Well, CBO punked Obama again. I would say they are good at it but the reality is that Obama's policies are so stupid as to make him an easy target.
Today's punking comes in testimony by the CBO Director to Congress. Basically, CBO says that Obama's spending on healthcare, which is designed to lower overall costs, won't work. Costs will more likely go up.
This is a shocker of a shocker (sarcasm). Anyone who has taken Economics 101 could have predicted this. Subsidizing healthcare will cause people to demand more of it... and when demand goes up while supply stays the same or goes down, prices go up. Duh.
Of course backers of the bill brought out that deeply philosophical, patented Obama defense... It's better than doing nothing. Except, CBO says that doing nothing actually costs less. Doh!
But, that logic is totally consistent with Obama Administration views on everything and confirmed by none other than Joe Biden himself today.
Actual quote:
“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Again, we get that strange Obama logic. Biden says that current government spending by Obama (increased over Bush Admin spending) is unsustainable. Therefore, we have no choice but to spend more, which will somehow save us from bankruptcy.
I think those Mayans were on to something with that end of the world in 2012 prediction. It's hard to imagine how bad things can get when these guys are already this stupid after only six months.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Max Frank
thatsright
Beth Mann
MJwycha
Graham Sale
Wallace Kaufman
Salon.com
Comments
Health Care Debate 2: Is Compromise Possible
Evidently you do.
For example, if you needed brain surgery, would you ever consider going for the doctor based only on the fact that he was the lowest competitive bidder? I don't think so. Health care is based on referral -- your doctor's knowledge of local practioners and your ability to pay.
And as to insurance companies, they are the most uncompetitive firms in the United States (with the exception of big league baseball). This means that they collude on prices and markets on a regular basis, and they engage in all sorts of practices that would land any other CEO in the hoosegow as a result.
Have you ever been screwed royally by an insurance company? So why are conservatives so concerned about limiting competition for these jerkbutts? And are you one of the conservatives that has been against bailing out the big investment banks and automobile companies? If so, why should the insurance companies be afraid of the brisk winds of competition from a government plan?
Lastly, there is the issue of cost. $1T over ten years sounds like a lot, but the Iraqi War has cost us $1T since 2003. If we're getting out of Iraq by 2010, wouldn't the actual level of government expenditures actually decrease?
I'd like you to respond to each of these questions point by point.
But this is exactly where I think the conservative case for free-market healthcare falls down: You want to limit spending, but at the same time you decry the horrors of rationing. You say you are in favour of competition, but whine and cry when someone suggests a public option to give private insurers some competition. This makes no sense. If private insurers are more efficient, they should win.
In the end, there are two ways of rationing care: The liberal way, which lets the government decide which treatments should be paid for, and how much treatment you can expect (this is how European nations deliver universal healthcare at far lower cost than the current US system). And if you think that sounds horrible, you can go for the free-market option, which is to leave rationing to the private insurers. Under that system, the rich can have all the treatment they want, and the poor get bugger all. It's a moral question, really.
Personally, I agree with Paul Krugman. 1 trillion over the next decade to achieve full coverage is a bargain. Grab it! It'll pay off in the long run.
It's not government's job to compete with private industry; its job is to provide an environment for private industry to compete with private industry.
Fortunately, there seems to be a sufficient number of clear thinking Democrats to derail Obama's health plan as well as his cap and trade insanity. Cracks in the Obama facade are beginning to appear, cracks which may well become major fissures in time.
No society can survive much less prosper by attacking producers through out-of-control taxation and regulation. Faced with these threats, the producer either gets out of Dodge or scales down its operations. Either way it results in the arguably talented Saturn Smith looking for a job and home. Philosophical chickens coming home (they have one) to roost.
I'd like you to respond to each of these questions point by point.
old new lefty
July 17, 2009 02:29
If you actually believe that this is only going to cost $1 trillion dollars over 10 years, you haven't been paying attention for the last 50 years.
