Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Drake Tungsten]

Now that it’s done, Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/perspective-2.php

At least I have the congratulatory circle jerk of the healthcare reform shills to keep me entertained.

[DinoDoc]

Neither side has acquitted themselves very well, to be sure. But I'm not sure if this is any worse than the Lewinsky affair, for example.

I've never seen or heard of the House or Senate engage in such blatant bribery or continue on a course in the face of such substantial hostility from the American public.

[Asher]

So now we can all move on?

Next up: Disbanding the military to lower costs, contracting out the DOD to Canada?

I've never seen or heard of the House or Senate engage in such blatant bribery or continue on a course in the face of such substantial hostility from the American public.

I think we can safely add this to the long list of things you've never seen.

The split is 41/57 (57 opposed) last I saw. The histrionics from your posts would've had me believe 90% didn't want it.

There's also this:

On health care, 46 percent say it would be better to pass the president’s plan and make changes to the nation’s health care system, versus 45 percent who would prefer not to pass it and keep the system as it is now.

[Drake Tungsten]

Next up: Disbanding the military to lower costs, contracting out the DOD to Canada?

In a fashion. The U.S. defense budget was already going to decline in future years in order to free up funds needed to shore up the fiscal health of Medicare. This new entitlement will increase future deficits, necessitating even larger and more rapid decreases in defense spending. If Canada wants to take on a greater defense role to counteract this decrease in American spending, they're more than welcome to.


UAV Avro Arrow 2

[Guynemer]

I've never seen or heard of the House or Senate engage in such blatant bribery

Maybe true, maybe not, rather subjective.

or continue on a course in the face of such substantial hostility from the American public.

DEFINITELY not objectively true; one need look no further than the aforementioned Lewinksy affair.

[Guynemer]

Besides, you all worry too much. The Senate still has to vote on this, and the Democrats are sure to **** that up somehow.

[Ramo]

Here's yet another analysis from Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the shady accounting involved in our soon to be passed new healthcare system. There's no way to stop this now, but we might as well take a good look at this **** sandwich before we all take a bite...

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/op...ltz-eakin.html

The next paragraph:

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

It's telling that even the supposedly high brow Republicans like Holtz-Eaken can't resist brazenly lying like this. And they repeat it over and over again. They're not much better than Palin and her death panels.

The first three years take in a total of $5 billion in revenues. The fourth year takes in $27 billion. The first three years combined are less than 1% of the 10 year increase in revenues ($525 billion). Adding in the fourth year takes that up to 6%.

Some of the claims in the article sound problematic (i.e. the charge of SS payroll double-counting), but it's hard to take someone willing to engage in such casual dishonesty seriously. He didn't even have the shame to bury the lie under less specious claims; it was his opening salvo.

[Japher]

If the Senate passes it the Supreme Court will have to hear all the suits that will be filed because of it... And since Obama thinks it is wise to insult the court I'm sure they won't hear the cases in his favor.

[Drake Tungsten]

Besides, you all worry too much. The Senate still has to vote on this, and the Democrats are sure to **** that up somehow.

The Senate vote doesn't matter; the Senate healthcare reform bill will become the law of the land as soon as President Obama signs it. If the Senate passes the reconciliation bill, it will amend the funding mechanisms and some of the most egregious bribes contained in the original Senate bill will be removed (Cornhusker Kickback and the like), but the original Senate bill will still be law even if the Senate never even tries to pass the reconciliation bill.

[DinoDoc]

Besides, you all worry too much. The Senate still has to vote on this, and the Democrats are sure to **** that up somehow.

It's the law of the land now and the Senate is well within thier rights to tell the House to go **** themselves if they wish.

[Guynemer]

True enough, mea culpa.

I'm just so used to the Dems fumbling on the one-yard-line, I can't believe they actually broke the plane.

Maybe Obama's pen will snap in half, with the nib penetrating his brain via his eye, advancing Biden, who prompty goes full-on bat**** and declares himself Emperor of All Marbled Cheeses. Honestly, I give that at least a 20% chance of happening.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm just so used to the Dems fumbling on the one-yard-line, I can't believe they actually broke the plane.

Say what you want about Pelosi, but she's an extremely effective Speaker. This crap sandwich never would've been passed if she hadn't been around and it had been up to Obama and Reid.

[Japher]

I don't know what makes me madder. This passing or Pelosi's giant gavel.

[Guynemer]

Is that a euphamism?


I don't know what's more gross: Pelosi's botox addiction, or Boehner's tanning addiction.

[Hauldren Collider]

If the Senate passes it the Supreme Court will have to hear all the suits that will be filed because of it... And since Obama thinks it is wise to insult the court I'm sure they won't hear the cases in his favor.

The court is definitely above making decisions based on criticism from the President.