Reconciliation bill posted; Update: Shell bill
posted at 8:48 am on March 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
And it’s 2,309 pages long. The House Budget Committee has to start its markup today to have any shot at getting it done by the weekend, which means that this version may change over the next few days:
House Democrats hope to complete their work by this weekend, before President Barack Obama begins an overseas trip he delayed for several days to focus on healthcare.
The package released by the committee runs 2,309-pages.
House Democrats have promised the bill would be posted online well before the eventual vote on the package.
The markup by the Budget Committee is the first step toward bringing the measure to the House floor.
The big question will be what the bill contains that makes it ineligible for reconciliation, if anything. Any part not directly germane to budgeting should, according to the rules, have to go through normal Senate debate. Republicans will want to find as many of these as possible to get the parliamentarian to rule against the reconciliation process.
On page 2099, the nationalization of the student-loan industry appears in the bill, as promised. It’s difficult to tell whether that will create more problems for reconciliation by alienating Democrats worried about passing two government takeovers at once, or whether it’s a sweetener to convince some recalcitrant Democrats along who may have otherwise opposed the House changes to the Senate bill. We’ll have to see how that plays this week, but the Democrats will have to deal with the sudden high visibility of the student-loan takeover, which has most flown under the radar thanks to the ObamaCare debate.
We need an “Army of Davids”, as Glenn Reynolds once wrote, to go through the bill and find the worst aspects of it. Drop me an e-mail with the pertinent citations, and I’ll post them either in updates to this entry or in new posts later.
Update: Page 1557 has the Comparative Effectiveness Center:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.
Read the whole section, but pay attention to the composition of the panel, especially the last discipline:
(i) DIVERSE REPRESENTATION OF PERSPECTIVES.—The members of the Commission shall represent a broad range of perspectives and shall collectively have experience in the following areas:
(I) Epidemiology.
(II) Health services research.
(III) Bioethics.
(IV) Decision sciences.
(V) Health disparities.
(VI) Economics.
What is “comparative effectiveness”? It’s a system of rationing scarce resources, and it has everything to do with economics.
Update II: According to Heritage and Philip Klein, this is a shell bill, not the actual proposed reconciliation bill. It’s a copy of the version from last autumn. Later this week, the House will gut this version and replace it with their new ObamaCare fixes. However, the student loan nationalization will remain in the bill, so it’s not entirely old hat.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Why do you have to prove it? Some people really think too hard about these things. I, personally, am the founding member of the FL amish community. We do things a little differently in these parts.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM
I hope so…all the Amish I’ve ever met across were very nice as individuals, but I’d go insane if I had to live under their straight-laced, straight-faced way of life.
Dark-Star on March 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I think tneloms makes some very good points, and offers a useful corrective to the sometimes hysterical reactions to this bill. But I’m not quite as sanguine about the long-term prospects for private health insurance. Didn’t the architect of the plan once publicly admit that it was a foot in the door for a single-payer system?
How long can private companies hope to compete with a taxpayer-subsidized system that need not make a profit? In the long run, I suspect most private health insurance will be discontinued – and that’s probably what Obama et al. are hoping for.
Why haven’t insurance stocks tanked? I’d guess that most investors have not wrapped their heads around the full implications of the bill.
sauropod on March 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM
They can’t. Florida flood insurance is almost completely handled by the state now, after it stepped into try and “fix” the market. The goal is single payer. If you can’t do it at once, you can do it slowly. Slavery doesn’t need to happen immediately.
Short to middle term, they’d get a lot of new customers who are forced to buy their services.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Yep. Most people just don’t have any idea of just how awful this triple-cross is going to be for them on a very personal level.
The people ‘in the know’ and ‘in the business’ sure do…but not their constituents and customers.
Dark-Star on March 15, 2010 at 12:51 PM
By the way, do the Florida Amish churn their own suntan lotion?
kingsjester on March 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Regarding insurance company stocks, another possibility is that since most insurance companies offer a lot more than health insurance, investors are betting that the companies will remain solvent even if their health insurance business atrophies. Perhaps there is a higher profit margin in life insurance, home insurance, car insurance, etc., so that even the complete elimination of health insurance would not adversely a company’s bottom line.
