Originally posted by NeoPhono
We live in a world of nirvana fallacy. I'm really starting to enjoy watching Rome burn as we're increasingly afraid to act because it might make things "worse." This country, this world, is looking more and more like an alcoholic each day; we're going to have to hit rock bottom before anything really changes.
Sadly, that appears to be the case. One side usually wins an absolute victory. Civil War. World War II. Cold War. Etc. etc. We're just barely learning how to share power peacefully, and it's going to be a rough ride.
Shakka
quote:
March 21, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Arlington, Va.
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.
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.
Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.
Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.
Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.
In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.
A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.
Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.
Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.
The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.
The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.
The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.
Shakka
quote:
Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory
Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak sold his anti-abortion soul for a toothless executive order.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.
Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.
You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.
The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.
President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.
As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.
Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.
Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.
Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.
All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.
Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.
Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.
By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.
Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.
The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.
Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.
Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.
So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.
President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.
Ms. Strassel writes the Journal's weekly Potomac Watch column from Washington.
Clovis
Well we've finally joined most of the rest of the civilized world...kicking and screaming, but it's a start.
Comrade Stalin
Finally, the Democrats grew some balls and basically told the Republicans to off if they don't like it. When the Republicans are in power, they can do the same, and did...:rolleyes:
Shakka
Yes. This legislation is so good that nobody wants it, including the people who wrote it. Fantastic hypocrisy from our elected destroyers.
March 23, 2010
Exempted from "Obamacare:" The Authors
For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises - as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation - both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.
One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.
A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans - that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-
(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details - or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices.
It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).
(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.
According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” - meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.
This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process - last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.
As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.
Hooray!
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Yes. This legislation is so good that nobody wants it,
Hooray!
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
With respect, that survey doesn't address whether the bill itself is good (which based on polling numbers, only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really feel that way). This poll is just whether the bill passing is a good thing--that could mean a number of things. Perhaps it makes people happy because now they have all the more reason to boot the latest group of power hungry spendthrifts the out. Maybe they think it's good because it gets a year long distraction out of the way. In any event, just looking at the data, most Republicans think it's a bad thing while most Democrats seemingly think it is a good thing. However, I notice that there is not a single other category on that survey where a majority feels it is a good thing. So what exactly is that survey telling me? That a majority of people are not on board.
P.S. Please see definition of "hyperbole" if you are simply responding to the "nobody" part of my quote.;)
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
With respect, that survey doesn't address whether the bill itself is good (which based on polling numbers, only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really feel that way). This poll is just whether the bill passing is a good thing--that could mean a number of things. Perhaps it makes people happy because now they have all the more reason to boot the latest group of power hungry spendthrifts the out. Maybe they think it's good because it gets a year long distraction out of the way.
Maybe perhaps it's this communist stuff.
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT
*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
quote:
However, I notice that there is not a single other category on that survey where a majority feels it is a good thing. So what exactly is that survey telling me? That a majority of people are not on board
Isn't that under 'national adults', which is 49-40 in favor?
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Maybe perhaps it's this communist stuff.
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT
*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
Great. More entitlements for us evil rich folks to pay for you poor commies;) Wouldn't it be nice of the bill was 1/2 a page of simple explanation instead of 2500 pages of radical, hastily passed reformation that doesn't even really go after the evil insurance companies? This bill is more about government power than it is about saving money and holding down prices. And also begs the question--you seem to be able to boil down the good points to 1/2 a page. What of the other 2,499 pages of bull?
quote:
Isn't that under 'national adults', which is 49-40 in favor?
Which conveniently adds up to 89%. A simple majority is more than half. All I see is plurality.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide want their state to sue the federal government over the health care plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) do not.
So 49% are apparently glad the healthcare bill passed, yet 49% also want their states to sue the federal government over the bill's passage. Doesn't exactly sound one-sided and clear-cut to me.
p.s. tanning beds are for fags and guidos anyway.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
With respect, that survey doesn't address whether the bill itself is good (which based on polling numbers, only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really feel that way). This poll is just whether the bill passing is a good thing--that could mean a number of things. Perhaps it makes people happy because now they have all the more reason to boot the latest group of power hungry spendthrifts the out. Maybe they think it's good because it gets a year long distraction out of the way. In any event, just looking at the data, most Republicans think it's a bad thing while most Democrats seemingly think it is a good thing. However, I notice that there is not a single other category on that survey where a majority feels it is a good thing. So what exactly is that survey telling me? That a majority of people are not on board.
P.S. Please see definition of "hyperbole" if you are simply responding to the "nobody" part of my quote.;)
Come on. Given that Independents are within the margin of error, you're going to argue that this poll suggests more people are opposed to health care than are supportive? This is taking poll spinning to new levels.
But seriously?
quote:
This poll is just whether the bill passing is a good thing--that could mean a number of things. Perhaps it makes people happy because now they have all the more reason to boot the latest group of power hungry spendthrifts the out.
??
Really?
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
But seriously?
??
Really?
One of the first things I was ever taught about polls is that they are both unreliable and very prone to biases based on the specific questions asked as well as how those questions were posed. So yes, the question in the chart you provided appears to be more of a "Is it good that this bill passed" as opposed to "Is the bill a good thing?" Given how heavily polls showed the public to be NOT in favor of the health care legislation, I find it quite hard to believe that overnight you'd have such a sudden turn around in the polls.
