Quick Fact: WSJ's McGurn forwards misleading attacks against Senate health bill
In a November 24 Wall Street Journal column, News Corp. vice president William McGurn wrote of the Senate health care reform bill: "Conservatives and Republicans rattle off any number of objections to the bill: It would bust the budget; it would force many families to replace private coverage with government; it would subsidize abortion; it would ration care, etc. These are all variations on the major argument: It's not going to work."
From McGurn's November 24 Wall Street Journal column:
Conservatives and Republicans rattle off any number of objections to the bill: It would bust the budget; it would force many families to replace private coverage with government; it would subsidize abortion; it would ration care, etc. These are all variations on the major argument: It's not going to work.
None of this really persuades Democrats, because they see it differently. For Democrats, getting a big health-care bill to Barack Obama's desk is akin to FDR's signing the Social Security Act.
Never mind if it costs too much or has some bad consequences. Ask yourself this: Whether it's Social Security or public education, when have Democrats ever cared whether government programs are meeting their goals? The important thing is that massive health-care spending shows they care.
Fact: Senate bill would not "force" anyone "to replace private coverage with government"
As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted in its November 18 cost estimate of the Senate bill, "[t]he options available in the insurance exchanges would include private health insurance plans and could also include a public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS)." The bill specifies that there is "no requirement for individuals to join" the public option and states "may elect to prohibit Exchanges in such State from offering a community health insurance option if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition." CBO estimates that "total enrollment" in the public plan "would be 3 million to 4 million," assuming that "about two-thirds of the population" live in a state that does not prohibit the inclusion of a public insurance plan in its exchange.
Fact: Senate bill yields deficit reductions according to CBO
CBO stated in a November 18 cost estimate of the Senate bill that "enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period." CBO further stated that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 by "around one-quarter percent of GDP," and that "in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented."
Fact: Senate bill explicitly prohibits federal funding of abortions not covered under Hyde amendment
As Media Matters for America has documented, the Senate version of the health care bill requires the HHS secretary to ensure the public option uses "no Federal funds" in providing abortion coverage beyond the Hyde amendment. Section 1303(a)(1)(C) of the Senate bill, titled "Prohibition on federal funds for abortion services in community health insurance option" explains that the Health and Human Services secretary must ensure that "no Federal funds are used for such coverage" as outlined in Section 1303(a)(1)(B)(i). That section is defined as "Abortion for which public funding is prohibited." The bill also states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the Exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services" and must segregate funds for that purpose. Morever, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion by segregating federal funds.
Public option, available, not required, but available to all. badda bing.
FACT is that in the CBO report it states:
"The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies"
"...the program would reduce deficits by $72 billion during the 10 year budge window and would reduce them by a smaller amount in the ensuing decade . . . In the decade following 2029, the CLASS program would begin to increase budget deficits. However, the magnitude of the increase would be fairly small compared with the effects of the bill's other provisions, so the CLASS program does not substantially alter CBO's assessment of the longer term effects of the legislation."
and it says:
"Key Considerations. These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation."
How about this, Republicans? Propose the repeal of all the other progressive things you've opposed as the-end-of-the-world-as-you-know-it, and see what the voters think.
- Social Security
- Minimum wage
- Child labor law
- Wage and hour law
- Minimum wage
- Occupational health and safety
- Worker's Compensation insurance
- Unemployment insurance
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Water Act
Let the old folks rot and freeze to death, like they used to. Let rats eat the toes of babies in the ghettos again. Let the rivers burn anew. Let Love Canal come to your town. Let the kids get their hands cut off in mills. Let injured workers be ruined by the neglect of their employers. See how long you stay in office. You've been on the losing side of everything political since the Civil War, but you exact a painful price along the way. You can always repent in your churches.
When something progressive is proposed, you oppose it tooth and nail, in order to serve your corporate owners. Once something passes and becomes popular, you're for it, and accuse the next thing of attacking the last one. "Old people, the Democrats are going to gut your Medicare, and we're the only defenders of this wonderful program!"
Privatize Social Security, anyone?
Hypocrites. Liars. Profiteers. Killers.
Here we are stumbling and bumbling around, 50 million Americans shut out of health care, spending twice( TWICE!) as much as other advanced countries on health care.
Are people not able to make the connection as to how this is a significant factor in our economic meltdown?
At least Democrats are trying to do something. Most countries with half a brain have taken the profit out of health care long ago, but we've got the stupids so bad in America. The Democrats are trying to get the next best option. It may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Never mind if it costs too much or has some bad consequences
Whether it's Social Security or public education, when have Democrats ever cared whether government programs are meeting their goals?
The important thing is that massive health-care spending shows they care.
I don't suppose this guy is a registered Repub.
Of course he does work for the WSJ.