I’m just speculating …
sauropod on March 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Then Why are you supporting National Socialist Healthcare?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM
If we have such problem with Social Security being insolvent, why are we just exacerbating the problem with a Brand new entitlement?
Is Barry trying to Deliberately Obama the country?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Short term, ObamaCare is terrific news for healthcare providers. The taxes levied on them are tiny compared to the near-half-trillion in direct payments from the government, not to mention all the private sector money forcibly sent them due to the mandates.
Chuck Schick on March 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Someone was mentioning earlier about the Amish being exempted from the obamacare plan. That in itself throws the bill out since the govt is recognizing a religion or a way of life and exempting them from what is required of the rest of the country. I do not begrudge the Amish, but why not let all people that are religious decide that it violates their religious beliefs.
ConservativePartyNow on March 15, 2010 at 1:14 PM
The Taxes for National Socialist Healthcare will kick in Immediately,
While the “benefits” of National Socialist Healthcare will begin in 4 years.
How will the economy support a Doubling down on payments on healthcare?
How are people going to be able to effectively pay double for healthcare?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Silly goose. Government makes the decisions around these parts.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Are you even close to being able to answer any of my questions?
Or are you just going to ignore me and come back later to spew more of your Far-left National Socialist moonbat propaganda?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM
If this fails, what’s next for Liberals? Declare Marshall Law and dictate “HCR”? (I shouldn’t give them any ideas)
olesparkie on March 15, 2010 at 1:23 PM
I was asked to name a single instance of a federal program for which the benefits outweighed the inefficiency. So I pointed to those links, which show plenty of programs that many would consider effective and worthwhile.
That doesn’t mean that I think a 50% success rate is good (in fact, I said it was bad) or that, on balance, federal programs are doing more good than harm. It just means that I think that some federal programs are worthwhile, which was a response to someone who asked me why I think ObamaCare can be worthwhile since no federal program is ever worthwhile.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
You’re right, you don’t want to give them any Ideas – but they’ve probably thought of them anyways.
Interesting that Reconciliation or the ‘Nuclear Option’ was something no one was talking about – even though they were talking about it – became less and less shocking as the weeks went on.
Maybe their next option is to takeover 18% of the economy by executive order.
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
The Taxes for National Socialist Healthcare will kick in Immediately,
While the “benefits” of National Socialist Healthcare will begin in 4 years.
How will the economy support a Doubling down on payments on healthcare?
How are people going to be able to effectively pay double for healthcare?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM
So. From your own comment; do you think it’s wise to add a new program to a government whose own admitted success rate is 50% or less? Wouldn’t it be wise of them to fix the mess they have before making a new one?
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Are the Dems Nutzi enough to add another bloated entitlement onto a shaky system?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM
I believe that most, if not all, government social programs fall under a broken window fallacy, but I won’t belabor that. You either believe it or you don’t. Evidence supports my view, though.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM
You’ll never get anywhere arguing with someone like tneloms about cost, quality, availability, etc. That plays right into his approach: weighing the pros and cons of utilitarian social engineering by government policy, a classic Progressive tactic. The argument then becomes over who can provide the ‘best’ system to meet the ‘need’ of the collective.
Fundamentally, the Federal government simply has no moral or constitutional right to be doing anything like what they’re doing, period.
Even if, by some miracle never before achieved in the history of such programs, they managed to lower real costs and increase real quality for every person in the country, it would still make everyone a slave in the process. It would still violate the right to voluntary trade. It would still be completely illegal and immoral.
Note, just as one example, that the insurance companies under that system might still be nominally private, but laden with ever more regulations, effectively making them government agencies.
Morally lower than communists, the Progressives chain private enterprise, then demand that individuals provide lower priced goods and services at better quality, under threat of still more regulations, if not outright nationalization. This is classic Fascism and it is exactly what Progressives want.
JDPerren on March 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM
I am answering your questions. You don’t have to agree with my answers, but don’t pretend I’m not answering them, and please stop making references to Nazism.
The fact that some Congressmen who support this bill also want some other things that I don’t want is concerning to me, but not a dealbreaker. Presumably there are some policies that you like even though they have supporters that you don’t agree with.
I think that on the whole Social Security has been great for this country, and it remains to be seen how bad the effects of the collapse will be. It’s certainly a cautionary tale for other big government programs, and that’s why I’m not jumping to accept ObamaCare with open arms no matter what. But other countries have been able to insure all of its citizens without becoming insolvent, so on balance I think it’s possible and worth doing.
The CBO analysis shows how we will be able to pay for it. There’s been plenty of commentary on the CBO reports, and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty in their analysis, but it’s not like no one has any idea how this can be paid for even if you refer to it as “paying double” for healthcare.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM
According to the CBO, medicare only runs us $8 billion a year right now.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Holy cognitive dissonance, batman.
Thru rationing of one form or another.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM
In other words…..to expensive to treat? Health care DENIED!
Unborn baby needs aborting? APPROVED!!!
They’re an ewwwww Republican? Treatment DENIED!
capejasmine on March 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Remember. Obama said it to the 99 year old woman. It was better to get pain pills and die; instead of a pace maker that kept her alive.
Sums up everything about this whole debate, if you ask me.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
whoaa.. Amish get a pass?
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are outraged!
/.
CaveatEmpty on March 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Guesses and wishes, substituted for a reasonably proven hypothesis. Government competition always forces out private enterprise. Government regulation increases cost. Enforced limitations (such as the government setting “minimum acceptability standards” for private plans) will make such plans less available, and more expensive.
You think? how about a citation or two, from a neutral (non-moonbat) source, in support of your supposition.
Or not, since you’ve offered no proof. You may start any sentence you like with the word “apparently;” that doesn’t make it true.
massrighty on March 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
That doesn’t explain Why are you supporting National Socialist Healthcare.
Again, that doesn’t answer the question.
If we have such problem with Social Security being insolvent, why are we just exacerbating the problem with a Brand new entitlement?
Anyone reading your posting can easily tell that you are shilling for National Socialist Healthcare
Again, it doens’t really matter how long you bloviate if you don’t answer the question.
Or I guess that the point is it? IF you could answer the question you would have to pad your postings with a bunch of extraneous BS, right?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
It’s not a 50% success rate in the sense that it’s not a 50% failure rate. The breakdown from 2006 was: 17% Effective, 30% Moderately Effective, 28% Adequate, 3% Ineffective, 22% Results Not Demonstrated. So the failure rate was somewhere between 3-25%, though the number for this past year was down to a max of 20%.
As for fixing the mess, obviously I agree that we should stop the programs that don’t work. But I do think that this program will beneficial based on analyses that I have read, and I don’t think we need to clear all government waste before we enact new programs that I think will work. Clearly you disagree with those analyses and probably assume that it’s all coming from the left, but there’s not much I can say to that.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Interesting at this time that Harry still can’t provide assurances. His 51 votes are mostly just “open” to the “process” of reconciliation, and are no doubt waiting to see what the actual reconciliation text (due tomorrow or Wednesday) will say.
Wethal on March 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Well, I already explained why. I think the benefits (such as insuring more people, reducing catastrophic losses of insurance due to pre-existing conditions, reducing the deficit) outweigh the negatives.
I explained that too. Problems with Social Security are worrisome and a cautionary tale, but ultimately I still think that on balance it is worthwhile to enact ObamaCare.
As for shilling, I’m not sure which sense of shill you mean. I’m explaining the reasons why I think the things I’ve said, so I don’t see why it’s hard to believe that I actually think them and am just interested in debating them.
