Rove's latest distortion: Dems plan $1T "price tag" for health reform
Karl Rove advanced the falsehood that the House health care reform bill would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the House tri-committee bill "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period," not $1 trillion.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
ROVE: Yeah, well, look, remember, we had four Blue Dog Democrats say we've cut a deal on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and three Blue Dog Democrats had said we're not part of it. In fact, the leader of the Blue Dogs this afternoon said we have not -- we have not signed on to this deal.
And think about it. They're planning on a 1 trillion, 420 billion -- 420 million dollar price tag of additional spending over the next 10 years, and what they've done is, today, supposedly -- we haven't seen the details -- but they've trimmed that by 10 percent. So we're only going to beggar ourselves by $900 billion over the next decade and that's assuming they get all of the tax increases and all of the Medicare cuts that are built into this.
There are 500 and some-odd billion dollars' worth of tax increases in the House plan, and there are 400 billion dollars' worth of Medicare cuts in there, and I don't think they're likely to get either one of those.
Rove's suggested $1 trillion "price tag" is false
CBO found that the House tri-committee bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In its July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years."
Rove joins New York Times, MSNBC in advancing false cost estimate. During the July 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC host Maria Bartiromo falsely asserted as fact that the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress would cost a "trillion dollars over 10 years." Likewise, a July 28 New York Times article falsely reported that the House health care reform bill is "estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years."
Previously, Rove pushed "extreme" distortion of Obama health care remark
Rove falsely suggested Obama was considering "a universal health care system like the European countries." In his April 30 Wall Street Journal column, Rove distorted a statement by President Obama to falsely suggest Obama was considering "a universal health care system like the European countries." Rove wrote that, in 2008, the Obama campaign "ran ads attacking 'government-run health care' as 'extreme.' Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, 'Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?' Maybe because he was elected by intimating that would be 'extreme'?" In fact, in the town hall remarks Rove quoted, Obama was paraphrasing the question he had just been asked -- "Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?" -- before explaining why he opposed such a system.
From the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right. So they announced this deal with the Blue Dog Democrats. They come out, and they say, "We have struck a deal." And, apparently, they're going to cut $100 billion. They'll vote on it in September, which I think is a good thing -- and I'll get to that in a minute here.
But then, all of a sudden, the liberal members of the caucus on the committee, they're angry with [Rep.] Henry Waxman [D-CA].
What do you make of all the Democratic infighting on this?
ROVE: Yeah, well, look, remember, we had four Blue Dog Democrats say we've cut a deal on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and three Blue Dog Democrats had said we're not part of it. In fact, the leader of the Blue Dogs this afternoon said we have not -- we have not signed on to this deal.
And think about it. They're planning on a 1 trillion, 420 billion -- 420 million dollar price tag of additional spending over the next 10 years, and what they've done is, today, supposedly -- we haven't seen the details -- but they've trimmed that by 10 percent. So we're only going to beggar ourselves by $900 billion over the next decade and that's assuming they get all of the tax increases and all of the Medicare cuts that are built into this.
There are 500 and some-odd billion dollars' worth of tax increases in the House plan, and there are 400 billion dollars' worth of Medicare cuts in there, and I don't think they're likely to get either one of those.
So this is --
HANNITY: Yeah.
ROVE: Once again, you know, the Blue Dogs, you know, they sound good, they make good noises, but at least of the seven Blue Dogs today on the Energy and Commerce Committee, four of them signed on to a bad deal, it sounds like, and three of them said, "Don't count us in."
HANNITY: Karl, you know, it sounds to me, and I spoke to one of the Republicans on the committee, and they said, well, it is interesting that a lot of -- the Democrats have been promised a lot more money for their districts and some of the more rural areas, which sounds to me like, basically, they went in, they had numerous requests for very expensive projects in their home districts.
It sounds to me like taxpayer money is being used to buy their votes.
They never talk about countries where a different system is actually working - say, Finland or Switzerland.
Why do you suppose that is?
