Posted on 10/12/2009 4:29:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
Some of the headlines in recent days are not worthy of belief. No, I'm not referring to the headlines that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, however odd that many seem to many (including, it seems, Obama himself). I'm referring to the headlines earlier in the week to the effect that the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus will cut the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years.
Yes, that is what the Congressional Budget Office estimated. But, as the CBO noted, there's no actual Baucus bill, just some "conceptual language." Actual language, CBO noted, might result in "significant changes" in its estimates. No wonder Democratic congressional leaders killed requirements that the actual language be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress votes.
More significant is the number most publications did not put in their headlines and lead paragraphs: CBO's estimate that the Baucus "conceptual language" would increase federal spending by $829 billion over 10 years. So how do you increase federal spending and cut the deficit at the same time?
One way is taxes. The Baucus conceptual language includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion) and "indirect offsets" (whatever they are -- $83 billion).
In addition, costs are fobbed off on state governments in the form of more Medicaid spending, and savings are projected from future reductions in Medicare that will surely turn out to be imaginary (Congresses of both parties have acted to prevent such reductions every year since 2003).
We know from past experience that cost estimates of all government health care programs (except the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which has private market competition) tend to understate actual costs. So the Baucus bill -- er, conceptual language -- if enacted is likely to expand government spending by more than the estimated $829 billion.
And perhaps quite a bit more. The Baucus measure enables families without employer-provided insurance to obtain it at exchanges with subsidies that make it cost less than what those with employer-provided insurance pay. The latter are a majority of voters -- how long are their elected representatives going to let this disadvantage stand?
The Baucus measure subsidizes low-income families. Say you make $48,000 a year and get a $900 subsidy. As your income rises, this subsidy would be phased out, raising your effective marginal tax rate to as much as 70 percent. How long will Congress let this stand?
And perhaps even more. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel points out that well-placed senators are getting special favors in the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid gets the feds to pick up Nevada's extra Medicaid spending. Charles Schumer gets many high-cost insurance plans in New York exempted from tax. How long before other members seek similar breaks for their states?
The Baucus bill attempts to force more Americans to buy health insurance policies designed according to government specifications, which means they will be very expensive and consumers will be shielded from costs. But that's likely to produce an increased demand for health care procedures and bend the cost curve not downward but upward.
Market incentives like those in Part D that might shift it downward are pretty much absent from the Baucus bill. All this will still, according to CBO, leave 25 million Americans without health insurance.
CBO estimaters are constrained by budget rules from guesstimating how costs will skyrocket because of political pressures. The rest of us are not. We can regard CBO's estimate of $829 billion in additional spending not as a ceiling but as a floor.
We can reasonably conclude that the Baucus bill -- or whatever similar measure Reid and Schumer concoct -- would vastly and permanently increase public sector spending and impose a crushing burden on the private sector in a weak economy. That burden would be particularly heavy on low earners forced to buy expensive policies or else pay stiff fines, with money they would otherwise receive as wages or salaries.
There are no good public policy reasons to pass such a bill hurriedly and before it can be fully analyzed and debated. Only political reasons: line up enough Democratic members before they can process the public opinion polls that show most voters hostile to such measures and before they are faced with probable though not certain Democratic defeats in Virginia and New Jersey in November.
Too bad the Nobel committee doesn't have a vote.
All this to insure only 5 million people some of who probably don’t want insurance or are eligible for other existing programs? 829 billion for 5 million people? This makes no sense.
I write software for a living. Can I deliver some UML diagrams and mocked-up screens, then say "here you go, this is about how the program will look and work..." ???
Hey Congress, get off your large, lazy backsides and do the job you were elected to do - represent us. Do not try to push over some socialist wet-dream on us that merely gives you more power. We hold your pink slips in our hands.
It makes sense if you’re a politician trying to get your hands on all that juicy health care money...
THAT makes a lot of sense!!!!
Y’all remember how every time John Kerry’s name came up people would say, “Did you know he served in Vietnam?”
With Obama its now going to be, “Did you know he got the Nobel Peace Prize?”
Doing the math, you come up with a very very very expensive policy for only five million folks. Even if it was 10 million people it is still too much.
The whole debate, should have been a non starter right out of the box. Congress is going about their business, not ours. When all is said and done, if this manure passes, it will no longer be the USA.
Once the states see just what the cost is going to be to them, much less the people, the uprising will be astounding, it better be or the nation is toast.
The lesson to be learned by the arrogant jackasses who think they are in charge, will be a difficult one, but if the Republic is to be saved, it must be done. Chuck, Harry, Chris, Max, Tim, John and the rest of the senatorial sweethearts, better have an epiphany soon.
If they don’t have an epiphany now, they will definately have one in 2010! (I just hope it’s not too late)
Great analogy...but this approach has been done before and has been profitable, hasn't it?? ;-)
(Cynical reply) With THIS government?? It makes complete sense!!
I guess the “leftovers” will be redistributed.
The problem is this - we have allowed Congress to get away with placing symbolism over substance for so long that now it has become memorialized as a way of life in the “Baucus Bill conceptual language”. As we all know, passing a bill on the basis of “conceptual language” is the same as giving Congress a blank check. When it comes time to fill in the blanks, the actual bill we get will be substantially different from what was passed . . . . . . . and the so-called $81 billion in savings after 10 years becomes wishful thinking.
It is past time to shut the Congress down and either force them to do the job we hired them to do - or fire them and get people who will/can do the job we hired them to do!!
I DON'T THINK THE AVERAGE SUPPORTER OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL ACTUALLY REALIZES THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A MONTHLY PREMIUM ATTACHED TO IT. Of course, many of them know that they don't have to worry about it because their premiums will be paid by the rest of us.
Is this constitutional, to essentially try and hide legislation and mislead the public.
Didn’t you for get 2 letters before constitutional? You know which ones I mean
“Of course, many of them know that they don’t have to worry about it because their premiums will be paid by the rest of us.”
Sometimes I wonder why after fighting so hard for freedom, a lot of black (and white)folks are ready to give it away. Each one of our basic rights have been in jeopardy, but its o.k. as long as I get my check. Is that what our wonderful education system has taught?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.