Not sure how that was bloviating or padding with BS. You asked how we will pay for it. I cited the CBO report that showed how we will pay for it. It’s fine to disagree with the report, but I was directly answering the question you asked.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM
You agree with her? then maybe you can answer since she won’t
What benefits?
batterup on March 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM
In other words.
Yes, you agree that despite the fact that the government can successfully fix a broken window only 50%; it needs more windows to break.
You can hide it behind numbers all you want, but efficiency – hell even effectiveness – don’t matter to you.
That really wasn’t the question, though, was it?
Whose? I don’t think any non-partisan analysis even suggests this any more. Even proponents agree that many provisions will actually be harmful.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Sorry if anyone has mentioned this above, but I just heard a blurb on the radio from Obama’s rally in OHIO. The supposed final rally for healthcare. Why is Obama calling it “Health Insurance” now instead of “Health Reform” or “Health Care”???
conservative pilgrim on March 15, 2010 at 2:07 PM
He’s been doing that forever now. Since last year.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM
You must be kidding this – this is the “benefits” of a total government take over of our health care system – not the insurance companies the whole system.
People are free to buy insurance and/or big screen TV’s – Guess what they can also do – go to the free clinic, negotiate their fees and other methods to curtail their costs. We already give free “insurance” to the poor – it’s called medicaid. You don’t understand how the pre-existing conditions and insurance work – go read the HIPPA laws. And if you believe this boondoggle entitlement program reduces the deficit – you are choosing to delude yourself. No entitlement program reduces the deficit. Taxing the population or cutting programs reduce the deficit. guess which one they are going to do?
batterup on March 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Really? I’ve never heard him say Health Insurance when talking about the Healthcare bill. The only time he uses the word “insurance” is to demonize the insurance companies. Huh.
conservative pilgrim on March 15, 2010 at 2:11 PM
I said this above. Benefits include covering more people, reduction of catastrophes like losing insurance with an illness (due to pre-existing conditions), and a reduction in the deficit.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM
He started doing it during the last “final push” – like october or november? It started when people starting saying that government was trying to take over health care. He wanted to make sure they understood that they were only trying to take over health insurance.
Compare 10 years of taxes collected, to 10 years of – you know – the program being active. And this doesn’t happen. It increases the deficit.
But that doesn’t matter to you, I’m sure.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM
You don’t understand that the government has created the circumstances that it now says they need more government to fix?
You don’t understand that the government has literally stolen trillions of dollars of wealth … and now can’t even begin to pay it back?
You don’t understand why the framers intentionally severely restricted the power of the federal government?
You’re living in a dream world. Hopefully, you’re just uniformed.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM
You must be pulling my leg. You really take them at their word don’t you? Homeless drug addicts have better access to health care now than what they’ll get under OBamaCare. Good Lord wake up.
Reduction in debt?
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Seven Percent Solution on March 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM
tmeleon, if you think Obamunistcare is so great you should move to canada. Oh wait! They come down here for medical treatment because they cant wait weeks to see someone.
There is no national socialist health care that works, people. Everywhere its been tried its a disaster. Same with the rest of the socialist shtick.
dogsoldier on March 15, 2010 at 2:23 PM
No, I don’t think it needs more windows to break (or fix). I think that many federal programs should be cut, and only support a few being added (granted ObamaCare is a massive one). I think the federal budget should be lower for the things we currently spend on, and that the deficit should be reduced.
Come on, this is just not fair. You’re just saying you don’t believe what I’m saying. I very much value efficiency and effectiveness. I’m a strong proponent of free trade, much more so than most on the right. I just also think that sometimes some efficiency should be sacrificed to produce other benefits (like avoiding catastrophies, protecting the less fortunate, etc.). That isn’t a very controversial idea.
I was clarifying that I agree that many programs are ineffective and should be cut. I don’t just want a massive expansion of government for its own sake.
To be honest, I haven’t seen any recent non-partisan analyses either way. Do you have links to any? I did a quick Google search and couldn’t find anything recent other than CBO reports, which are just for the budget. (It’s really too bad if it’s that hard to find non-partisan analyses of the bill these days.)
