating for “immigration reform” that would make 12 million plus become legal? Can’t these bozos just come out and claim their factual intent?
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
But but but – I thought they were going to be all super honest, transparent and bring hope and change?
People fell for one big snake oil salesman and his cronies and this country is paying the price
gophergirl on October 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Maybe we need a ‘Repeal 16′ PAC.
nolapol on October 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM
No, have never seen her daughter, that I know of. I didn’t even know she had one. Which is kind of funny. I spent a long, long time in her area.
ORconservative on October 15, 2009 at 10:10 AM
It appears that date is January 1942.
This date is after, I believe, congress locked the house at 435 seats, and, thus, less representative of the people.
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I wonder what they would have passed in August without checks and balances.
tomas on October 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM
The easy answer is to vote the bums out. Or at least enough of them that this sort of legislation has no chance of ever passing.
I’d rather not think about Option B.
Doughboy on October 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM
They have no checks, it is all IOUs, and nothing balances anyway. ;-)
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM
It’s all the spending and spending on top of spending that sits atop a huge mountain of spending that I believe has doomed our country. And it’s all because of the corruption and deceit that sits in Washington right now.
Sorry, I just don’t see a way out of it.
therightscoop on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
the Govt is a shell game.
hawkman on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I disagree. The time we lost our Constitution was April 8, 1913. When the States lost control to elect Senators it was all over.
txaggie on October 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
And Obama says you can’t score the new bill with the health care bill. So this 240 B is going to magically appear and unicorns and leprechauns will all make everyone live forever.
The contempt that congress has for taxpayer dollars is very sad.
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Ew!
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Split the difference and let’s just 1913 was a very very bad year in our nation’s history. I will go buy repeal1913.com and start working on getting these amendments undone.
So I checked out repeal1913.com before hitting submit, and someone already has done that. The site also mentions the Federal Reserve act. What a BAD year!!!!
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Snow was right about the Baucus plan–it IS the first time in history that congress votes to reduce deficits by more increased spending, thereby making an oxymoron a bill of Congress.
lovingmyUSA on October 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
I wish we could have Congressional Elections NOW! These bums have gotta go.
olesparkie on October 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Some threads are inexplicably troll-free.
TexasDan on October 15, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Come you peons you didn’t think that we’d let a so called debt reducing bill through with out another one waiting in the wings to add to the deficit did you. Hey take it easy you peons we know what’s best for you. Sit down and quit your complaining.
Brought to you by the Dems in Washington.
Brat4life on October 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
That would make for a pretty good t-shirt.
BadgerHawk on October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
There will be some actual debate about this separate bill if the Senate really goes through with this. Leftists would love to pose a choice of “paying off the rich doctors” vs. money for everything else they want. I would not say that passage of this separate bill is a sure thing. Republicans will also be forced into a debate of paying doctors vs. paying for more troops in Afghanistan, etc. etc.
Very clever if unbelievably cynical move by the Senate Dems. I can only imagine the howls of rage from all the newspaper editorial pages if Republicans had tried something like this to paper over a massive spending increase.
rockmom on October 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Washington is Nuts!
Christian Conservative on October 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM
If you ever listened to Senator Debbie Stabenow for more than 30 seconds you would realize that she is THAT STUPID, and assumes that we are all that stupid also.
Yoop on October 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
To all in congress and this administration especially Obama and Hillary who just told us she will allow a never before in the history of America inspection. She will open every one of our nuke sites to Russian inspectors to see and count every warhead and bomb. That should REALLY make us look good to the rest of the world, when they start lobbing the missels at us.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
patriotparty1 on October 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
C’mon- Dems don’t lie. This process is totally transparent, just like Obama’s campaign promise to have all negotiations with pharmaceuticals, AMA, etc. televised on CSpan.
litebrite on October 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
They are absent because the daily list of talking points has gone beyond gibberish that even they can understand. They await a liberal translation that also redacts Rahm’s four-letter words that would get them banned.
Yoop on October 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Scamming the numbers and hiding the language of the bill are what one expects of the left in this debate…It is up to the republicans and blue dogs to reveal the truth.
JIMV on October 15, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I was telling my sister, who is a cancer specialist doctor, about this bill this morning. I didn’t realize our own Senator Stabenow had introduced it. My sister thinks I am making this stuff up and I need to stop getting my news from suspicious sources that lie. Instead, she thinks I need to get all of my news from that dude on PBS.
Man, my sister doesn’t even know what she doesn’t know.
Sad, so Sad.
She didn’t know the Republicans have had every idea voted down. She didn’t know the R’s were trying to get insurance across state lines. She did agree that it might be a good idea to try ideas incrementally, but “there isn’t time” since the election season starts again in a few weeks.
I am embarrassed that my very smart, very successful sister is so brainwashed. I need to read Glenn Beck’s book, arguing with idiots, I have a copy, haven’t had time.
karenhasfreedom on October 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Same here but for different reasons. My heart fell because I knew the Democrats had somehow fooled the CBO and thought they might actually get away with their lie.
I’m screaming mad, but I am soooo pleased that HotAir, Karl Rove, Fox, Hannity and many others are screaming these lies from the roof tops. Sooner or later the democrats are going to throw out a bill and vote on that puppy before anyone can expose the truth; but so far it hasn’t happen.
katablog.com on October 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I demand that some senator shout “you lie!” to Obama again, seeing as how he promised the healthcare bill would be paid for. So freaking dishonest.
alwaysfiredup on October 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM
No, they can’t. Imagine if they told the American public that they want to pass a massive new healthcare entitlement that is going to raise the taxes of everybody who pays taxes, and increase premiums for everybody who buys health insurance, and raise costs and reduce the availability of services for everybody who accesses medical care. Or if they told seniors who’ve been paying Medicare taxes all their working lives that they’re going to have their Medicare benefits significantly reduced so that more tax money can be used to pay for more free healthcare for millions of non-taxpaying illegal aliens. Voters would go ballistic — and the politicians know it. That’s why they lie and scheme and manuever to hide the facts.
It’s legislating by stealth: Tell the idiot taxpayers whatever they want to hear (”It’s deficit neutral!” “It’ll actually reduce the deficit!” “Illegals won’t be covered!” “It’s for the children!”), then do whatever is necessary to sneak the bill through before anybody has a chance to find out what’s actually in it. Then go and give speeches to the special interests that financed your campaign (e.g., La Raza, SEIU, etc.) about how much you’ve done for them and pat yourselves on the back for selling out your country’s future.
AZCoyote on October 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM
This bill is separate from the Baucus Bill or it’s an amendment? It seems to be separate – so vote on it separately. On it’s own merit. This is a BS bill meant to quell the seniors who are realizing that their physicians won’t work for nothing.
Payment to ONLY your physicians won’t get you medical care…
The Chairman’s mark slashes the payments across the board to all providers to Medicaid & Medicare. You can pay the physicians but what good will that do if the products & services they prescribe are unavailable. What good is it if the facilities (hospitals, labs, free standing radiology centers,home health, dialysis center, nursing homes, etc) are not being compensated – they won’t work for nothing either.
Stabenow must think the elderly are stupid. First the insult of the pay-off of $250. And now thinking that she can shut them up by saying “I wrote a bill that will get your doctor paid so you will get to keep your doctor!”. No hospital, no supplies, no care.
batterup on October 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM
As I was reading the comments, this was crossing my mind as well. Very strange. What I really find strange though, is the mind that can manipulate itself into protecting, and rationalizing this crap the Democrats are doing to the country. Blatant lies, and manipulations by Democrats, and that’s just fine by liberals. I think consequences, and a sense of right, and wrong are just things of the past in this country.
capejasmine on October 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Dems don’t seem able to help themselves in the crooked department. Just business as usual and the sneakier the better.
jeanie on October 15, 2009 at 12:51 PM
How does their a** taste now, Snowe?
Enoxo on October 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I just hope and pray that the majority of this country, whether you claim to be D or R, can see that this is nothing less than tyranny. Lies, end runs around the Constitution, etc. I know that there are some way left that will never come around, just as there are some way right that still defend some of Bush’s awful policies. But I really want to believe that the majority of this country is middle-right, with a true love of capitalism and small government. I hope I’m right…..
search4truth on October 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Why do we keep these thieves in Congress. It is time to make sweeping changes in the club of Kings and Queens.
d1carter on October 15, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Ed Morrissey: This is an extraordinarily dishonest maneuver by Democrats. I could go back to their 2006-8 rhetoric about “open and honest government” and “transparency,” but this goes beyond hypocrisy.
Yes it does. It’s transparent, hypocritical and anti-American, extraordinary dishonesty. Liberal Democrats are eroding or throwing away our financial and military safety and security, while burdening our children and grandchildren with incredible debt.
Could we all work together to win back at least the House in 2010, please, so we can at least start slowing down this process? Thanks.
Loxodonta on October 15, 2009 at 2:55 PM
From Wikipedia:
An obviously horrible idea. I wish we’d been as outraged in 1946 as in 1942!
Al in St. Lou on October 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Where has the name “Kennedy” gone in all of this health care legislation? $20 million in the defense bill for the Kennedy Senate fun house and the lion’s bones are left bleaching in the sun?
FeFe on October 16, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Comment pages: