Gregg: CBO cost estimate of Pelosi Plan $3 trillion; Update: Heritage says $2.4T

posted at 11:30 am on November 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

You know, Senator Gregg, talking like this won’t get you an appointment to Barack Obama’s Cabinet.  Oh, wait …:

Senator Gregg: Updated CBO Estimate of House Bill Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.

“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”

I’m not sure where Gregg gets the $3 trillion number.  From the CBO analysis released last night in a letter to John Dingell, it’s clear that the earlier report of the plan costing $1.8 trillion in its first actual ten years — that is, the first ten years of outlays — is well founded.  It seems as though Gregg is combining outlays and tax revenues ($1.2 trillion) to get to $3 trillion, while the CBO deducts revenue from the outlays.

Is that legitimate?  The CBO analysis concerns itself with deficit projections, so its methodology is proper for that purpose.  Gregg seems to be saying that both outlays and taxes combine into an all-cost juggernaut for the American taxpayer (note his use of “grow government” rather than use costs).  That may be legitimate, but the problem is that the outlays come mainly out of the new revenues, at least in theory.

I’d like to see more explanation of the $3 trillion number.  Of course, I’d like to see a lot more explanation of the Pelosi Plan, including the constitutionality of the mandates, the impact of taxes and fees on innovation in the medical-device and pharmaceutical industries, and the impact on provider availability thanks to expanded government mandates and price controls.  This bill is bad enough even without the $3 trillion price tag.  Gregg had me at $1.7 trillion.

Update: The Heritage Foundation blog The Foundry splits the difference:

As Heritage analysts noted earlier in the week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary score of the bill (H.R. 3962) but too many in the media have not been reporting its true cost. The true cost is not the net spending on only the coverage related provisions ($897 billion) but rather the total gross spending for the coverage provisions ($1.05 trillion) as well as any additional spending in the bill (approximately $217 billion). That would raise the plan’s price tag to about $1.5 trillion when including the roughly $210 billion cost of the “doc fix” is included. The “doc fix” refers to the undoing of the flawed Medicare payment update formula, which Congress created but has routinely stopped from being enforced. Under current law, that formula would result in a 20 percent reduction in doctors’ pay under the Medicare program.

The real story about the true cost is even more dramatic. The bill is front loaded with taxes, and back-loaded with spending in the first ten years. Since most of the spending in the House bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, the 10-year cost estimates based on the preliminary CBO score (for years 2010 through 2019) only account for six years of new spending under the plan. Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the “doc fix.”

It’s just one of the shell games employed by Pelosi & Co.


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

Chump change and we is the chumps

CWforFreedom on November 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM

As long as teh money comes from Obama’s stash like that Detroit Obama money.

daesleeper on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.

What a bargain!

Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

OMG this has to be stopped. Does anyone know if it has the votes today for the house. What we need is everyone who votes for this piece of shit and all the other bills to be listed and tossed out on their @$$. This is just sickning.

Brat4life on November 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I was pretty concerned until you mentioned that the cost was only $1.8 trillion rather than $3 trillion, but I’m better now. Whew!

Bishop on November 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM

But hey lets vote for it anyway because it will get “changed”

Every one of these idiots should get booted – every one.

gophergirl on November 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.

What a bargain!

Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM


“wait , there’s more”

the_nile on November 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The GOP ought to make estimates of the cost of this bill based on the costs and overruns that historically occurred on these sorts of mishaps forced on AMerica by the federal government. It is insane to accept the CBO estimates when no legislation of this type has ever come in at the projected cost. If one wanted to portray the reality of the situation, then one needs to b=find the average cost compared to the projected cost and use that multiplier to arrive at a more realistic estimate of what this un-Constitutional monstrosity might really cost.

I would pick those programs that the Dems are claiming this is just like (Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security – as well as the state level budget busting that these sorts of programs cost as compared to the promises at passage), take their cost overruns compared to projections, apply that to the CBO estimates for this, and stick to that figure as the estimate for this cost and the deficit.

The GOP also has to pound home how this legislation is taking lots of private expenditures and moving it onto the federal budget. The Dems like to intentionally conflate these two, talking about how much “the nation” spends on health care without pointing out which parts are government expenditures and which parts are private, to try and confuse people into thinking that the structural changes are not as radical as they are trying to affect.

progressoverpeace on November 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM

What the donks are doing is absolutely criminal, chains we can believe in!

farright on November 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I agreed with another poster that this approach is ineffectual.

Tell people how it directly affects their families the DAY it is passed.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I wonder if we could encourage Sen. Gregg to change his mind about leaving the Senate?

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I read it differently.

He wasn’t “re-stating” the first 10 years.

He took the cost once the bill is finally implemented, then projected that out over a 10 year period.

jeanneb on November 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I thought Obama said he would veto any bill that was over $900 billion or something like that.

Terrye on November 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Focus on how it will impact those who already have insurance.

That was the most effective argument over the summer.

jeanneb on November 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM

They speak of it as if the amount of money is trivial.

Here’s some context. Lebron James makes $40,000,000.00 a year. In order to make $1 trillion dollars, Lebron would have to play basketball for 750,000 years.

And the pols speak as if it’s a couple of bucks.

Corky on November 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Nancy Pelosi is a power mad control freak. She should be heavily medicated and locked up in a mental institution.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Does anyone know when the vote is taking place?

Brat4life on November 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.
What a bargain!
Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

“wait , there’s more”
the_nile on November 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM

You get Less service, long waits and you’ll be dependent on the government!
No more worrying about all those pesky freedoms we have.
And it’s all for the LOW,LOW price (for the next ten minutes) of Three trillion dollars!
CALL Now! Operators are standing by.

Juno77 on November 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.

What a bargain!

Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.

Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

We know the gutter and we know the stink of the street
For too long now we have pressed through this festering heat
All you tyrants who tower above us
You who gave us the smack of your rod
Soon now we will give you the gutter
We will give you the judgment of God!

These will be glorious days
Come gather the bloody bouquets!
Soon now they will gaze on our Goddess of Justice
With her shimmering, glimmering blade
As she kisses these tyrants she will sing them a last serenade

The world may be ugly, but each man must do what he must
Give in sick tyrants, in a year you will be dust
Now come let our Lady of Justice possess you
In her breathtaking, hair-raising bed
She will tingle your spines
As she captures your hearts and your heads!

PercyB on November 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Billy Mays couldn’t even sell this, and he could sell screen doors to submarine captains.

JamesLee on November 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM

As heard on Laura Ingrahams show.
AARP
Alway Accommodating Reid & Pelosi

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Well, I estimate, that if I live another 50 years, quit smoking, start drinking, and eat more veggies, I’m gonna be a multi millionare so who cares. I want my big screen flat panel HD TV with surround sound and I want it now!

Skandia Recluse on November 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM

This is fine, but the Republicans need to spend some time pushing their plan.

Y-not on November 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Nancy Pelosi is a power mad control freak. She should be heavily medicated and locked up in a mental institution.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I am beginning to think this might actually be the case.

Terrye on November 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.

What a bargain!

Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.
Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

You know, that really highlights what a governmental nightmare this has become.
Does any SANE person think that is REALLY think this is a Bargain?

Juno77 on November 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Nice. Three trillion dollars for “free” government-run health care.

What a bargain!

Good Lt on November 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.

Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

What would it cost to just give the uninsured a $100,000.00 a year for ten years? I can’t imagine it would be more than this… but all these zeros confuse me.

petunia on November 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.

Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I know you’re kidding, but $350 million would put just over $1 in every American citizen’s bank account. (You should apply for the job of Treasury Secretary — your math is good enough ;)

Assuming 350 million Americans (fuzzy math, just like the cost of the cynically named “health care” bill), for $3.5 trillion, you could put $10,000 in each account. For $1.8 trillion, you could put (roughly) $5,000 in each account.

But, the government is going to take that money from you. And given that less than 50% of Americans pay tax, how much do you think that’s going to cost every taxpayer?

mr.blacksheep on November 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Wouldn’t it just be cheaper if government paid everyone’s premiums for a comprehensive private plan? Government would at least get back something by taxes on insurance companies’ ‘profits’.

Liam on November 7, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.

Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Your math is just a little better than the governments, but whose checking anyhow?

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Chump change and we is the chumps

CWforFreedom on November 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM

We are not chumps.

November 2, 2010: Change we can believe in.

Yes we can!

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I wonder if we could encourage Sen. Gregg to change his mind about leaving the Senate?

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I doubt it, but I’m sure that Thank-you Notes wouldn’t hurt.

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Are you with Pelosi or do you want to get re-elected?

http://www.louisianagovernmentalstudies.com/lgs/img/blue_dog.jpg

redridinghood on November 7, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Senator Gregg is my US Senator. I’ve not always agreed with him, but he has of late become more Conservative and has shown more testicular fortitude. I wish he would reconsider leaving the Senate.
MB4 What makes you think Nancy Lugosi is not heavily medicated NOW? It might explain her deranged behavior.

mountainmanbob on November 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Focus on how it will impact those who already have insurance.That was the most effective argument over the summer.jeanneb on November 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM

It only bankrupts the country, reducing our standard of living to that of some third world banana republic. But that is too hard to for people to understand, apparantly.

mcassill on November 7, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Any one watching Pelosi?
She is giddy.

ORconservative on November 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Seriously!
Why not health savings account debit cards with everyone? Put $1,000,0000 in everyone’s account only $350 million. Damn I’m good.
Caper29 on November 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Your math is just a little better than the governments, but whose checking anyhow?
fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM

It doesn’t really matter,does anybody have any doubts that that Three trillion dollars will be a laughably LOW estimate of what that monstrosity will actually cost the country?

Can any of the trolls that hang around here name a Government program that hasn’t cost way more than estimated?

Juno77 on November 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Excellent idea.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Your math is just a little better than the governments, but whose checking anyhow?

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM

I bet the CBO math is quite conservative and does it account for fraud and waste?

CWforFreedom on November 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Rant on. As I watch the death of liberty on live stream, I wonder where my rage should be directed: At Democrats who are doing what is hardwired into their DNA, or at Republican politicians who allowed it to happen? I suppose I should also allocate some of my anger toward feckless “Independents” whose only real core value is to shrink from conflict and who cannot handle the personal anguish of taking a stand on anything of real import until someone gives them “permission” to raise their miserable heads out of the political fox hole. Rant off.

ObjectionSustained on November 7, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I don’t get it. Even if it’s “only” $1.8 trillion over 10 years, why is it that high?

Look, if you believe the Democrats, 45 million Americans don’t have insurance. That means 255 million do. As a country we pay in $165 billion in health insurance premiums each year. Obamacare’s $1.8 trillion for 10 years is S180 billion a year

So why does it cost more per year to insure those 45 million than it does to cover the other 255 million of us? On top of reduced coverage due to Medicare cuts, etc.

Strick on November 7, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Here is a piece that demonstrates the fraud that the Dems use to confuse the numbers: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU0NGRhY2FhNDAyZDA4MzAzMDBlZTJiZjM3ZjA4NDM=

onlineanalyst on November 7, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I’m not sure where Gregg gets the $3 trillion number

See this is the problem with the education system. Perhaps this is the left’s agenda – a population that can’t do simple math.

By the time the cost of the plan levels off (full enrollment, population increase, amnesty, inflation, etc.) the plan will cost $300 billion a year!

However, the $1.7 trillion is the first 13 years (3 years of taxes and cuts, before it starts).

Agrippa2k on November 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Object sustained,
Your rage should be directed at both parties, and ultimately at the American people. For far too long we have sent these thieves back to Washington. We have forgotten that they are supposed to work for us, to represent us. With few exceptions, todays Republican party is Democrat-lite. Todays Democrat party is far left. If the American people don’t wake the bleep up soon, there will not be time to salvage this great country.

mountainmanbob on November 7, 2009 at 1:18 PM

My, aren’t we proud to have such sneaky underhanded corrupt tricksters running our government. I can only imagine the extent to which they’ll screw up our health care system. Someone remind me what program it was that our “leaders” have actually made better, because I’m at a loss.

I have great health care. I’m sure I speak for a lot of Americans when I say that I wouldn’t mind paying a little more income tax if that money were used to insure families that need health care. Why couldn’t we just do that instead of totally screwing the people who currently have insurance so that others can be insured too?

scalleywag on November 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM

All we have to do is look at Nancy’s own ignorant promises:

Our bill covers 96 percent of Americans, makes coverage more affordable for all, and creates new consumer protections that will end discrimination by insurance companies against the sick and cap what Americans pay out-of-pocket.

So, Nancy is telling us she is going to increase demand without increasing the supply or price. She might as well say we’ll all be able to fly with grand pianos strapped to our backs.

If she can successfully ignore the laws of supply and demand, then the laws of gravity should be a cinch.

RadClown on November 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It will cost us a lot more than that.

Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn’t care about the Constitution, it doesn’t care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Rae on November 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM

The Liar in Chief is lying his head off to the American people. He’s way more passionate than he was whilw speaking of the Ft. Hood travesty.

He just said “(ObamaCare) is fully paid for”. You lying bastid! Fools only fall for this.

Schadenfreude on November 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM

We pay these idiots a fortune. Why should I have to figure out trillions over years?

Can’t they do their jobs and actually give people information that is useful?

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Since “government estimates” are usually wrong, and things end up costing 5 times or 100 times as much as “planned”, let’s just say the “reform” will cost $5-10 trillion, at best.

However, the same government doing this “estimating” is running on deficits, thus there’s no money for ANY new programs.

Therefore, this entire folly should be scrapped as UNAFFORDABLE.

As George H.W. Bush said during his 1989 inauguration:

We have the will, we just don’t have the wallet.”

(I wish they currently didn’t even have the will… because it will end up being our national last testament if they get their way.)

profitsbeard on November 7, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Baron Hill of Indiana says he’s more agreeable to voting for the bill now that the CBO estimate says that it will cut the deficit…

Skywise on November 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM

What’s really bizarre about all this is that the House bill plainly violates the President’s stated criteria for reform — deficit-neutrality, and not exceeding $900 B in costs (the deficit-neutrality dodge comes from splitting the bill into two pieces, and doing the deficit-increasing dofix piece separately.)

It clearly violates the President’s position — so why is the Administration urging passage today?

Chuckles3 on November 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM

We pay these idiots a fortune. Why should I have to figure out trillions over years?

Can’t they do their jobs and actually give people information that is useful?

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Psychology 101 – Ann has decided to use reverse psychology on the commenters of HA. It was Tuesday night that flipped her.

Schadenfreude on November 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM

docfix, not dofix

Chuckles3 on November 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM

It will cost us a lot more than that.
Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes
Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn’t care about the Constitution, it doesn’t care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.
Rae on November 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM

From the article you linked to:

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me “Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone’s healthcare–, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway.

Agreed, it will cost WAY more than $897 billion $1.5 trillion $2.4Trillion $3 ????

With a government unbound by the Constitution, It will cost us our freedom, that’s whats at stake.

Juno77 on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Psychology 101 – Ann has decided to use reverse psychology on the commenters of HA. It was Tuesday night that flipped her.

Schadenfreude on November 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Actually, I haven’t changed my position in months on this issue.

I couldn’t really tell where the bills were going to end up, so maybe you got that idea from some of the general discussions.

But I’ve had my mind made up on public option for months. I am for a public option. I am not for a large government-run bill such as being offered by EITHER the house or the senate.

It’s unworkable.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Raise taxes in “the worst recession since the great depression”. Now, I don’t care if you stood before God himself and promised healcare “reform”. You don’t take money out of the pockets of people now. Oh, and what about Obama chastising McCain for wanting to “tax your healthcare benefits”?????

I am so furious right now. Our country/money/freedom is being STOLEN by the criminally insane Pelosi and Obama.

marklmail on November 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM

I am for a public option. I am not for a large government-run bill such as being offered by EITHER the house or the senate.

It’s unworkable.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM

The Blue Cross family of insurance companies are non-profits and they service over 1/3 of Americans. What would a government run non-profit be any different from Blue Cross in doing? Is there a difference between a non-profit and a government run company? If so, what is the difference?

It’s amazing that throughout this whole debate there has been nary a mention of the fact that our health insurance system is already rife with non-profits. The idea that the government owned non-profit would be anything different (when the Traitor-in-Chief went out of his way to claim that the new Fannie Med would follow all the same laws and rules that normal insurance companies have to) is just insane in the extreme.

Please detail any differences between a non-profit insurance company (or any of the many existing co-ops around) and a government run Fannie Med.

Then you can explain the advantage in trashing our Constitution and destroying the limited government that this nation is based on and without which this nation shall no longer exist.

BTW, you can kiss good-bye to medical advancement with the government’s heavy hand moving in to control health care. We saw a glimpse of this with Shrillary’s asinine vacination industry destruction in the small section of health care whe was able to destroy in her ’93 jihad against America:

Hillary’s Vaccine Shortage

By The Wall Street Journal August 15, 2003

Everyone knows America’s vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Well, not in so many words. The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week was too polite to mention the former First Lady by name. But they identify as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55% of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been “declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines.”

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Mrs. Clinton’s Vaccines for Children program. A dream of Hillary’s friends at the Children’s Defense Fund, her vaccines plan was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the Clintons had pushed for 100%) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured.

The result is a cautionary tale for anyone who favors national health care. Already very high in 1993, childhood vaccination rates barely budged. A General Accounting Office report at the time noted that “vaccines are already free” for the truly needy through programs like Medicaid. Meanwhile, however, the Hillary project dealt the vaccine industry another financial body blow.

Thirty years ago, the Institute report notes, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market. Today only five remain, and a number of critical shots have only one producer. Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.

It’s also interesting how this has not been a topic of discussion as we have shortages in both swine flu vaccine, even as the geniuses in the feral government have declared this to be a national emergency, and regular flu vaccine, as well.

American health care costs more because we fund all the R+D for everyone. If we stop funding it, the advancement stops, because no one else has the profits in their health care systems to build such industries, infrastructures, supply systems, procedures, …

progressoverpeace on November 7, 2009 at 2:36 PM

ShameWow Health Care by Obama and Company

bluegrass on November 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Libertarian types are live-blogging the PelosiCare debate at United Liberty.

Join the fun!

Rae on November 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM

If you are convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote. Failure to comply with Pelosicare can carry a FELONY charge.

Technically, if you refuse to buy health insurance, the Federal Government can take away your right to vote.

Think about that: THEY CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR VOTING RIGHTS FOR NOT BUYING GOVERNMENT APPROVED HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

uknowmorethanme on November 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM

The thing is, eventually it will become obvious how much this will cost. They can guess, or lie, or whatever right now, but in time people will know the true cost of it all and it might actually hurt the Democrats.

Terrye on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

I am for a public option. I am not for a large government-run bill such as being offered by EITHER the house or the senate.

It’s unworkable.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Ann, a public option is a large government run program. That is what it is.

Terrye on November 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM

A few TRILLION here, a few TRILLION there and add them up and we could be talkin’ some real money.

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM

The actual cost of the program is irrelevant. We jumped the shark on the value of money and spending last year. Previously we measured bills in billions. Trillions are the new handle.

The amounts no longer matter because we will never be paying back the money printed for the bill. All we are really talking about is the when, where and how the default takes place

But for pretend purposes whatever the consensus number arrived at, triple it to have a more realist idea of the real cost.

patrick neid on November 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM

In the vernacular of the proletariat… we’re f*cked.

bloviator on November 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM

When Granny’s sent home with some pills in a plastic bag
Hurrah! Hurrah!
Obama will give her a hearty high five then
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Emanuels will cheer, the Kevorkians will shout
The eugenicists they will all turn out
And the old folks will all be dead by Christmas time next year!

Get ready for the Ezekiel Emanuel Jubilee
Hurrah! Hurrah!
He’ll give Herr Obama three times three
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Doctor of Life and Death degree is ready now
For Hemlock Pelosi to place upon Herr Obama’s Godly brow
And they will both feel so happy and gay
When Pallbearers carry Grandma and Grandpa to the funeral home

Cheshire Cat on November 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM

From what I have caught on C-Span, the Dems are loading up their one-minute pleas with anecdotal bleeding-heart stories that imply that all of America finds itself in these straits of being uninsured or underinsured. There are methods to resolve everyone of those narratives without destroying a whole sector of the economy by having the federal government as both insurer and overseer.

One clown from MA (from MA, where carrying insurance is mandated?!?!!) told the sad tale of a mother who goes to bed, worrying that her child’s health care will not be covered. Do these congresscritters audition on Oprah before they speak on the House floor?

onlineanalyst on November 7, 2009 at 5:29 PM

CBO: New House Health Bill Spending Estimate, $3 Trillion over 10 Years

Rae on November 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Another representative told the tale of his nephew whose infant son has liver cancer. That situation is most pitiful, for who wants to see a child suffer. Yet the rep says that the child is fortunated to have the exhorbitant bills paid because the nephew and his wife have excellent coverage through their employment health plans.

What happens if those employers decide to drop that excellent coverage because it is more economically feasible for them to stay in business if the government insurance plan picks up the tab? Will the government plan offer the best care…or will a bureaucratic panel decide that covering that child for who knows how long is just not a wise rationing of resources?

Honestly, these people do not think through their one-size-fits-all solutions.

Kill the bill. The federal government has no business in the health-insurance business, especially in demanding mandates and determining level of care or coverage.

onlineanalyst on November 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM

So IF Barry is “honest” he won’t sign the bill, having said that he won’t sign ‘a trillion dollar health care bill’.

Problem is, is Barry “honest”.

GarandFan on November 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Take me away, to a secret place.

GW_SS-Delta on November 7, 2009 at 8:20 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

I told you this is a damned communist takeover.
I told you the numbers dont match reality..

Hell this is the latest assumption
which assumes nothing at all will go
WRONG..

MORONS..

veteranoutrage on November 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Is Gregg going run to for re-election? I really like this guy and we need him in the Senate but I heard he wasn’t going to run?

Daemonocracy on November 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM