Health care talk, deficit talk, and more educational goodies.
Apparently word of the president’s poor performance has spread quickly. He has come off as defensive and unable to tolerate criticism of the current bill or facts that support Republican arguments.
[This is a quick draft, but after listening to Harry Reid's spiteful blabbering I feel compelled to get the word out.]
YES, reconciliation has been used 20+ times before, as follows:
- Reagan = 8 times for a net effect on the deficit of -$428B.
- GHW Bush = 2 times for a net effect on the deficit of -$275B
- Clinton = 4 times for a net effect on the deficit of -$586B
- GW Bush = 5 times for a net effect on the deficit of +$925B
(just one of the reasons conservatives are so angry)
Harry Reid just said in this meeting “our bill cuts the deficit by $132 billion dollars.” He is referring to the most recent CBO report. But you have to remember that the CBO can only analyze and report on what is the proposal and cannot factor in actual legislative changes in the future. One of the claims in the current legislation is that the Senate will actually cut $330 billion from Medicare. Any one with a realistic perspective on the topic knows with almost 100% confidence that that cut will never, never, never happen. If this is true, Reid’s claim of $132B in budget savings now becomes a budget increase of $198B. That’s a little different, and there are billions if not trillions of dollars that are still not included in current legislation.
So Harry, while reconciliation has been used many times before, history has shown that it’s use was on issues having nothing close to the impact of the government takeover of health care. Millions will still remain uncovered, costs will skyrocket, and not having insurance will become a criminal offense. This bill is a pig, and in my humble opinion I think that doing the wrong thing quickly is far more damaging than starting over and getting it right. Tort reform. Purchasing insurance across state lines. Tax incentives for insurance companies to provide low-cost insurance for the needy.
Harry Reid is a stubborn old man, unwilling to listen to opinions other than his own. I hope this meeting serves as just another wake up call to the people of Nevada.
Here’s what the CBO Director said earlier this year:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
So, a net increase of 17 million newly insured people. Let’s run with the lie that the entire package will cost $900B over ten years. This equates to a taxpayer cost of $52,941 per newly insured American. If we use a more realistic $1.5T estimate the per person cost jumps to $88,235. Of course, we all know that the government always comes in at or under budget for massive projects, right?
Topic today? Health Care For Busy People. This is my attempt to explain various aspects about the health care bill to those that are too busy and/or unable to sift through the loads of media crap to find out the details.