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Earlier ….
Please don’t confuse yourself in the space of 30 minutes, ok?
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM
I guess I could be wrong, but I thought that the deficit reduction in the 2nd 10 years (after the program is in effect) was actually larger than in the 1st 10 years: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488. Are you saying that the CBO projects the deficit to increase once things stabilize?
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Your admission, not mine. 50% failure rate is fine by you. That’s you. Not me.
Given our definition of “success” in the eyes of government, I’d say 50% is quite generous. Previously posted the c4c example as a “success” story.
Previous government invention broke this window. New government intervention is required to fix it – with a possible 50% success rate.
It’s quite the dilemma, now, isn’t it?
Yes, and again, that really wasn’t the question was it? The question was – should a government with a generously self-admitted 50% success rate do anything besides fix the messes currently on its table?
(Hint: The only sane answer is no).
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Are you kidding? Many posters here would like to take the ultimate
sanctioned anarchyfree market of the fictional city of Rapture and impose it on the US. After, of course, adding their own religious impositions.“Government everything” is the left’s theme, ” ‘free’-market everything” is the right’s theme. The dissenters are few, though I have seen some people on HA do just that.
Dark-Star on March 15, 2010 at 2:31 PM
You don’t need the government to do those things. Secondly, the government doesn’t ask, it takes under threat of jail. It forces people to do what it wants.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM
That just more Far-left National Socialist moonbat propaganda – reducing the deficit?
reducing the deficit?
Anyone with a logical mind will readily see that National Socialist Healthcare will explode the deficit.
So by your logic, if there are Problems with Social Security and they are worrisome and a cautionary tale we should ignore them and do the same thing over again, right?.
I asked how people will pay for both healthcare now in addition to the increased taxes to pay for National Socialist Healthcare
It’s bloviating when you add a bunch of extraneous BS that doesn’t directly relate to the question at hand.
WE both know that you do that because you don’t have a good answer to the question.
Did the CBO report explain how people will be able to pay those extra burdensome taxes on top of having to pay for existing healthcare expenses.
Or is it a case where you Far-left National Socialist moonbat DON’T CARE if people have to pay higher taxes – in the middle of a recession.
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Exactly how do you think this is all going to be paid for? Pixie dust?
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM
I’m not confused. The analysis that I have read that make me think it will be beneficial were at least partially partisan. I’ve also read plenty of analysis from the right that is also partisan (including from this blog). Presumably you have done the same. I would prefer to read non-partisan analysis, but I haven’t been able to find much.
I’m serious in asking you if you have any links, because I would be interested to read recent non-partisan analysis. You said “I don’t think any non-partisan analysis even suggests this any more” so I’d like to see why.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Learn to read. From 2016-2019, the thing increases the deficit. And from then on, into the future forever. This assumes that congress will enact cuts that it will never enact in a million years, so any fake deficit cutting number is a myth anyways. The CBO analysis makes this point as well.
But, again, I’m sure that’s irrelevant to you. Windows demand to be broken.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM
This is true. Currently we have a very compassionate system to care for the medically indigent. In the bill under consideration they will be cutting off federal funding to the DHS, one of the primary sources of care for this population. Progressive hate the poor, the old, and the weak and you can see it in the areas they cut in the bill.
batterup on March 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM
You can read this blog, from democrats themselves saying that the bill will
Raise premiums
Force people to buy services that they do not wish
Raise the deficit
Decimate private insurers (your beliefs to the contrary, not withstanding, of course).
Etc etc etc. You really don’t need help from me, if you are truly interested. Which you aren’t, I’m sure.
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:36 PM
I don’t see how passing this shell bill does anything for the dems. Obama cant sign it. The only way the dems can do this is to pass the actual for really SENATE BILL.