There could be a miracle cure for cancer made tomorrow in France and these types wouldn't use it because it wasn't some how produced by good ol' American boys.
Here is a BBC report that uses HM Treasury data (the UK's treasury, in other words).
The chart predicts a spending of about £110 billion by 2010/2011. Divide that by 62 million and you get about £1,774.2 per person, and that is about $2,928.49 in today's US dollars. Chances are it might cost a little more person in the future, since basically all of Western Europe is a on a slow population decline, allowing more money to be spent on each individual.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8091427.stm
In 2007 and 2008, the budget was about £90 billion, or $148,554,000,000.00 (US).
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/aboutnhs/Pages/About.aspx
Also, a UK government spending website has numbers nowhere near yours. With a projected 2011 budget of £1,461 billion, £122.7 billion is projected to be spent on health care.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year2011_0.html#ukgs30210
Also the NHS was put in place shortly after WWII, not 1980. And yes, they have come up with efficient ways of doing it.
Biggest problem with Gov health care in US is US gov
doesn't manage large enterprise level endeavors well. [Social Securit is broke, NRA, AAA, War on Poverty, Medicare, the Border]. Politics will dominate and change any program to a single payer program. In fact, after Y5, the current House bill will essentially force private plans out of business. (Secretary sets prices and content of plans such that private insurance is not remunerative. No room for innovation. One size fits all.)
The second issue is all the power of health care is now vested in the Secretary from whom, there is no appeal.
Today we go to Medicare board and lawyers. With this bill,
you can't sue the government (without the government giving you permission to sue it) and appealing to Medicate is appealing to the organization that caused the problem.
It is a very dangerous idea to grant so much power over you
and your family's health care to a political appointee where no appeal is possible. [Remember, that appointee will be a Republican some day.] The worst thing about the bill is that the focus is on insurance and not improving health care. Insurance is where the money is. Could our government be looking for a new source of tax money?
If this is a pay as you go scheme -- and as far as I can tell by reading the bill, it is -- then it will break faster
than the other pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme --> Social Security. As it stands, it will cost $100B/yr in new costs
and 80% of Americans will not benefit and after 5 years, those same Americans are going to be very upset when their private plans disappear.
This is a bad bill. All should write their representatives and tell them to veto the bill. All should go to town hall meetings and ask for a guarantee in the bill that the current private plans will not be starved to death or defined out of existence in Y5.
Maybe health insurance companies should actually, well, cover their customers and not deny on the basis of pre-existing conditions or look for ways to not cover you once you actually need medical care.
A single payer system is something I can only dream. And yes, the US does spend the most on health care than any other country and yet so many of our citizens don't have it.
As for the horrible baby killing stuff, that may be a little dramatic, but then you are a liberal. I personally don't have a problem with end of life counselling. I'm a paramendic and I've made far too many cardiac arrest where the people have debilitating long term illness and have no quality of life, but because no one took the time to discuss end of life issues aka living will or DNR, we are doing CPR and for whatever reason we alway manage to get them back. They spend a couple of days in ICU before they die, so all we did is spend a lot of money for a few days. That being said, I am strongly against physicain assisted suicide or withholding comfort treatments.
Concerning baby killing, I am personally against abortion (guess that makes me intolerant), but I respect the fact that our current law (supreme court legislation) allows a woman to have an abortion. That does not mean the government should be paying for them. If you don't have the money to have an abortion, don't be engaging in the risky behavior that causes you to become pregnant. My taxpayer dollars should not have to pay for someone elses irresponsibility. But what about rape and incest? That accounts for 1% of 1% of all abortions. That's a miniscule number and exceptions could be made.
Finally, it WILL be a horrible, wait in line system. With the government controlling the cost of healthcare, with boards of political appointees deciding what care is approprate and what costs too much and with little or no competition you WILL have to wait in line. We've all been reading and hearing the stories, anecdotal as they may be, of people in the UK and Canada who have been denied care or having care delayed. There was a link here on MMfA to a story of a 54 y/o man in England whose kidney cancer treatment was denied because it was too expensive. Without the treatment he won't live to see his sons 1st birthday. The same treatment is standard of care here in America.
Why don't we instead try some other things first. I read a story about how insurance companies have monopolies in different states. An example was a certain company provided 83% of the insurance I believe in Michigan. Well let's break that up and craft well written regualtion that will allow more competition to lower the cost across the board. Let's again try to craft some well written regulation so that there will be more uniformity from state to state. That way we don't have to have BC/BS Texas and BC/BC New York. Let's just have one BC/BS. That's got to save money by cutting out layers of bureaucracy. I read another story on a study that said big companies pay less than small comanies for healthcare. Well duh! It's the same principle as Sam's Club and Costco. You save money with volume. So why don't we form co-ops, where small businesses can band together to buy insurance in one big block. Maybe then more small companies could afford to provide insurance. And instead of taxing companies who don't provide insurance, why don't we provide tax break for small companies who DO provide it. These are all common sense ideas that would possibly provide healthcare to more people, but definitely would have less government involvement. A full government takeover should be the last resort, not the first.
s
Fed Ex and UPS have to compete with the Post Office. They're doing just fine. Private schools in the US have to compete with public schools. I know that public schools are a state matter, but not entirely, with no Child Left Behind. But all the same, private schools are doing just fine. Cars, well, at least plenty of foreign car dealerships, are doing just fine in the US with the presence of public transportation (private enterprise all the same with a few regulations).
So why can't we have a public option for health care, since private insurance leaves millions uninsured and causes plenty of problems for those that do have it?
Starting with the last example, uh..well...what do foreign and domestic car makers have to do with this. They are both private companies that SHOULD receive no tax dollars.
Fedex and UPS are doing fine against the post office. Their function is slightly different however. Letters and bills don't come via UPS. Then again, this proves my point. The Post Offices has been on the verge of bankruptcy for some time now and I'm not really sure if they get money in the federal budget or not.
Schools are an example of exactly what WILL happen. Most people can't afford to send their kids to private school. Since public schools are paid with tax dollars and are free, then that's where most people HAVE to send their kids. They have no choice. According to the US Dept of Education in 2004 (last yr of data) $510.3B was spent by taxpayers on education. Based on US Census data there were about 54M school age children in the US at that time. The USDE also said about 7-8% of kids go to private school. That leaves 46M kids in public school. Simple maths says that taxpayers spend $10,870 per child. Ther average cost of private school here in Houston is $4468 per year. I'm sure those parent whose kids are in private school would say its even a better education.
Numbers don't lie, most kids go to public school. Just the same most people would eventually be stuck in the public option. Even though private schools are technically cheaper, people have no choice but to send their kid to public school because of money. If public schools had to compete at the same spending level as the private schools, they would not survive.
Most people don't buy their insurance, their employer subsidizes the cost as a benefit. And when a public option is not held by the same constrants as a private business, meaning profit is not an issue and if fact they can deficit spend, it will be able to sell its product cheaper. I just got a breakdown of my benefits from my employer and they said 10% of my compensation is healthcare costs. It doesn't take a genius to figure 10% is more than the 8% tax employers will pay if they don't provide insurance. They could make 2% more profit by dropping the private insurance and putting me on the public option. That is not a free market.
With some common sense regulation changes and some common sense approaches, we could avoid a government take over of healthcare. Problem is, Obama is in too big of a hurry to listen to common sense.
1st - Social Security is broke - that has nothing to do the government managing large enterprise level endeavors well - it is about the policy which lets very rich Americans only pay SSI on the first $100K and nothing after and the fact that more people are receiving SSI than are paying into it. They need new legislation to shore up SSI but it is the most efficiently run agency in the government, sending out millions of checks each month, on time, and with very little errors (mostly from startups and changes but once you start getting the checks they pretty much are very accurate); they also do all of this with as little as 2.3% overhead.
NRA & AAA - these aren't even government programs and I am not sure what you think AAA is but it is the American Automobile Association.
War on Poverty is not a government agency either, it is a slogan and is an ongoing effort that was thwarted during the Bush years because of lack of desire on the part of the Republicans.
Medicare is very efficient but the problem is the high cost of healthcare, cheats, and lack of good policy like being able to negotiate drug prices which again was voted against by the Republicans when they were in power. That is why healthcare reform is so important to hold down these costs. But the program itself runs quite efficiently and effectively for millions of people.
The Border - this is also not an agency though there are border patrols which are governmental. The problem with the borders is really a whole immigration issue that needs attention but it isn't just a border issue it is many other things as well - including the state of Mexico's economy as well as its drug trade. All the issues must be addressed in order to really improve the situation.
I will get to the 2nd and following issues later - but just so you know - people do read what you write so you should try a little harder to get your facts straight - IMHO.
Well, some do. I only made it as far as the NRA and Auto Club gibberish before giving up any hope. :0)
But I still read your shorter posts. Keep the gibberish concise, and try to avoid any Automobile Club conspiracy theories, and I'm with ya.
Your second issue doesn't make any sense at all - it seems to be all about suing and I am not sure that the point you made is even true.
I do not know where you get your facts but a political appointee will not be deciding on you or your family's healthcare - trust me on this.
There are several bills out there right now so I don't know which bill you are referring to (maybe the Republican's bill but I can't be sure) but if the final bill doesn't include improved healthcare by using preventative medicine disciplines then the President won't sign it - that is one of his points that he has spelled out many times.
Your statistically analysis of cost of SSI, with 80% of people not getting it etc - you will have to post a link to where you got that info from because it isn't anywhere that I could find.
"This is a bad bill. All should write their representatives and tell them to veto the bill."
I really don't mean to be unkind here, but do you even know how the government works? Our representatives do not veto anything, they either vote for a bill or against a bill and if the President vetoes a bill then the can override a veto. The Senate also can filibuster a bill which effectively stops the bill from being voted on. But neither house of Congress has veto power over a bill that power rests solely with the President.
You seem to be concerned with the chance that private plans will go away. I am not sure where this fear comes from. Businesses come and go all the time, are you this concerned when whole industries go away? Were you concerned when the steel mills closed down? When manufacturing jobs were "outsourced"? When an industry goes away - people can be retrained but more importantly most medical insurance companies are also car, home, business insurers as well so they won't go away entirely. Plus the employee who worked on health insurance could be hired by the government to fill holes once the public option kicks in.
Healthcare reform will not end the world as you know it, take a deep breath and read up on what Congress and the President are trying to do to make Americans healthier and to keep from bankrupting those that are ill. What they aren't going to do is to allow insurance and drug companies to make obscene profits at the expense of American's health. Does that sound bad to you?
Seriously though, I would agree with you on much of that.
Regardless, everyone has been and still is missing something crucial in all of this, and its the very reason Hillary couldn't get it off the ground, the same reason Kerry's and every other plan would have and will sputter and fail. There is something so basic, and so entrenched, and represents sooo much dark money and disposable income to the very people our so-called leaders who rely on it, and to the people they socialize with, depend on in their bread-and-butter business dealings, who they went to school with and who they send their kids to school with. Its everywhere.
All you need to do to see it is open your eyes, and think for one bloody moment. Virtually everything you buy, everywhere you go, everything you do, an inescapable aspect of your wages/salary (be that what you get, or what you don't get) is absolutely riddled with over-lapping, redundant "insurance" of one sort or another, that each have a health/medical component that makes up a large chunk of the premium. Billions upon billions of dollars, a steady freight train of cash already mandated by law to be given to private companies and fuel private profits. Car insurance, workmen's comp, product liability, homeowners/property/business insurance etc etc etc.
We are already "paying" for universal health care, many times over, (those lucky enough to have private health coverage are simply getting double-chumped for it) but none of the powers-that-be are going to touch THAT golden egg until they are absolutely forced to.
