Health care reform received a significant boost Wednesday with the release of a Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that the Senate Finance Committee bill actually would reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years. It also was aided by former Sen. Bob Dole, who called for passage of health care reform (though he opposes the public option). Dole also said that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told him not to say that he supported reform, and Dole said that the public was the loser when Congress couldn’t agree on reform when President Clinton proposed it (and he took partial blame for that failure).
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
50 Comments
Dole, an unlikely ally indeed.
Trying to avoid hell-fire in your last years after a life-time of RepubliCON pandering, Bob?
Too late.
I’ve asked this before, but does anybody know what was in the Senate Health Care reform bill that the CBO looked at? I’d like to find out to have enough information to make up my mind about it. If you don’t know, why are you supporting it or arguing against it?
I probably fall into Dole’s thinking. Reasonable reform is needed. Public option though is a means to a socialist end, as GMC pointed out.
Republicans could come out of this looking pretty bad.
Looks like this one won’t be fixed with more tax cuts for the wealthy.
It’s interesting seeing how the media likes to make a big deal of Dole wanting reform. I don’t know of a Congressman that doesn’t want some sort of reform. I also would like to know how the CBO determined that the Senate bill will reduce the deficit by 81 billion.
Shares of large health insurers slumped on Thursday as a budget report issued on a key U.S. Senate healthcare reform bill fueled investor worries that a health overhaul would gain approval.
Nonpartisan budget analysts said late on Wednesday that a Senate Finance Committee health plan would cost $829 billion and cut the budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN0852545620091008
________________________
Poor large health insurers….
Screew them!
**$228 Billion in New Taxes (Including taxes on premium Union Health Care plans)
**Medicare Death Commission firned to save $22 Billion
**$279 Billion in Medicare CUTS
**Still 25 Million people would be left Uninsured
Yeah, Great Plan!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/health/policy/08health.html?_r=1&hp
firned = formed
outlander
Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
I’ve asked this before, but does anybody know what was in the Senate Health Care reform bill that the CBO looked at? I’d like to find out to have enough information to make up my mind about it. If you don’t know, why are you supporting it or arguing against it?
===========================
You are not allowed to see it.
Trust them, with your life.
And he repeatedly blamed “partisanship” for the failure to produce a bill so far.
“Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,” he said. “They don’t want Reagan to get it, they don’t want Obama to get it, so we’ve got to kill it…
“Health care is one of those things…Now we’ve got to do something.”
Dole also talked about the failure to get a health care reform bill through Congress in 1993 and 1994 when President Bill Clinton proposed it.
He blamed himself — and Hillary Clinton — and finally politics.
“Politics took over,” he said. “And you lost.”
Looks like Dole agrees except for the biggie, the public option is a must for true reform.
We know what Dole thinks about a public option, but more importantly what does the CBO think about a public option?
I’ll give you cons a few minutes.
It has been said that this bill contains a heavy tax on the Cadillac insurance plans. Insurance companies have already stated they would rather cancel the plans, rather than pay a 20-30 percent tax in which they would have to pass on to their customers.
A lot of these Cadillac insurance plans are what UAW and other unions have.
That was one source of income that the bill will probably never see.
#
Phantom
Posted October 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
We know what Dole thinks about a public option, but more importantly what does the CBO think about a public option?
I’ll give you cons a few minutes.
————–
Phantom: You first.
———-
outlander
Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
I’ve asked this before, but does anybody know what was in the Senate Health Care reform bill that the CBO looked at? I’d like to find out to have enough information to make up my mind about it. If you don’t know, why are you supporting it…
Outlander,
Here’s a raw white paper on the Baucus plan that was sent to CBO.
http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf
As far as I know, there is no public document available that contains the same language the CBO got, just a summary.
#
outlander
Posted October 8, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
outlander
Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
I’ve asked this before, but does anybody know what was in the Senate Health Care reform bill that the CBO looked at? I’d like to find out to have enough information to make up my mind about it. If you don’t know, why are you supporting it…
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–==
You should ask American_Way about the accuracy of CBO figures if he ever comes back. He must have posted at least a hundred copy/paste posts over the last two months when the CBO figures were in alignment with his particular ideology.
Speaking of “American_Way”…
I wonder who’s alt nic that was?
I wonder who’s alt nic that was?
=============================
We are all Hank or Regular.
You should know this by now, Daniel.
I must say, I am disappointed.
Daniel is a buffon, he doesn’t understand the methodology of blog-ness.
**$228 Billion in New Taxes (Including taxes on premium Union Health Care plans)
**Medicare Death Commission firned to save $22 Billion
**$279 Billion in Medicare CUTS
AND all of the tax increases start 2-3 years BEFORE the plan takes effect. Makes the ten year cost look better. Bullschiitte political accounting.
…and as I stated on another thread….
Historical note- “They also said Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It ended up being $107 billion – eight times the government estimate.
If you are a Lib who can actually learn from history……
“Regular” declares –
“Daniel is a buffon, he doesn’t understand the methodology of blog-ness.”
Oh teach us, master!
Teach us your insights into “the methodology of blog-ness.”
We long for your wisdom!
We ache for your brilliance!
I don’t care how long it takes. Go the “Full Cronkite” (as the kids say).
Without your help there’s likely to be a lot of WE Blog participants who fail to keep the tencil on the toad.
Heckler–
What’s your point? Do you want to do away with Medicare?
Be my guest . . . see how that works out for your side.
outlander– Do you work for a living or are you already on the socialistic health care plan of Medicare?
CapnAmerica
Posted October 8, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Heckler–
What’s your point? Do you want to do away with Medicare?
Be my guest . . . see how that works out for your side.
===============================================
It’s sorta gitting rid of itself, with the help from Democrats.
That’s the problem with a bad Government program, once it is in place, it’s there forever.
“CapnAmerica” asks “outlander” -–
“Do you work for a living or are you already on the socialistic health care plan of Medicare?”
I suspect “outlander” is the type whose health coverage consists of putting his hands on the screen during a Peter Poppoff infomercial.
Teach us your insights into “the methodology of blog-ness.”
Sure thing.
Actually, Daniel is quite advanced in blogging, unlike you, and most liberals, who are pant-schitting worm herders.
No compromise on principles, No compromise on taxpayer funding of abortions. No compromise on taxpayer funding of illegal alien health care. No compromise on death panels. No compromise on rationing. No compromise on increasing the deficit.
In short, no approval for any health care bill now on the floor of either house of Congress.
“Regular” enlightens us with –
“…pant-schitting worm herders.”
Wow!
Who would’ve guessed “the methodology of blog-ness” could be so cerebral?
Tell us more, master!
Tell us more!
#
CapnAmerica
Posted October 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
outlander– Do you work for a living or are you already on the socialistic health care plan of Medicare?
————-
Why do you ask Capn? I’m probably younger than you. Also smarter and better looking. But that’s another matter.
“parkay” reaches out –
“No compromise….”
I suspect “parkay” is salting the mine in case he needs an Insanity Defense when the Scott Roeder case comes to trial.
He’s got me convinced.
And then there’s this:
——
Morning Bell: The Baucus Bait And Switch
Posted October 8th, 2009 at 9.10am in Health Care.
Throughout the health care debate, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan “will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.” The problem is that the White House could not get the Congressional Budget Office to cooperate. Throughout the summer the CBO issued report after report showing that the versions of Obamacare working their way through Congress all added to the deficit.
First, CBO found that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Three weeks later, the CBO released a report on a revised bill showing HELP 2.0 only raised the deficit by $597 billion. The House then got a little clever and tried to game the CBO scoring system by phasing in the major spending of their bill over time, but even that maneuver left them with $245 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years (with crippling deficits to come as the entitlement spending ramped up in the out years).
Enter Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) who was determined to manipulate the CBO’s scoring system as best he could and deliver a deficit neutral version of Obamacare. After months of working directly with CBO staff, Baucus scored a victory for Obamacare yesterday when the CBO released a preliminary analysis purporting to show that the Baucus bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion over the next decade. The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest. As the Politico reported yesterday: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”
Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.
Then the real deception begins. Majority Leader Reid will then move to proceed on a House passed TARP tax bill, completely gut it, and insert his version of Obamacare. After the Senate passes the bill it will go to the House where if it is approved without amendment, it can then proceed directly to President Obama’s desk for signing. Throughout this whole time, the White House and the left in Congress will be using headlines like the one from the New York Times this morning to claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Baucus bill is the only version of Obamacare to get anything close to a deficit neutral nod from CBO and even that is done through creative deception. When it is combined with these other bills, Obamacare is certain to become an even greater budget buster once again. But the left’s entire strategy is to move fast so that a true CBO cost estimate of what Congress is actually voting on never happens.
Conservatives are fighting to make sure this deception is not perpetrated on the American people. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has introduced legislation that would change Senate rules to require a 72-hour waiting period and an official CBO cost estimate before the Senate was allowed to consider any legislation. If President Obama’s promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything, then he should insist that Congress take its time and allow for a full CBO scoring of health reform.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/morning-bell-the-baucus-bait-and-switch/
======
Somehow, I knew the CBO report was too good to be true . . .
One should always remember: if it seems to good to be true, it is. Always.
Again – comments on content?
Another view:
—–
The Real Cost of the Baucus Bill: $2 Trillion+
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow:
The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill’s reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues. The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health-insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax.
In fact, overall, the tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn’t a health care efficiency bill or a cost containment bill. It is a tax and spend bill, pure and simple.
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies:
The CBO score of the Baucus bill is like a mystery novel with the last 50 pages missing. It fails to reveal both the full cost of the bill and the budget gimmicks that Mr. Baucus uses to hide that cost.
The Baucus bill will not reduce the deficit, and it would ultimately cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion—just like every other bill Congress has produced so far.
The biggest gimmick employed by the bill is that its individual mandate pushes more than half of the legislation’s cost off-budget, and onto businesses and individuals who will have to shoulder that burden. A real-world parallel already exists in the Massachusetts health care plan, where private-sector mandates account for 60 percent of the cost. In 1994, CBO counted those mandated private payments in the federal budget, and it helped kill the Clinton health plan. This time around, Democrats were very careful to craft their mandates so that they just barely avoided having the CBO include those payments in the federal budget. But the CBO’s decision does not change the fact that those private-sector mandates are part of the cost of this bill.
The second-biggest gimmick is assuming that Congress will let the “Sustainable Growth Rate” cuts in Medicare physician payments to occur. Starting in 2003, Congress has repeatedly blocked those cuts, and there is no reason to think that Congress will behave any differently in the future. So yes, provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit.
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=287
====
Yes, it’s the Cato institute. Comments about content, rather than attacking the source?
(modified to remove the links and thus the dreaded “awaiting moderation”)
And the one thing I’ve heard nothing of, out of any of the proposals, is a way to reduce the growing cost of health care. It is in fact that growing cost that is driving this debate, that growing cost which is driving some off of their insurance.
How do any of these proposals intend to reign in those costs?
Again – comments on content?
=================================
I’m afraid I can’t comment without mentioning a short rope and a long drop, so I will refrain.
“ANTI” shares –
“I’m afraid I can’t comment without mentioning a short rope and a long drop, so I will refrain.”
Why do you hate Toad Tiahrt?
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
“ANTI” shares –
“I’m afraid I can’t comment without mentioning a short rope and a long drop, so I will refrain.”
Why do you hate Toad Tiahrt?
===========================
Stay classy, LIBs!
Why do you ask Capn?
Supposed Christian Outlander–
I ask because I wonder how you manage to blog all day while holding down a job.
I am sure you all read the CBO report and that it is only an estimate because Congress (Senate in this case) has yet to flush out a bill with the necessary details to make a real estimate?
I think more than a couple repubs will switch over now that the estimate has come in less, kind of takes away their excuse.
Cato, or CBO, think I’ll go with the CBO.
Well Capn, thanks for your concern, but I don’t have a job. I have a business. I’ve billed in excess of 60 hours this week already and the boss (me) says I can do what I dam well please. How about you?
Hillary style billing? Or, at least what you’all accused her of.
Like anyone’s going to take CATO Damage Control seriously? Pubs been spinning like tops all day. Haven’t had any medicare physician cuts since 2003, who held the congressional majority? Cons got no control, not only did they not cut, they passed an unfunded part d to escalate the costs.
Phantom: Do you happen to know what the Baucus bill that the CBO based their review on includes?
The bauccus bill is just a starting off point, it’s going to get better and more deficit neutral.
The bauccus bill is just a starting off point, it’s going to get better and more deficit neutral.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
Gotta stop, my sides hurt.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Thanks, Phantom. Enjoyed it. Next you’ll be telling me that pigs will be flying . . .
“I’ve billed in excess of 60 hours this week.”
Wow. That’s pretty good for Thursday already.
Of course that assumes that hours billed were hours worked.
Since you’re an alleged Christian, you’d never pad the hours . . . or anything like that . . . I’m sure . . .
60 hours / 4 days = 15 hour days
Hmmm, are you sure it wasn’t 28 hour days?
That’d be the CON way to do it . . .
When we work, we work, and we don’t stop ’til the job is done. This week began on Sunday.
We won’t ever have to worry about unionization, eh Capn?
“The bauccus bill is just a starting off point, it’s going to get better and more deficit neutral.”
ROTFLMAO!
THis is funny too:
A guy walked into the local welfare office To pick up his check.
He marched straight up to the counter and said, ‘Hi. You know, I
just HATE drawing welfare. I’d really rather have a job.’
The social worker behind the counter looked at him and said:
‘ Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a
very wealthy Old man who wants a Chauffeur and Bodyguard for
his beautiful daughter.
You’ll have to drive around in his 2008 Mercedes CL, and he will
supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours
meals will be provided. You’ll also be expected to escort the
daughter on her overseas holiday trips.
This is rather awkward to say but you will also have as part of
your job the assignment to satisfy her sexual urges as the daughter is
in her mid-20’s and has a rather strong sex drive.
She also has a two-bedroom loft type apartment with plasma TV,
stereo, bar, etc. located above the garage and will be designated for
your sole use.
The salary is $200,000 a year.’
The guy, just plain wide-eyed, said, ‘ You’re bull shi tt in’ me!’
The social worker said, ‘ Yeah, well, you started it.’
A guy walked into the local welfare office To pick up his check.
Was he from Halliburton or Blackwater?
Oh wait, their welfare checks get mailed to them . . . my bad.
outlander writes This week began on Sunday.
Hmmm . . .
Exodus 16:23
He said to them, “This is what the LORD commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD.’”
Exodus 20:8
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”
Exodus 20:10
“but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work.”
Leviticus 23:3
“‘There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.’”
Luke 23:56
Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
Hebrews 4
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
*****
Those damn union members would want Sundays off to go to church or spend time with their families. Good thing you keep those shirkers out and only let the Fundy-Cons work. You know, the people who are willing to sell everything they claim to believe in to make a quick buck . . .