"Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Hahahahahahahahahaha!! Yeah, it's all going to be 'budget neutral. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I got a bridge I own in Brooklyn, anyone want to buy it?

Taxing the rich to help the poor? Oh, the horrors of it all. What to do, what to do?

Pity not the rich.

Vic

Vic fails, again. Taxes always hit the lowest wage earners, because they increase costs from the top.

Pity not the rich, they'll do alright. Pity the middle-class when Vic's ilk gets through with them. Pity the lower income earners, those without the political connections, pity anyone but the rich.They'll be the only ones able to afford real health care when it's "free."

Vic as always just hopes he gets to wear the jackboots. He's a good Party member. Pity him the most, because his soul yearns to enslave others and be enslaved himself.

For no other reason than to see Vic's head explode, let's unionize the rich.

More and more this 'health care reform' crap seems to be a hellaciously expensive solution to a problem that doesn't warrant the expense.

As the chart shows, this '100% coverage' plan would get the percentage actually covered up from 83% to 94%.

It'll cover 27 million people, giving them basic health care, for $839 billion.

That's a cost of $33k per person covered. Naturally, government 'efficiency' will likely chew up 20% of that in bureaucratic overhead...

Each month we get faxblast 'ads' for health care coverage costing about $200/mo for a family, or $125/mo for a single. Over 10 years, that'd run out to $15k for a single person - and I believe the coverage would end up being better than what's planned for well over double that cost by the government.

I don't think we can afford this. Our deficit THIS year is $1600 BILLION alone - there's no way we can keep stacking that up, no matter how much we might 'save' by doing so.

Inflation will take care of this deficit in due course, Mr. Lawson. Of course, the dollar won't be worth spit, but you'll have lots of them to carry around. You might even use them to insulate your house.

It's all redistributionism. All of it.

You WILL pay for illegal aleins' health care.

This strikes hardest not at the wealthy, but at the those working the hardest.

The really wealthy, like the Kennedy's and the Kerry's and the Gates' won't be touched.

This sucks.

Bobdog -

Better be careful, Congress may just try to spin the wonderful effects of inflation as you just spelled out...

The CBO report sez:

>--FULL-STEAM-AHEAD-->

So did the 'Cash for Clunkers' proposal, Adrian. That really worked out as expected, didn't it? With no unexpected or unwanted side effects?

Damn. Only in Washington does a cost of $800+ billion - on top of a deficit THIS year of $1.6 trillion, on top of a national debt of $12+ trillion, and with IRS tax receipts falling - being spent on something with NO economic return (and a much likely higher cost down the road) seem to equal "Yeah, let's do this!"

I swear, if this proposal were in a novel most rational people would have thrown it across the room by now because the characters proposing it would be seen as so friggin' blind to basic economics that there's no way you'd even want to see how the oncoming train wreck would turn out.

But we get to live it. Oh, lucky us.

What a load of crap.

Within the CBO report we find:

"estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty"

Later we find the key statement:

"These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain
unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for
major legislation."

It doesn't mattter what the report says or what we think this crap sandwich is going to pass. They ignore us and continue to take over the country's economy.

Funny, the Bloomberg headline story just says:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated yesterday that the Senate Finance Committee's version of health- care legislation would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.

Hmmm...nothing about a tax hike doing the job.

Funny, that.

(seriously, how stupid is America that they will buy this, that doing more will cost less? we all know the answer, just look at the White House occupants)

Victimy is a looter like all the others who play on base envy of the rich. Too bad the thieves in congress are never subject to the same jealous rage. These are some of the richest people in the world constantly pointing the finger at others while evading taxes and exempting themselves from laws the rest of us must obey. They daily seek ways to take more from Americans who actually produce. It would be hard to invent a more corrupt scenario. Stealing more from 'the rich' is not going to enrich any of us. They already pay far more than 'their share.' I would really like to know what Victimy does for a living, if anything.

They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. - Abraham Lincoln

The Democrat Party are the new slaveholders.

The GOP is Winning the Health Care Debate WSJ

Comment of the day award goes to "For no other reason than to see Vic's head explode, let's unionize the rich."

lol.

but then...
"Vic fails, again. Taxes always hit the lowest wage earners, because they increase costs from the top.

Bush lowered the top tax rates for the rich and 7 years later our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression.

Fail!