Which Bozo will sign in a Chicago minute.
dogsoldier on March 15, 2010 at 2:37 PM
We are all past guessing; you could be wrong.
massrighty on March 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Totally agree. I’m not sure why everyone has to speak in such absolutes. Fortunately, there are other blogs where people take more middle-of-the-road stances, acknowledging that some government intervention is good even though we should mostly rely on the free market.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM
That should say:
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 2:42 PM
No joke? Got some links? My Google-fu has totally failed me on this subject…every ‘moderate’ place I’ve found so far has been a slapdash rantsite or having only a thin veil of moderatism.
Dark-Star on March 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
You may have finally said something true. The problem is, in one way it should be; it should be the core of the debate. In another, it shouldn’t be controversial; Americans should have abandoned cannibalism long ago, but it persists.
JDPerren on March 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Stop saying that I’m not interested when I’m asking for links to non-partisan analysis. I’m not sure why you think I have an ulterior motive and don’t just have these opinions based on what I’ve read.
Yes, I have seen on this blog that some Democrats have said these things. While it’s true that premiums will rise, the government contribution will make it so that families are paying less. I consider this a benefit. (Yes, I know that this is due to higher taxes, but most families will still be paying less.) That some people have claimed that the deficit will increase doesn’t outweigh in my mind the fact that the CBO says it will decrease.
Seriously, do you know of any non-partisan analysis that’s come out recently?
Also, can you answer my question about the deficit? I think you said that it will increase the deficit when you look at the amount spent in 10 years of the program being active to the amount collected through taxes. But I just looked again at the CBO report, and it says that the deficit will decrease. Can we at least agree what the CBO report says?
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM
This isn’t “some” government intervention. It’s a takeover of health care … and they won’t stop there.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:49 PM
batterup on March 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM asked if I agree with tneloms, and if so, why.
I wouldn’t say I agree, but I do like tneloms’ calm, measured tone and unwillingness to give in to hysteria.
Some people talk as if there will be riots in the streets or even a civil war if this bill becomes law. I think they’re overreacting.
I would prefer not to see it pass, because (contrary to tneloms) I do expect the bill to increase the deficit by a large amount. I know that some of the number crunchers predict otherwise, but historically the costs of entitlement programs have always been underestimated, usually by a huge factor. What were the cost estimates for Social Security or Medicare when they first enacted? I just don’t think we can afford to take on more debt when we already see projected deficits of a trillion dollars a year for the next decade.
But reasonable people can disagree, and tneloms strikes me as a reasonable person.
(Sorry it took me so long to reply. I went away from this conversation for a while.)
sauropod on March 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM
So wealth redistribution doesn’t bother you, as long as people vote Dem?
The CBO scores what it placed in front of it. Can you name a government program that hasn’t cost many times more than originally projected?
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Read this.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Don’t forget the student loan program and anything else they chose to throw in to a bill they won’t let anybody read.
Chip on March 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM
The CBO compares 10 years of tax revenue to 4 years or so of an active program. It’s not a real comparison. If you look at the years where both taxes are collected and the program is running, there is a deficit. Read again. Look at the numbers. And then look at the CBO caveats.
And then remember that medicare, according to the CBO is only costing us $8 billion/year. From their 1964 analysis.
Your whole point is similar to people like Krugman saying – OCare will decrease the deficit because Obama says it will. I’m convinced!
They would be paying more (and being forced to, nonetheless), assuming they do not have insurance at the moment. And others will be paying to subsidize the other part of that insurance. Maybe I’m missing the benefits here. Do please explain. I guess the free health care in jail if they opt not to buy insurance would be a benefit?
lorien1973 on March 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM
The CBO report says,
“Other provisions affecting direct spending save $478 billion, on net—mostly in Medicare …”
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488
Here is one area where I doubt their analysis. Of course they can only use the numbers Congress gives them. If Congress says they are going to cut Medicare by nearly $500 billion, CBO must take them at their word.
But we don’t have to. Personally I don’t expect Congress to cut Medicare at at all. If they renege on this part of the plan, the projected $468 billion goes out the window, and the bill adds to the deficit.