Social Security - operates well, but is financially unstable because
politics changed the formula in 1939 to a pay as you go system.
It started in 1936 as a "funded" system where the money you put in is
actually maintained in an account. In 1941 (first beneficiary)
16 people funded each beneficiary. Today, 2.2 or so people fund
each beneficiary and the number will soon go to 2 people.
All of this is because it is pay as you go, not funded.
Social Security is also a notoriously bad investment. Over a typical
lifetime of an earner who starts at the bottom and works his way up
to middle class or better, his return on his investment is 1%.
Should he die before he collects, his estate gets nothing. Black
people earn a negative return on investement. Simply putting my
money into treasury notes from the first time I went to work would
produce a better result, an equally safe result, and relieve the
government of an enormous liability. It is the design of of Social
Security that is broken.
[Government does repetitive things very well.]
NRA - National Recovery Act (1932) FDR's attempt to bring about
recovery. Established price fixing for manufacturing businesses
by allowing them to define allowed prices and products. Declared
unconstitutional before FDR scared the s___ out of SCOTUS with
his court packing threat.
AAA - Agricultural Adjustment Act (1932) - Same program for agriculture
and the source of today's agricultural subsidies. Also declared
unconsititutional. Rejuvenated in subsequent laws.
War on Poverty - Lyndon Johnson's welfare program. This is the source
of permanent welfare families where the government simply gives
money to poor people forever with no requirements to do anything
other than collect the money. It built many of the "high rise
projects" in Chicago. The entire program has cost $1T over
the past 30 years and has produced 2-nd and 3-rd generation
welfare families.
Medicare - Operates ok, but is financially unstable.
Border - US cannot keep people from crossing the border illegally.
The "border" is not an immigration issue. If's a law
enforcement issue that our government simply will not address.
Worse, yet, cities collude by declaring themselves sanctuary
cities where enforcement of immigration laws is explicitly
neutered. Cities have nullified federal laws. Feds don't
prosecute city officials.
Cash for Clunker - $1B program that failed after one week [this week].
[It's on life support now while, Obama figures out how to fix it.]
A single payer option will ultimately result from the current House bill
because after Y5, the Secretary controls price and content of all
programs including the public option. By simply lowering the price of
the public option, all private plans will be driven out of business.
That is how the public option will co-opt new participants which it will
need to sustain itself -- remember it's a pay as you go scheme. This is
exactly what happened with SS. It needed to keep acquiring more and more
participants so taxes wouldn't have to be raised. Eventually (now),
there's no more people to bring in [end of the frontier]. Now, the only
thing that can save the current system is to raise taxes or an
intelligent transition into a funded system; that is how
the public option will morph into a single payer system.
Finally, 80% of people in this country are satisfied with their
health plans. Most recognize there are problems, though. Here is my list
of problems:
1. Poor citizens who cannot buy insurance use emergency facilities or
don't get "planned" health care. THIS CAN AND SHOULD BE FIXED.
2. States have different regulations and commissioners for insurance that
enforce different rules. Why is this? It should be fixed.
National health insurance plans must be authorized and legal.
3. Insurance can be denied. US Government should simply make a
requirement that all people must be insured. Any number of penalties
can be dreamed up to make the point to the insurance industry.
4. Tort Reform - liability insurance is too high. Texas has a reasonable
limit on medical liability.
5. Costs are too high. This needs to be explained in great detail before
solutions are proposed. The House bill does not address this problem.
Everyone knows Amercia pays $6000/yr and other countries
pay $3000/yr. Let's first explain in great and gory detail
exactly why our costs are so high. I've seen no such explaination but
here's an excellent analysis:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
We should be able to explain to our friends and neighbors why our
health costs are so high. If any who wanted to know could read a
report written so most Americans could understand it, then I believe
solutions could be proposed and civil dicussions could develop.
Such a report should be a deliverable of a viable health care bill.
None is visible from what I read.
6. Insurance - Insurance is the problem, not the soution.
My view is that "insurance" should be for the unexpected,
not for the planned. Everyone should have a FUNDED (!!!)
"planned health care account" to cover checkups, child birth,
tatoo removal and dental cleanings. They should also have
catastrophic health insurance for the unexpected. These two
items would change the costs of medical care dramatically [even
allowing for the government to cover for the poor].
Of this, only #1 costs money. The House bill does add money to
clinics but that is a small part of the $100B/yr. It's difficult
for me to tell exactly how much would be aimed at this problem.
All of these could be done this year with minimal cost,
and not wait until 2013.
The second issue is the control of your life issue. The bill gives
almost all control over health care issues to the Secretary. If you
don't like his decisions, you have no recourse except the ballot box
some years later. Woe to the candidate and his party that loses an
election. Eventually, after the program settles in, he can simply
say an 80 year old does not deserve a hip replacement.
I can imagine a majority of Americans paying into this plan for 40 or
more years and collecting a very small part of what they have put in.
Then, at 80, a hip replacement is needed and suddenly their plan will not
pay for the first and only major medical issue in their life. People
are not going to put up with that. It's like the Social Security plan
which is so poorly designed. You pay all your life and when it comes time
to collect, the government takes your (money,health) away.
My problem is that the house bill health program could so easily
evolve into such a rationing program that there is no scenario
where I would ever support government management of health care.
From my reading, it's not clear that rationing isn't written into
it from the start. Do you want the Secretary to control your health
choices?
SUMMARY:
[Veto was a poor choice of word.]
Current House Health bill is a bad bill. It focuses on insurance
and establishing a large government infrastructure to manage health
care. It offers almost no improvements for health care and only
authorizes studies. It also micromanages both home vistation and the
Secretary. All should write to Senators and Congressman and tell them
to vote "NO" on the bill. Go to townhall meetings and do the same.
Sadly, since that time there have been numerous end-runs and twisted interpretations, disasterous Policies and sheer lunacy that have become the "Law of the Land", and have otherwise been kept from long overdue Challenges before SCOTUS.
Regardless, it normally takes many, many years and wastes much energy & much money, before a perfect case regarding something like that emerges and finally makes it to where it can be declared unconstitutional or not. Damage done in many instances.
Or, perhaps it would be some of the Finnish policies?
Take your pick; immigrants must be LEGAL to get any of society's benefits, they have to learn the language, in Finland religion IS taught in schools, there is no "affirmative action", most education past basic is offered on prior demonstrable academic achievement wheras the rest go straight into vocational training, military service is compulsory (being part of the Military, most Swiss Citizens have full-auto assault rifles in their homes still I believe), there are big restrictions on what immigrants can & can't vote on, what they can own, community standards and the rights of residents are by-and-large determined by the communities (no planting the 14th Amendment flag in the middle of town because YOU wish to offend everyone else at-will, but don't want THEIR chosen way of life offending YOU.) etc etc etc.
Oh, wait, hmm nevermind those examples then,,, ya?
See, here is the thing, those cultures are probably a bit more enlightened than our own in several ways, and as such they are probably a lot less malleable, their citizens are more invested in their Nation and share a more common interest in their Society.
To be quite honest, much of the way that Europe is now, very distinct, very diverse from country to country, community to community,,, many "little experiments" going on at any given moment, bound together on certain issues, committed to a Common Defense,,, thats what THIS Nation of Republics was intended to become.
Sad to see the very ideologies that destroyed that, moaning about the opportunities and examples that abound in Europe now, when WE were [once] the inspiration for so much of it.
The Irony of it all
CBO - Douglas W. Elmendorf Director June 9th, 2009
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-KennedyLetter.shtml
" (By itself, adding such provisions would increase the proposal’s budgetary costs and would also yield a larger increase in the number of people who have health insurance.) "
Sounds like a trillion is a low estimate. If you look at the chart on the bottom line, the estimate was 1.2 trillion over 10 years.