Vic

Vic: What a clumsy argument! Spoken like a true liberal! If you wait long enough your predicitions will come true. You are a modern day Nostrodamus. Using arguments like yours is the reason everything can be blamed on the Republicans. Falze asks: "seriously, how stupid is America that they will buy this...." then we read comments like yours.

Bush lowered the top tax rates for the rich and 7 years later our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression.

Corrupt Democrats created a housing entitlement bubble that plunged us into the current recession. They also ridiculed Republicans for warning about it and trying to enact reforms. They also repeatedly assured us that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally sound and ridiculed critics as alarmists. These are the indisputable facts.

They have since colluded with unions to destroy two major car companies and arbitrarily destroyed countless dealerships. Now they are working hard to destroy the worlds greatest healthcare system.

VIC:

Bush lowered the top tax rates for the rich and 7 years later our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

I would have blamed the recession on Reagan or possibly Abe Lincoln, but I guess you didn't want to go that far? Surely nothing causes recessions like letting people keep the money they earn...I mean, it's like a no-brainer to connect those dots

people have money....people can't pay mortgage

truly, quite obvious.

Kennedy cut taxes - the economy grew

Reagan cut taxes tightened money supply - the economy grew and inflation subsided

Bush 41 raised taxes - recession followed, he was voted out of office

Clinton cut taxes the economy grew

Bush 43 cut taxes the economy grew after 9/11

The housing bubble burst crushing banks and lending institutions. These institutions failed because the loans they made were not being paid because they were forced to make them to people who could not pay them back. They were forced to make loans for political purposes without regard to the ability of the borrower to pay.

Democrat economic policy is based on the premise that taxation does NOT effect the behavior of the consumer. They believe that increased taxes will mean increased government revenue and that the effects are pretty much linear.

While Dem lawmakers may say that they want to increase taxes on something like cigarettes to discourage smoking their budgetary assumptions are that the taxes will not effect demand.

Similarly, they assume that other taxes will not effect behavior. they assume that consumers who have less money to spend will continue to spend as they did before. They assume that corporations will not pass increase tax burdens on to consumers.

Increased taxes are a burden on the economy not a help. Government spending can help a little but not as well as cutting taxes. Government spending has to go through the filter of government bureaucracy and waste before it gets out to the economy. Cutting taxes puts money directly in the hands of the consumer and therefore more directly back into the economy. Government also vastly overpays for productivity so the result is less actual economic activity for the dollars that do reach the economy.

Half the world has spent the last 20 years trying to fix the damage done by over taxation and government control of the economy.

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence".

Vic is a very good Party member. He ignores the root Democratic Party cause of the recession, and their control of Congress from 2007 through today as the major influence on the recession. In doing so, he also ignores the unprecedented growth following the Bush tax cuts, restoring the economy after the double impact of the Dot-Com failures and 9/11.

Vic is worthless as an economist, but that just makes him a valuable tool for the Party as well. I do pity his sort.

"Bush lowered the top tax rates for the rich and 7 years later our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression."

Here I thought you were going to blame Reagan, Vic.

By the same token, Bill Clinton raised taxes and now 10 years later, our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression.

Oh.

Here's a thought: maybe what's happening to our economy has something to do with congressional spending, or the elimination of mortgage lending standards caused by ACORN and Congress...

The AP has joined in and has rushed out a nearly-800 word article. It's 20 paragraphs long.

Waaaaay down at paragraph 19 you'll FINALLY find this:

The measure would be paid for through a variety of tax increases and spending cuts, including savings of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, the federal health care program for seniors.

That's right...way at the bottom after you've stopped reading you find that they're hiking taxes and, ludicrously, calling Medicare cuts "savings".

This is the media pushback against the conservative rallies, they're finally trying to organize themselves around Obama - you've probably noticed that there have been a number of lead stories lately about Obama's "improving" poll numbers (since he's been out sight they've "stabilized" - he's still trending negative, though, which they don't usually bother to mention) and less-accurate polling groups finding "support" for the health care takeover (never mind that Rasmussen's polls of likely voters finds no such thing), and, even worse, giant stories about Obama's "silent majority" - you know, all these Obama and health care takeover supporters that are all for socializing America, but just aren't saying or doing anything to show it and actually saying the opposite in polls for kicks.

There has been a very notable uptick this week in those stories - it is COORDINATED (it has to be) even if not in any top-down way and it is fierce (they're not even bothering to be truthful). It is VERY important to keep up the chatter - not just online but in real life (remember that?). That means if friends, family, or co-workers are talking about any of this and repeat any of the disinformation, make sure you are not afraid to chime in with the facts - the tax hikes, the cuts to Medicare, the nearly-trillion dollar cost that is likely off by trillions like most government program estimates, the fact that cuts and taxes kick in right away but the benefits not for several years...plus that little issue of being forced to change your health plan (unless your insurer never EVER makes A SINGLE TINY CHANGE to your plan). Be polite where possible, but don't be silent.

In 10 years if this passes unchallenged and the dems remain in control, this country will look like a third world nation, but with healthcare. People will be looking around going "What the hell happened to the greatest country in the world?"

The answer? The democrats blew all the money on the poor who did not contribute anything to society in exchange. So they raised taxes again on the rich to generate more money to spend on the poor. Pretty soon the Rich either left the country or became poor themselves and middle class and poor people do not create jobs. I have never gotten a job from someone who makes the same amount of money as I do. That just isn't how it works.

Here is an idea. Instead of Stimulus, how about this time you just suspend all federal taxes for all Americans for the next three months?

Let the people keep 100% of what they earn. For me that would mean an extra $300 or so per month to spend or save as I see fit. Take what you make in a month and approximately 10% of it goes to federal taxes depending on dependents and other claims.

How frickin sweet would that be? It would cost the government NOTHING to do and be a hell of a lot more effective than creating artwork, building a swimming pool etc etc etc. How much does it cost them to send out tax rebate checks? The ink and paper costs alone have to be huge to send checks to everyone.

Here is the problem. If you let people keep all of their pay for 3 months, they might get used to it. And then there would be a tax revolt and OMG we might have to go to a system like the fair tax!

In any case, history proves that the only way for the Federal Government to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes. In other words. GET THE F*** Out of the way of business!

It's fun watching conservative heads explode all over the Innertubes today as word comes that the health care reform bill now under consideration actually REDUCES the deficit.

Falsey said: ."The measure would be paid for through a variety of tax increases and spending cuts, including savings of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, the federal health care program for seniors.

That's right...way at the bottom after you've stopped reading you find that they're hiking taxes and, ludicrously, calling Medicare cuts "savings"."

No, that would be YOU falsely calling Medicare savings "cuts".

There won't be any cuts. That's just Falsey living up to his name. The savings will come from streamlining management via an overhaul and from reducing abuse.

Why are you lying and claiming there will be Meidcare cuts, Falsey?

It's all Republicans lies - the GOP actually tried to do away with Medicare just a few months ago:

Protecting Medicare? No, these Republicans voted to end the program, throwing our seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, whose practices include denial, termination of coverage for pre-existing conditions, discrimination and sky-high fees for the elderly.

Now the same Republicans who tried to kill Medicare in the spring want us to think they're embracing it this fall?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28048.html#ixzz0TMuk1GT6

Now they are SO concerned about Medicare. Why? Because they think they can scare the crap out of seniors by lying and claiming there will be Medicare cuts, that's why.

Wow, you haven't been paying attention at ALL have you?

Hey steve, can you tell us WHY we cannot do this thing in steps? Why can we not fix Medicare first? Why can't we have TORT reform first? Why can't we allow health insurers to cross state lines first?

Doing everything at once is just a powergrab by the Democrats and sell out Republicans. What this country needs is a new alternative party and for people to all believe that their vote for the new party actually counts. I am voting neither Dem nor Rep any longer unless there is not another choice. In which case I am voting out the incumbant even if it means voting democrat.

"substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services" And they'll do this without cuts by...?

"$16 billion in additional revenues from certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions" How exactly will they get revenue from Medicare without cuts? Is Medicare a money-maker for the government?

"Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare's payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector" Reductions are apparently not "cuts" to the left.

"Reducing Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients" Reductions, again, are apparently not "cuts" to the left.

"Reductions in subsidies for non-Medicare benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans" Reductions to Medicare Advantage are apparently not Medicare "cuts" to the left.

"Reductions in subsidies of premiums charged by Part D plans" Reductions to Medicare Part D are apparently not Medicare "cuts" to the left.

"The projected savings for the proposal reflect the cumulative impact of a number of specifications that would constrain payment rates for providers of Medicare services. In particular, the proposal would increase payment rates for physicians' services for 2010, but those rates would be reduced by about 25 percent for 2011 and then remain at current-law levels (that is, as specified under the SGR) for subsequent years." Reductions by 25% reimbursing physicians in 2011 (before the plan even goes into effect) are apparently not "cuts" to the left.

"Under the proposal, increases in payment rates for many other providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care)." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! As long as the moon is made of green cheese we'll never starve!

"The update to Medicare's payment rates for 2015 would be subject to an additional reduction of 0.2 percentage points (on top of the 1.75 percentage-point reduction specified in the mark); furthermore, after application of the additional reductions (of 1.75 percentage points for 2011 through 2014 and 1.95 percentage points for 2015), the update could be negative." Reductions in what the government will pay labs for Medicare patients are apparently not "cuts" to the left.

I see our liberal buddies are sounding edgy trying to defend and block the indefensible. I am loving it.

Only in the liberal world does "rich" people pay their share. Even their liberal lion Kennedy knew better. Rich people are rich because they are no stupid. Any cost thrown on them or their businesses is passed right on to the consumer.

Oh yea! Steve, I want to help you with your history deficit. Democrats have had total control of appropriations and oversight for 3 years now. If you even knew how government works you would find your party hurt the economy. Thank you very much. ww

Making insurance more expensive will drive many into the Gov't plan. That is what they want. They would rather us see it as a decision we made rather than mandating it. A Trojan Horse of a sort. This legislation is not about health CARE it is about government control of the health system and the insurance industry and every aspect of our lives. Look at all the things they can mandate under the guise of health care. Junk food, cigarettes, guns, what we watch, how we discipline our children. It could all be added to 'for the good of the people' thus health care.

As for the financial crisis. Alinsky, never waste a good crisis. Make one up if needed. I don't blame Bush any more than the Dem controlled congress. Funny how the bubble burst right before elections. If Soros hadn't pulled all his money out right then, there would have been no crisis. The housing problem needed fixed and Bush urged action over 15 times in the past 8 yrs and each time it was blocked by the Dems. That tells me this is exactly what they wanted.

it seems to me that the plan is as it always has been, to "reduce the cost" by simply paying health care providers (ie hospitals and their employees) less and less money. By creating a single payer system Obama can dictate what health care is worth and even if what he pays doesn't cover the cost he doesn't really care.

He will take 18% of the economy and run it into the ground by paying less than inflation for its product. As time goes on a segment of the economy that grew at a higher rate than average will be brought to its knees.

In other words Obama and Baucus and their friends propose to make the economy better by taking 18% of it and deliberately shrinking it. The 'savings' will be swallowed up by government and never make it into the economy.

Obama is an ass and a fool.

"Under the proposal, increases in payment rates for many other providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care)."

I would love to see this explained to all the nurse's unions that there will be no more wage increases because future increases in payments or services will be held below the rate of inflation.

There won't be any doctors. There won't be any nurses. There won't be any hospitals.

And health care will come from where?

Don't you remember last week's headlines? The recession has made people healthier, no need for health care. Kill the economy, save the people!

As Bill Jacobson points out, there is no Baucus Bill. The CBO scored the "concepts."

Which means absolutely nothing until you see the nitty gritty, and Pelosi doesn't want you to see the nitty gritty.

vic - "Bush lowered the top tax rates for the rich and 7 years later our nation was plunged into the worst recession since the depression."

First of all can you give proof of that cause and efffect?

Secondly, did you have to add the lie "worst recession since the depression?" Were you lying, or just have a piss-poor memory module and fail to recall the Carter years?

s green - "Now they are SO concerned about Medicare. Why? Because they think they can scare the crap out of seniors by lying and claiming there will be Medicare cuts, that's why."

So, it's a lie medicare cuts will happen? Got proof?

More blather from s green - "It's fun watching conservative heads explode all over the Innertubes today as word comes that the health care reform bill now under consideration actually REDUCES the deficit."

Again, got proof? I expect what you're seeing more than anything else is conservative belly laughter as obama-bots and lemmings such as yourself try to pass off the Senate Finance Committee bill as anything close to FINAL.

The real question is why did the CBO even score this "bill"when it's essentially a concept vice anything close to what will result after merging with the other 4 bills in congress.

Why not ask that question s green, afraid to lose street cred with moron.org, media splatters and msnbc?

Also Marc, maybe Stevie Greeny can enlighten us as to why the democratic leadership including Obama is trying to hide the bill from review? Also, I would like Stevie to explain how the government (I am trying not to laugh) will find billions in fraud and waste to pay for most of this bill. I always knew liberals were kumbaya type people, but the latest bunch of liberals are also stupid. ww

truth: the shining light that drives trolls back under their bridges.