It all depends on how much you trust Congress to cut benefits to seniors. Given that they recently passed a cost of living increase for Social Security in a year with zero inflation, I see no reason to think they will ever deny seniors anything, no matter what the cost.
sauropod on March 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM
They revised it down to $118 billion over 10 years.
The doc fix in the 2011 budget is $371 billion.
So the alleged savings from a bill not yet passed has already been blown thrice over.
Chuck Schick on March 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Which disintegrates the liberal lie that ObamaCare cuts costs. It doesn’t. It just borrows money to mute prices to the consumer. Costs to the government keep rising, which means they either borrow more or stop paying for services, or both.
Chuck Schick on March 15, 2010 at 3:27 PM
I was wondering if buying both your mandatory health care, taking a student loan four your kids along with the purchase of a Government Motors vehicle gets you a discount.
Annar on March 15, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Posted this on another thread, but thought it relevant here too:
Just called Congressman Travis Childer’s office (my rep), and the woman who answered the phone told me that Rep. Childers is waiting for the final language on the Senate reconciliation bill before he decides. I asked her if she knew when that would be and she said “no”. I asked her if she heard reports that both bills were to be voted on Friday and she said “no, that is not true”. I asked her if the bill released today was the bill that would be voted on and she said “no”. So, Childers is still undecided, but I have a BAD feeling that he just might vote for this thing. His Tupelo office is not answering the phone (never happened before), and in past calls, I have always been told that Rep. Childers could not vote for the legislation in its current form. An absolute, COULD NOT VOTE. Now, it’s a MAYBE. UGH.
I also told her that Mr. Childers’ constituents did not like ANY version of health care reform as currently proposed and that a vote “yes” from him not only meant a “no” vote from me come November, but would create an enthusiastic-door-knocker-fund-raiser for his opponent.
MississippiMom on March 15, 2010 at 2:23 PM
MississippiMom on March 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Rules, shmules. The Democrats don’t need no steenking rules!
Why do they bother? Since the House can make up any rule they wish they could just claim the bill is passed and be done with it. Why bother with that pesky democracy and voting and stuff?
Let’s go straight to a triumvirate. Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Where’s my bread and which way to the circus?
jcw46 on March 15, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Well, I know this part isn’t going away.
Boy, that Sarah Palin sure is an idiot, isn’t she?
NoLeftTurn on March 15, 2010 at 3:31 PM
AHHHHH!!! This is so frustrating!! My husband just called his office in DC and who we think is the SAME WOMAN I talked to just said Rep. Childers is voting no.
I hope that is true. We’ll see what a third call brings in about an hour.
MississippiMom on March 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Right, but what about the following 10 years? The CBO estimated a deficit reduction of something like $300-750 billion from 2020-2029. Even if we adjust for the Doc Fix and other things, it seems like we still come out even or a little ahead.
tneloms on March 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM
MississippiMom on March 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Travis Childers better vote no or his tail will be back running the family funeral home.
kingsjester on March 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Nice shell game you have going!
If you were really interested in EDUCATING YOURSELF, you’d be at The Heritage Foundation web site where they have tomes of research on this legislation.
Cybergeezer on March 15, 2010 at 3:48 PM
What are you talking about? I hate to seem rude but NO government run program ever stays anywhere near a projected budget. Plus, some of the cost “savings” are the fabled fraud and waste that they’re somehow going to now magically control.
Look at Medicare! Medicare and other entitlements eat up over one half of our budget and there’s no end in sight. You want to add to this? It’s insane.
The only way to come even close to paying for this is to drastically raise taxes and fees and anything and everything and ration care. It’s inevitable. I hope you realize YOUR premiums will skyrocket … so will mine, and your quality of care will drop.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Comes up 146 times since the beginning of these comments.
About half of these can be considered comments by this person.
Just in case anybody was curious.
Cybergeezer on March 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I gave tneloms a hertitage link explaining all this crap and was ignored. He/she is apparently enamored with the idea of the government taking over health care in the biggest theft of money and liberty since FDR.