In practice, that seems unlikely in this case, because what you won't see is the government saying we are going to reduce spending on the very sick and elderly in order to make investments in the lives of those whose working years are ahead of them, because, of course, there are lots of elderly voters.
Amen, GordonO--thanks both for giving voice to "our side" where maybe some of goodwill on the "other side" will hear and consider.
Is it 2013 (or, God forbid, 2017) yet?
Rated.
To answer your one question, yes, if I had time to research surgeons and hospitals prior to having brain surgery, I would consider price in the choice. Would I automatically choose the lowest cost? Not necessarily. But, if costs from some were too high, I would look eslewhere. It's human nature to want to get a good deal. I don't see healthcare as all that different from any other product. In an emergency, peole care less about cost. When they have time to comparison shop, they do.
To meet your demand that I answer your questions "point by point":
No, I have never been screwed by an insurance company. In fact, when an insurance company did not pay what I thought they should, I wrote them a very logical letter explaining how I had gotten my medical care consistent with the rules of the plan and they paid up.
Yes, I was against the bailouts.
I am against the public option not because I think it will better but precisely because I know it won't be. However, once companies know that they can cancel their benefits and force their employees into the public option, then they will be highly tempted to do so. The result will be worse care for people. I would like to see healthcare broken away from employers so consumers have choices and insurers, doctors, and hospitals are forced to compete. The Obama plan does the opposite of this.
Yes, winning in Iraq means we don't spend as much money there. That is an indicator of huge the Obama spending is. Bush deficits while spending on the Iraq War are not as bad as CBO's estimates of Obama's deficits when Iraq spending goes down. Obama is spending the savings from the war and much, much more.
Don, you're right. If money is being saved then the new spending should not have to be that large. You spend some to get started but after that, the savings should fund the program. Obviously, it isn't looking that way now.
Deb, I suggest you pack light.
Gordon, you're dead on right and it looks like you get partial credit for Briot rating this post. Thanks to both of you.
Here's an article showing that cancer survival rates are higher in the US compared to Europe.
The real fun is going to be when they run out of places they can tax "the rich" and STILL don't have the money they need to pay for this monstrosity. Then who is going to pay for it? That's right...the middle class. Oops.
If I can do it, why can't Congress and the White House? And why is Obama so insistent upon passing healthcare reform by August? They can't even figure out how much their version is going to cost, let alone how it will be funded. Shouldn't our President be worried about getting it right, rather than just getting it done?
Here we get to see the "conservatives" display the worst impulse of conservatism - defending a massively failed status quo.
Slogans, dogma and smug comments that have little relation to reality.
Only Don seems to realize that whether it's tax money or private spending, it's all money.
I read your plan, McG. It slaps the concept of free markets in the face, restricting the citizens of America to providing only for a very limited HC plan, and maintains the massive corruption and political entrepreneurship...not a "free market"...that is the reality of our current system.
You seem to have forgotten the other word that comes after "free market."
This is the problem you run into when your "thinking" is guided by dogma instead of reality.
Well, Bush logic gave us war without end and a recession. I guess you want to do more of that.
"I think those Mayans were on to something with that end of the world in 2012 prediction."
Or just like how you;ve been bought off in your political positions these people have been bought off by a hollywood movie production team. I can't wait to see the movie. And that's all there is to know about it really. You're a sucker.
" kill grandma to save money, healthcare deform,"
You want to see Americans, poor Americans, die in hospitals while your rich friends and your reps in govt get all the coverage they need. You have twisted the world to better fit your hatred for Democrats. Your trying to kill little Suzy and trying to kill my friends with your BS and illogical resistance to helping your fellow Americans with govt money instead of using it to kill everyone who is not a white Christian.
" Of course backers of the bill brought out that deeply philosophical, patented Obama defense... It's better than doing nothing."
It goes down like this:
You are for Health Care Reform and want to see changes in this disgusting and immoral system ... or ... you are a shill for the insurance companies and want to sacrifice the lives of Americans so the profits of greedy millionaires grow ever larger while poor Americans go to the morgue.