Facts and politics were never friendly bedfellows. Now in the age of Congressional bribes, deem and pass, and bills being challenged for their most basic requirement of being Constitutional, the facts of the new health care bill are as elusive as a pro-life Democrat.
Reason.TV, however, has a few basic facts to show exactly how Obamacare will do the opposite of one of its primary supposed goals – reduce the deficit. While Americans wait anxiously for those touted health care benefits to kick in around 2014, the economy is primed to take another kick to the gut. The deficit isn’t going anywhere but up.
In the video, Reason outlines the three basic reasons by the health care bill can’t do what Obama promises it will:
1. The Doc Fix.
The $940 billion health care bill is suppose to reduce the deficit by $143 billion. Ask Pelosi. She’ll tell you over and over again because she loves numbers. Except she isn’t publicly embracing all numbers equally. Is that numerical bigotry?
She is adamant about passing the doc fix. “We have made a commitment to do this. This is very important,” she has said. That commitment, unlike being the most transparent Congress in history, is one she plans to keep.
If passed, the doc fix would cost $247 billion over 10 years. If Pelosi really loves numbers, then she must also realize these numbers don’t add up to savings.
So that’s out.
2. RomneyCare
Massachusetts tried this same health care reform in 2006, embracing the idea that government actually fixes problems instead of acerbates them. They didn’t see a $2,500 premium decrease but a 33 percent premium increase. Don’t get sick in Massachusetts. That’s all I’m saying.
So no personal savings either.
3. Government numbers
The government, especially when estimating costs while trying to secure votes, live in accounting lala land, where unicorns are real along with their cost predictions. As Reason points out, Medicare was only suppose to cost $12 billion when it was estimated in the 1960s. Today, using real calculators with real batteries and plugging in real numbers, the cost is nearly 10 times that.
Government estimations are always wrong, skillfully so, really. And you can take that to the bank. Unless, of course, it’s been closed due to the subprime mortgage crisis, another government golden egg. A rotten one.
Here’s a few basic facts about the new health care bill. Roll tape.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
1. The Doc Fix. Well, she can’t pass this without the GOP participating.
2. RomneyCare Romneycare universalized coverage but didn’t tackle cost increases. The HCR law takes on costs specifically. In fact, it was this much-discussed weakness in Romneycare that motivated Obama’s drive to “bend the cost curve” in his bill. The public option was specifically directed to do this. So if you opposed the public option, it’s a bit hypocritical to complain there’s nothing in this law that holds down consumer costs. There is an expectation that costs will not climb as steeply as they would have without the bill, but I agree, a public option would have been a major improvement.
3. Government numbers The “government numbers” come from the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan “gold standard” used for calculating budgetary costs/savings. Republicans have no problem citing the CBO all the time when it shows numbers they like. Again, you can’t have it both ways. (The CBO actually uses very conservative numbers in its estimates.) Oh, and speaking of hypocrisy, one thing that’s great about our new HCR law is that it’s paid for– that is, it actually accounts the costs/surpluses it makes to the budget. (In this case, there is a savings because tons of waste was eliminated, especially w/Medicare Advantage) Contrast with the previous administration who racked up record spending without ever accounting for it AT ALL in the budget. Yes, I’m talking to you, two trillion dollar Iraq War and trillion dollar tax cuts.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
1. Doc Fix: Most likely going to cram it down just like healthcare.
2.Romneycare did take steps to cut cost,but failed.
3. Look at medicare.
March 24th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
ME.
So, you think the Iraq war wasnt worth it ?
Idiot.
March 24th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
So, you think the Iraq war wasnt worth it ?
Idiot.
And you think it was?
Bigger idiot.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Snow Crash …. you obviously have no understanding of warfare. We have a standing army on both sides of Iran, which is strategically beneficial not only to the US but to the Western world. There is also a little thing called picking your battlefield. We knew (or anyone with a fraction of understanding of military affairs) that the terrorists would go where ever our army was. So we could fight them on their home ground, Afghanistan, or pick another battlefield. We didn’t want to fight them in our backyards. The UN had identified Saddam Hussein’s regime as dangerous and sanctioned them numerous times, (etc, etc) – Iraq was the perfect battlefield. It put us on both sides of Iran and has a much better terrain for our kind of warfare. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is better suited for how the terrorists fight.
There were lots of good reasons to go into Iraq.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Including the fact that they are now a free sovereign country.
Where were all you bleeding heart activists while Saddam was killing and gassing innocents everywhere ?
March 25th, 2010 at 4:39 am
Hey just wanted to give you guys props for linking to Reason. It’s a fantastic site — anybody here who is interested in true limited government should really check it out.
March 27th, 2010 at 7:46 am
micky writes: “So, you think the Iraq war wasnt worth it? Idiot.”
Don’t you ever come on here to either teach or learn something? Always right for the mud with the insults.
Beth Shaw writes: “The UN had identified Saddam Hussein’s regime as dangerous and sanctioned them numerous times, (etc, etc) – Iraq was the perfect battlefield. It put us on both sides of Iran and has a much better terrain for our kind of warfare.”
But must we stay there forever? I can’t help but think there were some strategies that could have been employed in the beginning to win the loyalty of the Iraqi military right off the bat so that they could serve as the watchdogs against any dangerous neighboring regimes. Perhaps they are closer to that now, I am really not sure.
Iran and Iraq have been historical enemies, but the longer we are there, they could decide to put a truce in place in order to fight against us as their common enemy.
I wish we’d never, ever gotten involved in the Middle East. It’s just a place of constant feuding, as far back and probably further than Biblical times.