YeeHa......This is what you guys want?
Who do you think is going to pay for this? The rich? cmon...Wake up
Have any of you asked where the cost savings supposedly come from that offset the $1 trillion dollar deficit? From the CBO report
Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector.
Setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program based on per capita Medicare spending in the fee-for-service sector.
Changes to the Medicare Part D program that would establish a new
prescription drug rebate program.
So they are cutting payments. That is great for reducing the deficit but does it reduce costs? No. It only shifts it to us to pay either directly when we purchase our health care or indirectly when the insurance and medical industries make us pay for what the government won't.
If you haven't figured it out by now, you should realize that the health care program cost savings are really just smoke and mirrors.
"Don't get sick" is not the solution for covering health care.
Do you go to Canada or France for medical treatment?
First of all, it is the right who does all the name calling. Racist, socialist, fascist Marxist. Weren't you at the meetings?
Secondly, the CBO said the total price was $1 Trillion but the Democrats had all but $250 Billion paid for. So the trillion dollar cost won't be to the tax payers.
Lastly, he is implying it will add that amount to the deficit by not explaining that the Democrats have all but $250 billion of the cost paid for.
That is exactly what Rove said. He NEVER said it was going to add $1 trillion to the deficit, he clearly said $1 trillion to spending. And that's what this is, SPENDING.
Now all but $240 billion is paid for. Only $219 billion is from "cost savings." So that leaves $823 for the taxpayers($583B) or to deficit($240B). Where do you think that $583 billion in additional revenue is coming from. Thats the tax on peolpe making more than $350K per year. But rich people should pay more, right. Well, considering the top 5% already pay 70% of the taxes according to the IRS, they might as well pay more. Heck, why don't they just pay ALL of the taxed. Those filthy rich people. How dare they make more money than you. And I'm a union firefighter in Houston, TX, so I don't fall in the rich category.
Now, I said all that and nothing was twisted. All verifible facts. Oh, and I didn't have to insult anyone, or call anyone a wingnut or a fatboy to prove my point.
Unless some of you are implying that the Dems on the project have somehow mysteriously conjured a free $750 Billion out of thin air, the fact is that there's THAT much money that could have/would have, but now isn't going to be, used elsewhere. Whether or not it costs the taxpayers/consumers an additional X amount is moot, as all the money inevitably comes from the taxpayers/consumers, one way or another.
Besides, I highly doubt any of you are so patently unfamiliar with the government's affinity for fuzzy math. Moreover, if any of you true believers think this thing will end up coming in anywhere near on time, on budget and as advertised,,, I'm afraid the fiscal fossil record says you are as deluded as any of the 'conspiracy theorists' you deride.
Our government could inflict on us a requirement to
establish a personal health account of 15% of salary and make it untaxed. This would get businesses out of the health care mess also. The money from that account could only be used for health care for the individual. Over a life time such a plan would cover almost all medical needs. Because our loving government would force us to invest the money safely in US Treasury notes or triple A rated bonds, the unused portion of the personal health fund would grow at 2-4% annually.
Add to that real catastrophic health insurance and full coverage could be had with zero government interference and for considerably less money than anything currently under discussion. For those too poor to make the payments, the government could help. That would cover the poor.
Why people expect "insurance" to pay for planned medical needs is a mystery to me. The concept of "insurance" is to cover the unexpected. Expected events like checkups, child birth, fat farms and dental cleanings should be paid for out of pocket. That eliminates the insurance middle man and therefore reduces costs.
If you don't think such a plan could be managed, then how do 401K's get by?
The current HOUSE bill is focused on making money for the government by establishing a public option that drives the private plans out of business. It is a bad bill. Write to your congressman and Senators and tell them to veto the bill. Go to town hall meetings during their August "vacation" and tell them to veto the bill. You don't want government to run the health care industry leaving American citizens no path for appeal and no choice.
You mean before the stock market crash wiped most of them out, or after?...
Are you paid by the word or by the post?