This is progressive Marxism at work … nothing less, nothing more.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I think tneloms is a “health care troll” … just like oakland is the resident “climate change troll”. In fact, the styles are eerily similar.
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM
See the earlier comments regarding the doc fix, which we’ve never yet resisted the urge to pass, and which really belongs in the scoring of this bill; also note that the CBO did not score additional administrative costs for other federal agencies such as the IRS.
And if we’re controlling costs, why do we have to subsidize the premia of families making 400% of the FPL?
DrSteve on March 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM
The CBO said those predictions don’t mean much. They’re a wild guess.
Being that Medicare cost 10 fold what they said it would in 1990, I would say you are delusional if you think this debacle will save money.
And lets say the high end of $75 billion a year in savings is accurate. Obama ran up $221 billion last month alone. Deficit savings from an off-budget bill doesn’t mean a whole lot when you’re massively expanding the deficit on the budget side.
Chuck Schick on March 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM
OMG! Trent Lott is on Fox saying that it is ok if the Dems vote to pass ObamaCare by not voting on it but by passing the rule!
What a tool. Another reason to get rid of all the RINOs as well as the Dems.
Sporty1946 on March 15, 2010 at 4:07 PM
I do not care if it saves a trillion dollars every second. I will not allow Government to control my healthcare and shall endeavor to confound their every attempt.
Holger on March 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM
I should have included that this article was posted at 8:48 A.M.; “tneloms” started posting at 9:01, and is still going strong. I haven’t checked if there was a discernible lunch break. Considering that half of the “tneloms” are in responses, it amounts to 19% of the comments.
I would not be surprised if this is Rahm Emmanuel himself.
After all; This is a CRISIS.
“Just relax; Take these pills”.
Cybergeezer on March 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Your argument is completely disingenous!
1. You will be able to pay a private company ONLY FOR “GOVERNMENT APPROVED” INSURANCE!!! This is NOT the same as being able to freely contract for just the insurance you need. You will NOT be able to buy insurance which excludes pre-existing conditions, abortion services, and a huge new list of Federal mandates…in addition to state mandates…and the cost will be sky-high. These provisions are in every single bill proposed by Democrats, and are not moderated in any way by the latest “reconciliation”.
2. Doctors who accept patients under Obamacare CANNOT accept direct payment (by law – if any version of Obamacare passes). This means that, despite the fact that you are REQUIRED to buy insurance you don’t want and don’t need, you will have to pay AGAIN in order to use the doctor of your choice and the treatment of your choice…and even this option will not be available to you if your doctor accepts Obamacare.
The “freedom” to pay for every health care expense twice is not really “freedom” at all!!!
And Obamacare distorts the whole model by paying for health care out of general revenue. This means that items which you used to pay as part of an Insurance bill or a copay will now appear as NEW TAXES (currently estimated at about $4500 per capita)!!! Thus the whole scheme is nothing more than a shell game which penalizes private health care expense, hides the true cost of government health care expense, fills the gap with onerous new taxes, and raises costs for everyone.
landlines on March 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Neil Cavauto just said on Fox that there will be 2 votes on Saturday. He said the house is going to vote on the Senate bill and then the reconciliation bill. That the president will have to sign both of them.
Brat4life on March 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM
tneloms must be a coffee bagger.
Cybergeezer on March 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Well, Ms. Pelosi did say that we had to pass it in order to find out what’s in it. Ooh, I’m so excited, it’s just like ripping open Christmas presents….///
ted c on March 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM
This legislation, if passed, shall be the foundation for the “…… civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
As Obama has pledged to assemble.
Cybergeezer on March 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM
You mean chock full of nuts?
darwin on March 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Not reasonable – obfuscation, feigning of ignorance and innocence. Don’t let the puppy act confuse you, she is vomiting progressive talking points without any substantiation of fact.
You think it is unreasonable to have people talk about taking to the streets if this passes but you think it is reasonable for someone to suggest the total government take over of our healthcare system – why? Both are acts of insanity. You don’t chose between the insane.
batterup on March 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »