Care Wars: The Empire Strikes Back!

…in which Boehner Fett digs himself a hole.

Have you ever been to a four-hour movie that went on about three hours too long? And then marveled at the audacity and stupidity of the studio for making a sequel?

Well, you can’t entirely blame them. The studio was purchased by a different consortium, and they hired a new director, who is certain that changing everything will get the public on his side.

So it is with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly known as “Health Care Reform.”
The debate went on far too long. Pundits and politicians on all sides confidently stated, several times between March of ’09 and March of ’10, that the bill was dead—but it never seemed to die. Most Americans were bored and exhausted by the time the final vote came.

President Obama signed it into law on March 30, 2010. That should have been the end of the drama. But no. The 2010 elections lay ahead, and then the 112th Congress, like the dreaded inevitable movie sequel made by the media whores who just can’t seem to milk that cash cow enough.

When Speaker Boehner convened the 112th Congress, the first item of business consisted of a series of votes and debates on whether to repeal PPACA. Believe it or not, the title of this farce is (I’m not making this up) “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law.” How’s that for Theater of the Absurd?

Why this nonsense about jobs in the bill’s title? Because the 2010 election was all about voter anger at the slow rate of job recovery from the Republican Great Recession. The new Republican-led House of Representatives feared that admitting it was avoiding the issue of jobs would be political suicide. So their spin doctors came up with this ridiculous title.

Which means we must ask the question: Will anyone in the public—other than Republican partisans who would never admit it—be fooled by the misdirection? Or is this title merely pandering to the already-captivated base? Is it a mask to cover the Republicans’ utter lack of any ideas on how to create jobs? Are Boehner & Company actually going to fool anyone? Personally, I have no idea.

Now, let us recall that the Republicans established new rules for the 112th Congress. One rule prohibits disallowal of amendments to bills. Yet they are disallowing amendments to this bill. Another requires that every bill must include the specific provision of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass the bill. This bill does not. They also now require that every bill be paid for by canceling something else. The CBO scored this bill as adding over $200 billion to the national debt, yet the Republicans are including no offsets whatever. The repeal of PPACA—the first official act of the 112th Congress—is an exercise in hypocrisy.

This bill, even after the Republicans expidite it through the House (with limited debate, and no allowed amendments), will have zero chance of passing the Senate. It probably won’t even be put on the schedule for debate. It may not make it out of a single committee. And it would most certainly meet the veto pen of the President. So this bill is not only an exercise in hypocrisy, but also an exercise in futility.

Writing, debating, and voting on this bill in the House, therefore, is a complete and utter waste of time—and, therefore, a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Why are the Republicans doing this? What purpose does it serve? Don’t they have anything better to do? Maybe it is simply a stalling tactic; after all, the Republicans showed in the 111th Congress that they were willing—maybe even eager—to allow none of the work of governing to be done at all. Maybe this is simply their way of making sure nothing gets done for a couple of weeks.

Originally, the debate and the vote were scheduled to happen the week of January 10–14. But the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords on January 8 led Speaker Boehner to put everything on hold for a week. Why did he do that? Was it purely a matter of respect for those gunned down and injured in this terrible tragedy? Were there political considerations as well?

Since the shooting, there has been a national discussion on the tone of recent American political rhetoric. Few issues in the last 30 years—perhaps none since the Vietnam War and the civil rights marches of the 1960’s—have inspired such virulent and vitriolic rhetoric.

Will the tone of the Boehner Debate on PPACA repeal be toned down, more civil than the nasty and vile and dishonest screaming of 2009 and early 2010? Or did Boehner wait a week in order to get some distance, in hopes that the political distortions and lies about “death panels” and “socialism” and “gubmint takeover of health care” might seem less tone-deaf?

There are some further problems with optics. Is it really smart for the Republicans to give the Democrats another chance to defend the PPACA? Granted, the Democrats didn’t do a very good job last time of making their case before the public—or rather, the Republicans did a much better job of distorting what was in the bill. But now that people are seeing positive benefits from PPACA, and now that Democrats are a) more united, and b) better informed about Republican misinformation, it’s going to be easy to present the Republicans as moving to take away things the public wants: protection from pre-existing condition exclusions, removal of annual and lifetime limits on benefits, the ability to have one’s 25-year-old son or daughter on one’s insurance, protection for seniors from the Medicare prescription drug donut hole, et cetera. Aren’t the Republicans going to simply look unforgivably mean and unflinchingly cruel?

Plus, this isn’t merely a one-vote process. The Republicans, realizing America wants health care reform, are planning to go through the entire process of 2009 again. After voting to repeal PPACA, they intend to assemble a series of further bills to replace it with. And they expect that process to take another whole year! If you were exhausted after the first installment of the series, and if this second installment (repeal) leaves you cold, just wait until the third episode of the trilogy. After spending all of 2009 on health care reform, and after wasting the first few weeks of the 112th Congress on a useless and meaningless repeal vote, the Republicans want to spend another year re-debating the issue. What a waste of taxpayer money! How many Americans are going to tolerate that?

Granted, many Republicans did run on a promise to repeal the PPACA. Of course, it was a cynically empty promise, since even if the Republicans had gained control of the Senate (a very long shot at best), the President would still have vetoed the bill—and the Republicans had no hope whatever of gaining a majority in either house large enough to override the veto. So perhaps it could be argued that the Republicans are going through this senseless waste of time just to be able to claim they kept their promise to try.

Nonetheless, a majority of the public now wants to either keep PPACA as is, or extend and enhance it. Only a minority wants repeal. So would the Republicans be hurting themselves more by forcing the vote, or by going back on their campaign promise? Would they do better politically to tick off their base—or everyone else?

What do you think?


About dcpetterson

D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He lives with his wife, two dogs, a cat, and two lizards, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts for fun.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Care Wars: The Empire Strikes Back!

  1. shortchain says:

    It gets better. You know those replacement bills? They really don’t have any firm idea as to what will be in them. They’ve been asked, but they apparently can’t (or won’t) say.

    But, since there’s no way the repeal will go anywhere, it’s probably good enough kabuki to entertain the target audience.

  2. Bart DePalma says:

    A Guide to Obamacare Repeal

    Why have a House vote on repeal?

    To show that a bipartisan supermajority support repeal, setting the backdrop for the next moves. This puts the lie to the argument that a majority of voters do not want repeal.

    Harry Reid won’t bring the repeal bill to a vote?

    First, why is Reid afraid to bring the bill to a vote? It wouldn’t have to do with the 20+ Dem senators up for reelection, would it? This puts the lie to the argument that a majority of voters do not want repeal.

    Next, amend it to every funding measure important to the Dems. The GOP only needs four Red State Dems to join in to enact the amendment. Otherwise, their vote against repeal is the subject of commercials in their states.

    This will only give the Dems a second chance to sell Obamacare.

    Please do. The Dems will try to resell Obamacare by pointing out a handful of mandates. The GOP should respond by noting how much your insurance rates went up several hundred dollars this year to meet those mandates. The information has been filed with states insurance rate regulators.

    Have CBO run the cost of Obamacare after it is fully enacted over a decade with all unidentified Medicare cuts and other unidentified “savings” removed from the calculation.

    Obamacare was the most toxic issue for Dems in the 2010 election. The GOP would LOVE to replay 2010 in 2011.

  3. Bartbuster says:

    To show that a bipartisan supermajority support repeal, setting the backdrop for the next moves. This puts the lie to the argument that a majority of voters do not want repeal.

    Blankshot loves polls until they don’t conform with his views, then they are just lies.

  4. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma said:
    “Why have a House vote on repeal?
    To show that a bipartisan supermajority support repeal, setting the backdrop for the next moves. This puts the lie to the argument that a majority of voters do not want repeal.”

    How does having the House vote on something show what “a majority of the voters” wants? You’ve been saying on other threads that we should not have a representative republican democracy. The only indication of what “a majority of the voters wants” is an opinion poll, isn’t that so?

    Contradict yourself much?

  5. Bart DePalma says:

    Once again, the only polls which count in political calculations are those of likely voters – not registered voters or adults – as the Dems learned yet again in 2010.

    Nate’s early RV calculations of a 30-40 seat Dem loss make amusing post-election reading.

  6. Bart DePalma says:

    NI:

    The only poll that counts is the election. GOP+63 on a campaign to repeal Obamacare speaks the loudest.

    Now that we are out of the election season, Ras and the internal party polls are the only ones polling LVs. Ras shows no change in the 55% of LVs who want repeal.

    When a bipartisan supermajority votes for repeal of Obamacare, you will see a pretty good reflection of the first to indicators.

    This vote will be in stark comparison to the Dem votes bribing a bare majority of members to vote on a bill they had not read.

  7. shortchain says:

    Actually, Bart’s statement about how a bipartisan supermajority vote to repeal would “put the lie” to polling is in perfect alignment with his comments on a recent thread that representatives should only implement the will of the people. To understand his comment today versus his comments yesterday you have to understand the following: When representatives vote, as in the “repeal” of the PPACA, against the will of their constituents, as demonstrated by polling, it’s proof that the polling was in error. Or that the polling of the public doesn’t matter, it’s only likely voters whose opinion matters. On the other hand, when the representatives vote on things Bart doesn’t like, but a majority of the public does, the polling is what matters, not how many representatives vote for the measure.

    See how simple that was? All that is necessary to see the lack of hypocrisy is to remember that, no matter which way he talks, Bart is always right. If you accept that premise, the apparent hypocrisy vanishes.

    I’m now prepared to answer DC’s question:
    — on whether the vote to repeal will hurt the GOP with their base, the answer is a resounding “NO!” Their base now consists of people like Bart so confused or delusional that no reality or logic will penetrate their “bubbles of unreality”.

  8. shortchain says:

    Oh, and Bart? If the members had not read the bill before they voted for it — do you think they’ve read it in the interim?

    I suspect not. That means they’ll be voting for a bill they haven’t read, since the current bill is just the complement of the other.

  9. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma opined:
    “Once again, tcare those of likely voters – not registered voters or adults – as the Dems learned yet again in 2010.”

    The only polls that count are elections. There are no voters until there are votes. In 2008, a supermajority of voters wanted Democrats to represent them for the period 2009-2010. If you opposed the policies that the Democrats advanced in 2009-2010, then you opposed the will of a supermajority of the voters. Stop opposing the will of the voters, you totalitarian you.

    You say “the only polls which count in political calculations…” But this isn’t just politics. It is people’s lives. Clearly, you don’t care about that. I get that you care only about politics, and not actual lives. But if you’re asking about someone’s life, then perhaps even people whom you personally don’t consider to be “likely voters” might have a legitimate opinion.

    The Constitution begins with the words “We the People,” not “We the Likely Voters Identified by Rasmussen.” If you ignore the unlikely voters (or even the non-voters) then you are stomping on the Will of the People, by limiting it to the Will of the Elite Minority Whom You Have Identified As Likely Voters. Stop being an enemy of democracy.

    Now, I’ve got work to do. Maybe chatting more tonight.

  10. Bartbuster says:

    Once again, the only polls which count in political calculations are those of likely voters – not registered voters or adults – as the Dems learned yet again in 2010.

    Blankshot, I’m looking at recent poll numbers on the healthcare bill, and they don’t appear to support repeal.

  11. Bart DePalma says:

    sc:

    No amount of spin can avoid these facts:

    The voters put the GOP into power on a campaign of repeal.

    The Dems who voted for Obamacare in swing districts ran from their votes.

    Voters still fired nearly every Dems who voted for Obamacare in swing districts.

  12. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    No amount of assertion will prove your statements in the absence of actual facts — that “it was the economy, stupid”.

  13. Bartbuster says:

    The voters put the GOP into power on a campaign of repeal.

    Judging by the recent poll numbers the voters have changed their minds.

    Or do poll numbers only count when they support what you believe?

  14. Realist says:

    Bart,

    No amount of spin can avoid these facts:
    The voters put the GOP into power on a campaign of repeal.

    Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, the Republicans did campaign on repealing PPACA (they also campaigned on several other things). Exit polls suggested that it wasn’t healthcare that was the primary motivator for their votes, however.

    The Dems who voted for Obamacare in swing districts ran from their votes.

    And lost anyway. So maybe it was something other than PPACA that cost them their jobs.

    Voters still fired nearly every Dems who voted for Obamacare in swing districts.

    You mean like Bobby Bright? Oh, wait, he voted against PPACA and lost his seat anyway. Same with Travis Childers, Michael Arcuri, Rick Boucher, Lincoln Davis, Chet Edwards, Stephanie Sandlin, Jim Marshall, Michael McMahon, Walt Minnick, Glenn Nye, Ike Skelton, Zack Space, and Gene Taylor.

    In other words, the vote on PPACA doesn’t seem to have made any difference.

  15. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: No amount of assertion will prove your statements in the absence of actual facts — that “it was the economy, stupid”.

    The GOP lost only 27 seats in 1982 with a worse economy.

    Here is an analysis of the effect voting for Obamacare and other Obama policies had on the vote for Dem incumbents.

    Eric McGhee, “Did Controversial Roll Call Votes Doom the Democrats?” The Monkey Cage blog (November 4, 2010).

    http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11/did_controversial_roll_call_vo.html

  16. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, I thought you relied on poll numbers to determine “tyranny”? What happened to that plan?

  17. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma claimed:
    “The GOP lost only 27 seats in 1982 with a worse economy.”

    You may be the only person on the planet who claims the economy in 1982 was worse than in 2008 – 2010. The Voters disagree with you. It makes you look very silly.

  18. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma showed us:
    “Here is an analysis of the effect voting for Obamacare and other Obama policies had on the vote for Dem incumbents.”

    I’m more interested in the effect these votes had on the nation. For instance, 30 million people with a chance at access to healthcare. The ability of insurance companies to screw us with pre-existing conditions is reduced. And so on. It is a true patriot who puts the country and its people ahead of politics, or even ahead of his own employment. It is something other than a patriot who does the reverse.

    Are we so concerned with how a thing looks that we now ignore what it is?

  19. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “The GOP lost only 27 seats in 1982 with a worse economy.”

    NotImpressed: You may be the only person on the planet who claims the economy in 1982 was worse than in 2008 – 2010.

    You may be too young to recall the Misery Index. Compare the unemployment rate, the interest rate and the inflation rate in October 1982 and October 2010.

    BD: “Here is an analysis of the effect voting for Obamacare and other Obama policies had on the vote for Dem incumbents.”

    NotImpressed: I’m more interested in the effect these votes had on the nation. For instance, 30 million people with a chance at access to healthcare.

    Actually, once illegals, the wealthy and those switching jobs are removed, only about 20 million Americans chronically go without health insurance. Most of these are young folks who only need but because of government mandates cannot access catastrophic insurance.

    The ability of insurance companies to screw us with pre-existing conditions is reduced.

    Obamacare set up high risk pools and only a tiny fraction of the projected beneficiaries purchased it.

    The mandate to provide insurance to children with preexisting conditions resulted in insurers stopping the sale of child only policies. The problem with allowing people to hop onto insurance when they get sick and then hoping off when they get well is that it destroys the insurance model of everyone paying in to pay for the small fraction who get ill. Romneycare imposed a similar rule and nearly all off the insurers have left the state. Of course, driving private insurers out of business was always part of the Obama plan.

  20. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma:

    Re: 2008-2009 to earlier years, read a few economists. I’m afraid I have not found a single one that agrees with you. In addition to the factors you mention, there is the near-complete collapse of the intentional banking system and much of the rest of the world economy. 2008 was comparable to the late 1920’s, and you seem to stand alone in arguing differently. I will ignore anything else on that particular topic, since your position is so obviously absurd.

    Re: people who don’t need insurance. This is the only way insurance works. Many people pay in, the ones who get sick or injured draw out. That is the whole point. What you seem to want is simply everyone paying his or her own way. That doesn’t work. Which is why we have insurance. Duh.

    Re: high-risk pools and children with pre-existing conditions. There are many reasons why people haven’t signed up for high-risk pools. And the reaction of insurance companies to the rules about children shows exactly why we have to regulate those bastards. This is a good argument in favor of a universal single-payer system paid for through some kind of universal flat tax (with credits or exemptions for low income). Thank you for making that argument.

  21. Bart DePalma says:

    NotImpressed says: In addition to the factors you mention, there is the near-complete collapse of the intentional banking system and much of the rest of the world economy. 2008 was comparable to the late 1920′s…

    Near collapses are not collapses. In late 2008, the banking system experienced a liquidity crisis because banks would not lend daily operating money to one another because of a fear that the borrowing bank might have hidden garbage mortgages in their collateral. The crisis actually passed in about a month when the Fed lent the banks whatever operating funds they needed until the banks obtained largely overseas private loans. By the time TARP was enacted, the crisis was largely past.

    Because of the Fed’s action, there was nothing approaching the bank collapse of the Great Depression. Your analogy is mistaken.

    More to the point, there is no evidence that the near bank failure of 2008 affected a single vote two years later. It did manage to help elect Barack Obama and add to the Dem congressional majority in 2008, though.

  22. filistro says:

    The fatal error for the GOP is voting to repeal without offering any alternatives or fixes to the health care problem. What could more vividly exemplify their childish “Just Say NO!” approach to governing? Even many thoughtful pundits on the right (including virtually the entire staff at NRO) have at one time or another cautioned against doing this. But the congressional Republicans are unable to offer reasonable alternatives because, of course, if such animals existed they would already have been rounded up and put to work.

    As for the “mandate” causing people to be “forced” to pay for others… what utter nonsense. If people without insurance are in a catastrophic accident, they still get treatment. Where does the money come from to pay for it? In GOP La-La Land, perhaps it just drifts gently down from the sky on the tail of a shiny pink balloon? Of course not. It comes from others who are managing their lives responsibly and are nevertheless FORCED to also pay for the treatment of the uninsured. At least with the mandate, this burden is shared equally instead of falling disproportionately on the ones who chose to manage their finances with prudence and foresight.

  23. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma, as I said, I’m going to ignore your silliness about the economy. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

    Lunch break’s over for me, back to work …

  24. NotImpressed says:
  25. Brian says:

    In regards to the name of this bill,

    Does anyone think historians are going to look at the names of these bills and laugh at us? I feel like in 5 years the only laws that stand a chance at passing are going to be so filled with buzzwords it’ll read like “The Anti-Death Panel Pro American Patriot Bill to Save our Soldiers from the Evils of Terrorism”. And it’ll be a bill for roads or something.

  26. filistro says:

    Oh c’mon, Brian! What kind of lame political analysis is that?

    It’ll REALLY be called “The Anti-Death Panel Pro American Patriot Bill to Save our Soldiers from the Evils of Terrorism and Keep Mean People From Hurting Puppies.”

    It’ll still be about roads, though 😉

  27. shortchain says:

    Brian,

    No, sorry, you can’t use that for roads. That name is already scheduled for the repeal of Social Security.

  28. Number Seven says:

    Open message to GOP: It has been over two weeks. Were are the JOBS!!!

  29. filistro says:

    Bill Frist obviously got the memo from the conservative thought leaders… or he is seriously out of the Tea Party Froot Loop.

    Dr. Frist wants to give the Obama Health Care Bill a big cuddle, a snuggle…

    “But it is the law of the land and it is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make that system better, for that patient, for that family, will be based. And that is a fact,” he continued. “I know the discussion of Washington is repeal and I’m sure we will come back to that discussion.”

    “[The bill] has many strong elements,” Frist added. “And those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented. But how do you do it? How do you do a lot of what is in this law?”

  30. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro says: The fatal error for the GOP is voting to repeal without offering any alternatives or fixes to the health care problem.

    This erroneously assumes first that government is the solution rather than the problem, second that folks want the government to change their health insurance and finally that the GOP did not offer and is not offering legislation to get the government out of the business of increasing the cost of heath insurance.

    The GOP is offering tort reform and free interstate trade in insurance which bypasses state mandates which both have been artificially driving up the cost of health insurance.

  31. Bart DePalma says:

    NotImpressed says: Mr. DePalma, as I said, I’m going to ignore your silliness about the economy. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

    In short, you have no rebuttal to the facts if offered.

    Lunch break’s over for me, back to work …

    NotImpressed says: A couple of cool graphs.

    Too bad the basis for those graphs are two lies: (1) a projection of $500 billion in Mediare cuts which do not exist and (2) ten years of imaginary cuts against only five years of Obamacare. Additionally, the graphs do not include among the costs your surging health insurance premiums for 2011 to pay for just the first wave of Obamacare mandates.

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  32. NotImpressed says:

    DePalma:
    “Too bad the basis for those graphs are two lies:”

    Too bad your “facts” are all invented or misleading.

    “(1) a projection of $500 billion in Mediare cuts which do not exist”

    Very strange. During the health care debate, the Republicans made a big deal out of how the Democrats were slashing Medicare. Now they insist there are no Medicare cuts in PPACA. They just can’t get their lies straight. There is, in fact $500 billion in Medicare savings through things like more reasonable reimbursements. They’re not “cuts”, so you’re right about that. But the savings are there. Too bad for you.

    “(2) ten years of imaginary cuts against only five years of Obamacare.”

    Another common lie. Actually, projecting an additional five years of PPACA yields a savings to the deficit of an additional trillion dollars. Not so good for your argument.

    “Additionally, the graphs do not include among the costs your surging health insurance premiums for 2011 to pay for just the first wave of Obamacare mandates.”

    In 2009, the average insurance premium for a family went up 5% from 2008. In 2010, it went up an estimated 3% (from $13,375 to $13,770).

    For 2011, the first year of PPACA? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust, overall premiums paid by employer and employee combined for the past year only rose an average of 3% for families.

    In other words, nothing out of the ordinary. The real cost savings are down the road, and the “surging health insurance premiums for 2011” didn’t happen. In selected markets, yes (and I’m sure you’ll share that). But that always happens. (Yet more reason to regulate the bastards.)

    Revealing the lies about PPACA is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  33. NotImpressed says:

    Adding to my previous comment, the last link also has the passage, Health care costs are expected to increase between 9% and 12% for the coming year. In order to lessen that increase, 57% of employers plan to pass the costs on to their workers.

    Health care costs continue to rise. This is due mostly to A) an aging population, B) he number of people on insurance has been dropping so emergency room costs have skyrocketed, and C) newer and more expensive technologies, and D) people losing their jobs, which has reduced the preventative care. Note that none of this has anything to do with PPACA, and the health care costs would have risen this much anyway.

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “In short, you have no rebuttal to the facts if offered.

    No, in short, no rebuttal necessary to the babbling of an lying ass, who sets forth false premises and assertions as “facts”. Any rebuttals would only give some credence to person asserting. Person asserting has a history of ignoring generally accepted facts in favor of ideological assertions.

    “Who elects the President?”
    Was Reagan guilty of cutting and running in Lebanon?
    etc., etc., etc..

  35. filistro says:

    Meanwhile, in the real world, where life is actual verifiable reality instead of smoke and mirrors and “paper moons floating over cardboard seas”…. Obama reaches 50% in the RCP presidential approval AVERAGE for the first time in a year.

    During the corresponding week in Reagan’s first term, the Gipper was at 35%.

    Now there’s a Tea Party Pooper if there ever was one! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    And yet the GOP thinks it’s a winner to “repeal health care.” (As my smallest granddaughter would say… “Silly gooses!”)

  36. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Too bad the basis for those graphs are two lies:
    (1) a projection of $500 billion in Mediare cuts which do not exist”

    NotImpressed says: There is, in fact $500 billion in Medicare savings through things like more reasonable reimbursements. They’re not “cuts”, so you’re right about that. But the savings are there. Too bad for you.

    The Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka the Death Panel) has not offered an such cuts.

    Congress had the chance to make headway on these cuts by declining to enact the Doc Fix. They declined to do so.

    BD: “(2) ten years of imaginary cuts against only five years of Obamacare.”

    NotImpressed says: Another common lie. Actually, projecting an additional five years of PPACA yields a savings to the deficit of an additional trillion dollars.

    You are free to provide a cite to anyone who claims that Obamacare over its first ten years of full effect (2014-2023) will reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089702354292100.html

    “Additionally, the graphs do not include among the costs your surging health insurance premiums for 2011 to pay for just the first wave of Obamacare mandates.”

    In 2009, the average insurance premium for a family went up 5% from 2008. In 2010, it went up an estimated 3% (from $13,375 to $13,770).

    BS.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html

  37. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma,

    Gosh, insurance companies, who are about to be regulated because of their dishonest practices, are trying to blame premium increases on the regulations. Who didn’t see that coming?

    Sorry, I’m ….. not impressed.

    And since you used the phrase “death panel” as if you believe in such things, you’ve identified yourself as unworthy of contact with rational and sane society. Please get some better meds. The real world is somewhat beyond your ken. You get the last word. I’m done with responding to your fantasies.

  38. NotImpressed says:

    A correction to my previous statement. The CBO estimated PPACA would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. Sorry for the previous error. I mistook “decades” for the five-year periods of Mr. DePalma’s false assertions.

  39. drfunguy says:

    “So would the Republicans be hurting themselves more by forcing the vote, or by going back on their campaign promise? Would they do better politically to tick off their base—or everyone else?”
    American voters are fickle and short-memoried. Think early stage Alzheimer’s plus ADD (apologies to ADD /early Alzheimer’s sufferers). I doubt very much that anything happening now will have much impact on the next election cycle. Much more important will be what’s happening with jobs and other aspects of the economy. And who gets credited/blamed for same. World events and who gets credited/blamed (mostly blamed because nothing good happening outside of the US is relevant to the American voter in their eyes). It really doesn’t much matter who they tick off _now_, maybe 18 months from now…

  40. dcpetterson says:

    drfunguy
    I doubt very much that anything happening now will have much impact on the next election cycle.

    I suspect you’re right, and this may be part of why the Republicans are doing this now. They can read a poll as well as anyone (and better than some), and no doubt they’ve seen the opposition to PPACA waning, support growing. They may hope that making a useless gesture will mollify their base, and will be forgotten by everyone else.

    Meanwhile, Obama is approaching the Republicans with invitations to help improve upon the new PPACA legislation. He’s been doing that all along, of course (which is why there were well over a hundred Republican amendments in the original bill). But this is a chance both to help move the country along this path that the public wants, while at the same time being able to tell their base they’re “fixing things” since the Senate won’t go along with repeal.

  41. erik says:

    Going back o Bart’s 10:58 ref to Reagan’s “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Reagan wasn’t referring to anything but the economic crisis at the time. Without the qualifying phrase “In this present crisis” the statement is bumper sticker BS that only the likes of Grover Nordquist (he of ‘drowning government in the bathtub’ infamy) could appreciate. It’s pure anarchic drivel spouted by soft-headed bots.

    Government wasn’t the problem with the healthcare system before health care reform was signed into law. Many of the “problems” addressed by the law were part of the problem. Even more needs to be done, and it’s obvious that the free market system can’t or won’t do it. I came on this from Kevin Drum today: “There is simply no acceptable free market solution to healthcare. There;s only a free market solution if you’re willing to let lots of poor people get sick and die. Which most of us [I don’t believe KD was speaking for the Bartster here 🙂 ] arent.”

  42. Bart DePalma says:

    NI:

    In most states, insurance companies have to provide regulators with the basis for any rate increase. The insurers did just that for the Obamacare mandates.

    Did you actually think that mandates requiring coverage of preexisting conditions, coverage for adult children, preventative medicine and elimination of lifetime caps would be free or the ridiculously low 1% prediction of the Dems?

    Wait until the HHS Secretary decrees what package of essential services every insurer must provide by 2014. The Obamacare guidelines require everyone purchase cadillac insurance providing far more than what my wife and I currently purchase. If the Obamacare mandates are not repealed, you might was well get ready to hand over your wallet now.

    I have just finished reviewing the Obamacare legislation, the HHS regs and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommendations to HHS for future regs to outline a chapter in my book summarizing Obamacare’s primary features. Quite contrary to Politifact’s claim that “the government takeover of health care” was the 2010 “Lie of the Year,” Obamacare seizes control over almost every major decision a health insurer can make, including what coverage will and will not be provided, the total payments made under a policy both yearly and lifetime, the deductibles you are permitted to purchase, how long you can keep your current insurance (HHS estimates less that two years for most businesses under its regs), where the insurance can be sold, the size of each policy (HHS is permitting four sizes), whether a company can sell a Medicare supplemental policy (HHS has capped the number), what percentages of company revenues can go to administrative expenses and what are permissible administrative expenses and even whether doctors are permitted to build their own hospitals (they are not).

    Welcome to socialized health care Obama-style.

  43. mclever says:

    Dr. funguy,

    No offense taken! 😉

    Seriously, I think you’re right about the attention span/memory of voters. There might be some political price to pay with the Tea Party base if there isn’t a token effort made to repeal/modify PPACA, but there would be corresponding gains with the saner, more moderate Republican voters who actually like some of the reforms included in the health care legislation.

    If they concentrated on jobs and economic stimulus, I bet they’d win over even more moderates and independents, but I don’t have high hopes for their political sanity. Especially when you have Boehner pulling stunts like skipping the Tuscon event for a bit of political schmoozing instead, or dissing an invitation a White House state dinner honoring Chinese President Hu Jintao.

    http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1101/boehner_declines_state_dinner_invite.html

  44. Bart DePalma says:

    That didn’t take long. Dem Kent Conrad is not running for reelection for his ND Senate seat. Add another GOP seat in 2012.

  45. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Suppose Speaker Boehner had come out on Dec. 28 and said:

    “Folks, now I know all y’all are chomping at the bit on this healthcare repeal business, but let’s be honest. It ain’t goin’ nowhere. Since it costs over a $million per day to run Congress, I think it would be a waste of taxpayers money and the time of Congress to go running down that road, just to have to come running back to the same intersection we started from.
    “Instead, we are going to go ahead and work on the piecemeal approach that we already know we are going to have to do anyway, and save us ALL time and money, instead of doing a bunch of ‘feel good’ wheel spinning.”

    Think about the credibility gain that would have been.

    But no, he’s gotta play to the base just to show partisanship comes before country.

  46. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, I think you’ll find that most Americans don’t have a problem with the government regulating the health insurance industry.

  47. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gallup Poll, Jan 14-16, 95%, 4%+/-:

    Obama; Fav – 53, Unfav – 45, Net +8%

    Palin; Fav – 38, Unfav – 53, Net -15%

    Sorry, Bart.

    But, please, LET HER KEEP TALKING!!!! I gar-on-tee that we DON’T want her to “sit down and shut up”! That’s a total figment of her fertile imagination.

  48. Bartbuster says:

    That didn’t take long. Dem Kent Conrad is not running for reelection for his ND Senate seat. Add another GOP seat in 2012

    Lieberman is also out. +1 for the Dems

  49. Bart DePalma says:

    BB: Lieberman is maybe the last surviving Scoop Jackson Dem. He is no more a Republican than FDR was. The Dem left wants to sacrifice Joe to appease their surrender monkey demi-god. Sounds like a party personal problem to me.

  50. erik says:

    Let’s see. Who do I believe? Bart or Politifact. Hmm. Bart or Politifact. Bart or Politifact. Bart or Politifact. . . . .The choice is almost too funny to dignify with a legitimate answer. But I’ll hazard one anyway. Politifact. For years I’ve heard too much Bart-like truth from the maws of Rush and Glenn and the rest.

    Bart, you’re writing a book. . .
    You likely have all the references and quotations from the PPACA right at hand. Why not provide them so we can analyze your claims . . . ? (From time on the net, I’ve learned to be wary of unsupported claims. One time a guy claimed and I quote: “A spinal cord’s fluid contains a person’s history of all the chemicals they have taken in. Any drugs you have taken can be found in traces there.” Oh the wonders of wordpress archives! He couldn’t provide proof of that claim.The crap some people shovel up will likely live after them while the good will be interred with their bones.

    Does government seize control of the insurance company’s right to terminate my policy for preexisting conditions? I hope so. Does the government seize control of the insurance company’s right to cap my benefits if the cost of my condition threatens their bottom line? I pray so . Does the insurance company lose its right to drop me if I get sick and I threaten their bottom line? Please, God, make it so.

    Why don’t you simply admit that a conservative’s main problem with this health care plan is not government control (God knows we moved pretty far in that direction under our last Republican president) his problem is with money. He thinks it’s going to cost him more than a penny—and his pocketbook is soooo sensitive, no CBO figures or facts of any kind will keep that little leather bugger from twitch-twitch-twitching to the tune “It’s my money.”

    The same shrill bleat we heard when GWB was flying from tent to tent, speaking to cherry-picked audiences, pushing his ill-advised scheme to privatize Social Security. “It’s my money. I should be able to take it out of SS and invest it on my own.”his supporters cried. Then, tThe quintessential conservative lie: “We want to save Social Security. Let’s do it by allowing people to opt out of paying money into the system. You know–so we’ll have even fewer trying unsuccessfully to pay for a larger number.” Yeah. That’ll save the system.

    But saving the system had nothing to do with it. Destroying SS–a system that embodies the concept that We the People have a human responsibility that exists outside our wallets– a responsibility toward our society’s weakest members (the aged, disabled and survivors) WAS the goal. And the same basic liberal conservative clash of world views underlies the Republican fight against PPACA.

    Oh. Second biggest lie of that particular fiasco: GWB saying everything would be on the table during negotiations while simultaneously refusing to allow taking privatization off the table to be an option. If you’ve lost track of that mishmash–which you likely would if you were a Bush supporter– let me explain. In refusing to make dumping privatization an option he took that option off the table. Get it? Everything wasn’t on the table as per his original declaration. Pants on fire.

  51. Bartbuster says:

    Blankshot, Ronnie Raygun was a surrendermonkey. Opposing the Iraq Disaster doesn’t make you a Raygun fan, it just means you’re not an idiot.

  52. Bart DePalma says:

    Erik:

    I am not posting the entire chapter here. You will have to buy the book in hopefully a year to access the content. However, for those who do not want to put in the hours reviewing this horror show (who could blame you), the NAIC has published an excellent chart good through last September covering the major provisions of Obamacare with cross references to sections of the bill and HHS regulations then in effect:

    http://www.naic.org/documents/index_health_reform_general_ppaca_section_by_section_chart.pdf

    BTW, the St Pete Times is the most left leaning paper in FL and Politifact specializes in providing CYA for the Dems. PF claims that the government can not take over health care by simply running nearly every facet of health insurance, but rather Obama needed to nationalize the entire health care system. This is a distinction without any practical difference apart from giving cover to the Dems.

  53. Bart DePalma says:

    Six more states are joining Florida’s 20 state lawsuit against Obamacare.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2011/01/18/six-states-join-health-care-reform.html

    Counting the other individual suits, we are over 30 total states now.

    If they can’t read the Constitution, hopefully the appellate courts can read the election returns.

  54. dcpetterson says:

    @Max aka Birdpilot
    Suppose Speaker Boehner had come out on Dec. 28 and said:

    You’ve gotten at precisely the sort of point I wanted to make. This fetish of the House Republicans is going to hurt them — and it could have been handled a lot better.

    @erik

    You’re right to link PPACA and Social Security. And you’re right, the fear that it might cost money to them personally is a big part of their opposition. Another part, I think is the sheer terror that someone else might benefit from their money is almost paralyzing in its intensity.

  55. dcpetterson says:

    Six more states are joining Florida’s 20 state lawsuit

    How many of those states have Republican governors?

    Can you say, “partisan stunt?”

  56. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Barted*: “If they can’t read the Constitution, hopefully the appellate courts can read the election returns.

    Translation: If they can’t read the Constitution the same way I and about 20% of the country selectively read it so that it fits our ideology, hopefully the appellate courts can read the election returns, even though the Constitution sets that branch apart with lifetime appointments just SO it will not be influenced by the electoral pendulum. Otherwise, if they don’t follow OUR lead we may have to fall back on Second Amendment remedies.

    *barted – verb – utilizing noisy flatulence to cause the appearance of logic without actually having to be logical or consistent. As with the word with which it rhymes, generally noisy, with a temporary foul odor that dissipates over time leaving nothing of value.

  57. NotImpressed says:

    The idea that a Federal appellate court would be swayed by the results of an election is offensive at its core. It is so opposed to the idea of America that it leaves me almost speechless. There’s a reason Federal judges are not elected.

    If Mr. DePalma is a good example of Tea Party people, then they know nothing of the Constitution, or of our history. And have no contact with reason or reality. No wonder they like Palin. This worship of stupidity is amazing.

    Just watch. DePalma will be back here telling us how vital it is that judges follow the will of the TeaPeople. In spite of the fact that the whole point of an independent judiciary is that it is independent.

  58. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: Six more states are joining Florida’s 20 state lawsuit

    How many of those states have Republican governors?

    Two months ago, the voters did add a net of six GOP governors and well over 600 new GOP state legislators. I would not be surprised if that tsunami painting most of the country red had something to do with the new suits against Obamacare.

  59. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “If they can’t read the Constitution, hopefully the appellate courts can read the election returns.”

    NI: The idea that a Federal appellate court would be swayed by the results of an election is offensive at its core.

    I agree. The comment was aimed at progressive judges who ignore the Constitution.

    BTW, the idea that courts follow the election returns is nearly as old as the Republic.

    http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_supreme_court_follows_the_election_returns_judges_follow_the_election_r/

  60. NotImpressed says:

    Me: “The idea that a Federal appellate court would be swayed by the results of an election is offensive at its core.”

    Bart: “I agree. The comment was aimed at progressive judges who ignore the
    Constitution.”

    So you didn’t mean us to take you seriously when you said you thought they shoudl listen to elections. Okay, I won’t take you seriously anymore. Thanks.

    But looking at the activist and reactionary Roberts court (not to mention your own comments), it is clearly the conservatives who ignore the Constitution. You’re going to looks really silly when the lawsuits fall on their collective faces. Will it then be time for second amendment remedies?

  61. erik says:

    Bart- I’ve read enough of your stuff on here; I’m not about to buy your book should it be published. At a used book sale, at $.50 for a bag of books it would likely be overpriced.

    Tell me what conservatives offer that would be an improvement over the PPACA, keeping in mind the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country in the years BEFORE PPACA (when Republicans were more than happy to let our health insurance system have its merry way with us). And keep in mind that market forces hasn’t seemed to work too efficiently or inexpensively inside state borders. Hoping that they would work amongthe states seems like wishful thinking. Having more choices of health insurance providers would not likely have the same market effect having more choices of brands of peanut butter or work jeans. There’s a big market difference between someone having the welfare of your loved ones in their hands and someone selling you a spread for your bread or clothing for work.

    Tell me a bit about health insurance across state lines, for example.
    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/02/18/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-won-t-work.html

  62. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    ABC New/WaPo Poll

    Americans who support full repeal of the Health Care Act – 18% – Sorry Bart!

    Americans who support the Health Care Act – 45% – Sorry Bart!

    Americans who want to wait and see – 17%

    Americans who want to repeal PARTS of the Act – 19%

    So, those Americans who want to wait and see or support the Act – 62%
    and those Americans who want to fully or partially repeal the Act – 37%

    The Will of We the People speaks. Now will Bart and his ilk support the Will of We the People or try to run roughshod over them?

  63. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oops, sorry.

    Poll by Langer Research, Jan 13-16, 1053 adults, 3.5%+/-

    http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a3%20Health%20Care%20Reform.pdf

  64. Number Seven says:

    Lord Cheney: No disintegrations!

    Boehner Fett: As you wish….

  65. dcpetterson says:

    The Will of the People opposes health care repeal. We’ve been saying that once the public finds out what’s in the bill — as opposed to the lies and distortions the Republicans told about it — they’d like it. (Speaker Pelosi said this as well.) We’re seeing that happening even as we watch.

    Want a gun metaphor? The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.

  66. Number Seven says:

    A bit off topic but speaking of the new RNC Chairman (kudos to Jon Stewart) you cant spell Penis Rerinse with out Rience Preibus….

    If only I could get paid for this, lol, like Bart is…

  67. Mr. Universe says:

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Perhaps you shouldn’t stand in the barrel when shooting.

  68. Mr. Universe says:

    @#7

    Forget where I saw this but if you take all the vowels out of Rience Priebus you get:
    RNC PR BS

  69. Brian says:

    I hate to ask for much, but would it be possible for an article on Sargent Shriver? The man garnered quite a bit of respect on both sides of the aisle. First leader of the Peace Corp (which I’m still seriously thinking about joining after grad school) and all, so he deserves at least a nod of recognition.

  70. Number Seven says:

    Mr U, touche indeed!!!

  71. Bart DePalma says:

    You folks really do eat up everything and anything you are fed without question like good little mind numbed robots. Has it occurred to you…

    Why did voters fire Dems who voted for Obamacare in the largest wave election in 62 years if they liked the program?

    Why did voters elect Republicans who campaigned to repeal and some Dems who opposed Obamacare if they wanted to preserve the program?

    Why did House Dems argue that the House should not make them vote on repeal out of respect for the victims of the Tucson shootings if they believed voting to preserve Obamacare would endear voters to them in 2012?

    Why did Harry Reid pledge to keep the bill repealing Obamacare from a vote in the Senate if he believed voting to preserve Obamacare would endear voters to the 20+ Dems up for reelection in 2012?

    Why would half the state governors ask the courts to find Obamacare unconstitutional when voters do not want to eliminate Obamacare?

    Why, oh why?

  72. Number Seven says:

    Bart you do know that the blue dog dems lost more then actual progressive dems did, yes?

    No, of course you didn’t.

    Next FOX BOOBS talking point posted in …..

    You’re old news Bart. Fewer and fewer care for your bullshit. Dry up and blow away.

  73. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma:

    Why oh why would you follow a false premise with an absurd conclusion, and then request a response? Should we not merely pat you on the head and –

    ::: chuckle :::

    ?

  74. Realist says:

    if you take all the vowels out of Rience Priebus you get: RNC PR BS
    Thus proving that they hired the right guy.

  75. Bartbuster says:

    You folks really do eat up everything and anything you are fed without question like good little mind numbed robots. Has it occurred to you…

    Blankshot, we’re just using the same polls that you said defined “tyranny”. Or do poll numbers only matter when you think they support your views?

  76. Realist says:

    Bart,
    Why did voters fire Dems who voted for Obamacare in the largest wave election in 62 years if they liked the program?
    Why did voters fire Dems who voted against Obamacare in the largest wave election in 62 years if they wanted it repealed?

    Why did voters elect Republicans who campaigned to repeal and some Dems who opposed Obamacare if they wanted to preserve the program?
    Why did voters elect some Dems who voted for Obamacare if they wanted to repeal the program?

    Why did House Dems argue that the House should not make them vote on repeal out of respect for the victims of the Tucson shootings if they believed voting to preserve Obamacare would endear voters to them in 2012?
    Why did House Republicans also argue that the house should not vote on repeal out of respect for the victims of the Tucson shootings?

    Why did Harry Reid pledge to keep the bill repealing Obamacare from a vote in the Senate if he believed voting to preserve Obamacare would endear voters to the 20+ Dems up for reelection in 2012?
    Why should the Senate waste a single minute on something that’s not going to pass? Is the Kabuki that important?

    Why would half the state governors ask the courts to find Obamacare unconstitutional when voters do not want to eliminate Obamacare?
    Might it have something to do with them being Republicans, and the party has decided that this is their method of differentiation?

    Why, oh why?
    Why, oh why can you not see the bigger picture? Don’t bother answering that one. I’ve already figured it out.

  77. Number Seven says:

    Picture Bart as Han Solo when about to be encased in carbonite, and Fili as Leah…. Fili says…. I love you… Bart says… I love Jaba the Hutt…..

  78. Mr. Universe says:

    I dunno, Bart reminds me of one of those Stormtroopers.
    “These aren’t the droids we’re looking for”

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    Giving A Bad Name To Smoke And Mirrors

    In less than four minutes, Congressman Paul Ryan eviscerates the claims that Obamacare saves money and will extend insurance to 30 million:

  80. NotImpressed says:

    Thanks for posting that, Bart. It shows the shallowness and stupidity of the Republican arguments.

    Ryan: “Number one, they’re saying this a a jobs bill. A half a trillion dollars in tax increases creates jobs?” He just simply says this as if we know it self-evidently can’t be true. He makes no argument, he just makes an unsupported implied assertion that taxes can’t create jobs. I’m not impressed. In fact, PPACA does create jobs, millions of jobs in the health care sector, providing heath care for people who didn’t previously have it. What an idiot.

    His second argument, trying to answer the criticism, “Since this isn’t going to pass the Senate, why waste time on it?” is equally moronic. Ryan: “If that’s the logic we take on every bill we bring to the floor, then we outta just go home.” Well, in fact, yes. How about not wasting time on political theater crap, and actually address America’s problems?

    His third argument, addressing the CBO estimates; he first gives a string of meaningless insults, repeating “smoke and mirrors” at least five times. (If he actually had rational facts, he wouldn’t need to wave his rhetorical hands so much.) He then claims some savings were “double-counted” and some costs were not counted, furnishing no evidence of that. Since he had the chance to ask the CBO to re-score his repeal, he should have had them consider this. The CBO disagrees with him. I’ll take the word of an independent agency whose job it is to be fair over the word of a handwaving partisan. I’m not impressed by Ryan.

    Then he shows his chart of spending vs revenues and claims the PPACA will increase the deficit. He doesn’t tell us why we should believe his numbers instead of the CBO. Not convincing.

    He claims the CBO’s numbers for the first ten years are the way they are because they have “ten years of taxes for six years of spending.” That’s sort of true. Many of the benefits don’t kick in for four years, so there are only six years of full benefits. He makes this claim (as Republicans like to do) in order to imply that in future decades, ten years of revenues could not possibly pay for ten full years of benefits.

    But in fact, this is a lie. The planned revenue streams and benefits for future decades take this into account. In fact, the CBO estimated a $1.2 trillion reduction in the Federal deficit because of PPACA in the second ten years.

    His final argument, about jobs, gives an anecdotal tale about an unnamed employer at an unnamed large corporation. (The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”) According to Ryan, this employer said her competitors were not going to furnish employer-based health care, but were instead “dumping” their employees into the new health-care exchanges. What this had to do with “jobs,” I don’t know. It’s about who is furnishing the insurance, not about “jobs.” I also don’t know why this is a bad thing. It simply proves the usefulness of the health-care exchanges. It reduces the cost to employers, which means they would be actually able to hire more employees.

    All in all, Ryan comes off as a total fool. And his arguments are stupid. At least they aren’t the bombastic and apocalyptic vile lies of 2009. No talk of “socialism” or the end of our democracy. These lies are merely vile.

  81. NotImpressed says:

    Oh and by the way Bart, you claimed (emphasis mine) that “In less than four minutes, Congressman Paul Ryan eviscerates the claims that Obamacare saves money and will extend insurance to 30 million:

    In fact, he doesn’t address the question at all of how many people will be covered. Did you listen to the clip?

  82. Bart DePalma says:

    NI:

    It is self evident that half a trillion dollars in additional taxes kills rather than creates productive private sector jobs. Both Keynes and Laffler would agree that tax increases slow down economic growth.

    Next, CBO is required to score a bill as written with all of the drafter’s assumptions, no matter how nonsensical. Go to the scoring document and it is full of caveats. Then look for the discussion of debt as opposed to deficit. There is a difference.

    Ryan only had a little over three minutes to make his points. If you want a full blown explanation, go to youtube and look for video of Ryan educating Obama at Obama’s health care summit last spring. You can also check out the WSJ link I posted above in response to one of your posts detailing the budget gimmicks in detail.

  83. NotImpressed says:

    Bart DePalma:
    It is self evident that half a trillion dollars in additional taxes kills rather than creates productive private sector jobs.

    Tell me where those tax dollars are spent before you make sweeping statements about their effect. A half trillion dollars of (paid-for) military spending creates a lot of jobs. A half- trillion dollars that goes to roadbuilding will create enormous numbers of jobs. What is self-evident is that Republicans are arguing with talking points and unquestioned religious faith, not logic.

    Next, CBO is required to score a bill as written with all of the drafter’s assumptions, no matter how nonsensical.

    So the Republicans drafters of the repeal bill should have provided their assumptions to the CBO. Oh wait, they did. The CBO’s estimate of the effect of repeal differed from its estimate of the effect of the original bill. Given the Republicans’ assumptions of the repeal, the PPACA looks even better than with the assumptions given to the CBO last year by the Democrats.

    Ryan only had a little over three minutes to make his points. If you want a full blown explanation…

    You were the one who claimed that in this clip, Ryan “eviscerates” certain ideas about PPACA “[i]n less than four minutes.” Now you’re admitting he doesn’t, and we need more information for his flimsy arguments to even be considered. That was my point as well. Thank you for agreeing with me.

  84. Bartbuster says:

    It is self evident that half a trillion dollars in additional taxes kills rather than creates productive private sector jobs. Both Keynes and Laffler would agree that tax increases slow down economic growth.

    No, it isn’t. Government provides much of the infrastructure that increases economic growth, actually.

  85. Bart DePalma says:

    NI:

    The repeal bill is not a replacement to Obamacare with its own assumptions. It is rather a brief repeal. Thus, the CBO is stuck with the Obamacare assumptions.

    Here is the debt discussion in the latest CBO report:

    Compared with the effects of current law, enacting PPACA would increase the balance in the HI trust fund at the end of 2019 by somewhat more than $358 billion ($358 billion in increased revenues and reduced outlays, described above, plus interest earnings on the larger balances during the 2009–2019 period). Balances in the HI trust fund are generally held in the form of government debt. Therefore, the HI trust fund would hold more than $358 billion of additional government debt by the end of 2019 compared with its holdings under current law. At the same time, enacting PPACA would reduce debt held by the public at the end of 2019 by somewhat more than $132 billion ($132 billion in increased revenues and reduced direct spending, plus interest savings from the smaller debt during the 10-year period). Therefore, enacting PPACA would increase debt held by government accounts more than it would decrease debt held by the public, and would thus increase gross federal debt.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf

    CBO attempts to spin this statement by arguing that publicly held debt rather than the IOUs the government writes itself have more of an economic impact, but the truth is that Obamacare adds to the federal debt.

    Remember that even this calculation assumes only 6 of the 10 year period with full Obamcare and also assumes a half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts which no one can identify for CBO.

  86. NotImpressed says:

    Regarding : “Remember that even this calculation assumes only 6 of the 10 year period with full Obamcare and also assumes a half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts which no one can identify for CBO.”

    Misdirection and handwaving. I already covered that misleading “6 of 10 years” meme. For the first decade everything is still ramping up. In the second decade all the funding mechanisms are fully in place. So your “6 of 10” talking point is nonsense. (Seven of Nine was a lot better looking anyway.)

    And the $500 billion in Medicare savings (not cuts) comes mostly from reducing overpayments to insurance companies. That meme dies, too.

  87. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma,

    The passage of the CBO report you refer to is on page 257 of the report (265 of the .pdf file). The full passage continues onto the next page. I urge interested readers to consult that document, because it makes your assertions irrelevant.

    The CBO differentiates between “debt held by the public” and “internal transactions of the government” which have “no effect on credit markets.” This “increase in federal debt” that you’re complaining about is of the second kind. The CBO report insists that “the effects of legislation on debt held by the public offer a more useful measure of that legislation’s impact on the government’s financial condition.” In contrast, it says the number you’re complaining about “conveys little information about the government’s future financial burdens and has little economic meaning” (emphasis mine).

    Sorry, but again, you’ve missed the boat. You’re offering a unique financial view which the people who actually know something about the economy disagree with. We have no reason to treat your financial proclamations as anything other than meaningless white noise. I won’t be responding to you further on this. I’m not going to be drawn down that rabbit hole by someone who fantasizes the 1980’s recession was worse than the 2008-2009 recession. Learn something about economics, then we’ll talk.

  88. NotImpressed says:

    Mr. DePalma
    “The repeal bill is not a replacement to Obamacare with its own assumptions. It is rather a brief repeal. Thus, the CBO is stuck with the Obamacare assumptions.”

    Why would the Republican leadership in the House do this? They had their chance to correct any assumptions that they felt were “false.” You’re saying they didn’t bother. Why not?

    Is this because they were satisfied with the original assumptions? Or perhaps because their opposition to PPACA has nothing to do with facts, so there was no need to obtain actual information since it wouldn’t affect their decision anyway?

    When you’re operating on blind dogma, actual fact is irrelevant. If indeed they felt there was something wrong with the original assumptions, and then didn’t other to correct these assumptions in the repeal bill, this proves your friends are irrational and really can’t be trusted to act sanely.

  89. Bart DePalma says:

    Did you bother to read my post after the CBO quotation?

    CBO attempts to spin this statement by arguing that publicly held debt rather than the IOUs the government writes itself have more of an economic impact, but the truth is that Obamacare adds to the federal debt.

  90. NotImpressed says:

    Yes, Mr. DePalma, I read your attempt to brush off the understanding of America’s best economists. As I said, I won’t follow you down a rabbit hole you know nothing about.

  91. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ Did you bother to read my post after the CBO quotation?

    The courtroom expression is asked and answered and yes, NI doesn’t want to get in a battle of wits w/an unarmed teabagger … Hey, he must be empathetic!

    take care

  92. Bart DePalma says:

    NI: Yes, Mr. DePalma, I read your attempt to brush off the understanding of America’s best economists.

    Red herring much?

    The issue was whether you and the Dems lie when you claim that Obamacare does not increase the federal debt and that repealing this monstrosity will increase the debt. CBO says you are lying.

    This issue of the differing economic effects of the two means Obamacare borrows the money is irrelevant to that issue. In BOTH cases, the tax payers are still on the hook for Obamacare debt.

  93. NotImpressed says:

    DePalma
    “CBO says you are lying.”

    No, you said the CBO is lying. You even said so: “CBO attempts to spin this statement …”

    The CBO says the number you are unhappy about “conveys little information about the government’s future financial burdens and has little economic meaning.” So I’m not concerned about it, either — the number “has little economic meaning.”. You’re only concerned about it because you’re grasping at straws.

    Feel free to have the last (and uneducated) word on this issue.

  94. Bartbuster says:

    Feel free to have the last (and uneducated) word on this issue.

    There is no point in telling him that he’ll have the last word, especially when you keep responding to him. Just keep hammering him until he runs away.

  95. Bart DePalma says:

    NI:

    As a great man once said when dealing with a twerp in a debate, there you go again…

    I never stated the CBO was lying. I stated they were compelled to score Dem misrepresentations and gimmicks in the Obamacare bill.

    I’ll tell you what, would you folks support a bill which prohibits the government from adding to the debt to finance Obamacare? That way, you can still claim that Obaamacare cuts the deficit while I get to start defunding the program. Deal?

  96. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ I’ll tell you what … er Bartles deflecting once again after he has lost the argument ie has been buried in yet another thread.

    >

    I’ll tell ‘ya what, if you stop lying/deflecting er turnin’ into a pretzel w/your inane teabagger logic, we’ll stop makin’ fun of you, honest! 😀 … Deal 😛

  97. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    And I’ll make you a deal, Bart.

    You cite independent, original sources for all your assertions, either at time of comment or upon demand, stop using cheap shyster activities that no judge in the country would allow in their court AND make reasoned conservative arguments and comments, whereupon I and many others on this site will stop ridiculing you for being a pompous, childish, pedantic, ideological ass.

    Deal?

  98. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shiloh, your timing is impeccable!

  99. shiloh says:

    Max, thank you, thank you very much! 🙂

    Many try, few succeed …

  100. Bart DePalma says:

    No takers for forbidding Obamacare from adding to the debt? What a surprise.

    :::dripping sarcasm:::

    Let me know when you feel like being honest about your Frankenstein creature.

  101. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GOP lead House votes to repeal Health Care Act.

    In other news:
    After eating a salad containing a bit more cucumber than really needed, I belched.

  102. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bart said: “:::dripping sarcasm:::

    So THAT’S what that was. We KNEW you dripped SOMETHING every time you show up. I just didn’t know sarcasm had an odor!

  103. shortchain says:

    The bill passed with only 4 Democrats. “Bipartisan”? I don’t think so. And the only way this is going to be a campaign issue in 2012 is if the economy is still in the toilet and not improving.

    So that’s the next job for the GOP, to make sure that the economy doesn’t show improvement by November, 2012.

  104. shortchain says:

    I’d say that, in order to save money 10 years out, if they want to run a deficit now, it’s fine.

    I can’t imagine someone, even Bart, being stupid enough to say that you can’t borrow money if you see an opportunity to make more.

  105. dcpetterson says:

    Since the vote is over, does this mean the Republicans are ready to stop wasting taxpayer money, and actually do some work in Congress?

  106. shiloh says:

    Mendacious/perfidious dripping sarcasm aside ~ Bartles, after failing miserably to convince anyone daily w/your limbo disingenuous/misinformation/laughable talkin’ points at 538 … one shudders at your pedestrian song and dance performance your very unlucky clients have to deal w/in court.

    The prosecution rests …

    Which begs the rhetorical question: How often are you sued for inept defense? hmm, perhaps one should ask: Is your attorney’s license currently suspended?

    Just wonderin’

  107. filistro says:

    Eric Cantor is upset that Harry Reid won’t schedule a vote in the Senate.

    Cantor says “I think the American people deserve to see a vote in the Senate, and the Senate ought not be a place where legislation goes into a dead end.”

    I kid you not. He actually said those very words.

    Good grief.

  108. mclever says:

    @ filistro,

    I’m stunned–stunned, I tell you!–that Cantor would say such a thing.

    Stunned!!!

    😉

  109. Monotreme says:

    I found this to be a pretty good analysis of the situation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/19/carroll.health.reform.repeal/index.html?hpt=T1

  110. Mr. Universe says:

    House votes to repeal. Repubs picked up three southern blue dogs.

    Cantor states, “I think the American people deserve to see a vote in the Senate, and the Senate ought not be a place where legislation goes into a dead end.”

    Really? Seriously? That’s a level of audaciousness I’ve never witnessed before.

    Jon Stewart coined a word for it last night. Complaining about something while at the same time being guilty of saying it? It’s called a Palin-drome. Priceless.

  111. filistro says:

    Palindromes! I love ’em!

    Longest palindrome I’ve ever seen that actually makes sense:

    Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?

    Onomatopoeic palindrome:

    Niagara, O roar again!

    Everyday wisdom palindrome:

    Sex at noon taxes.

    🙂

  112. Number Seven says:

    Mono, thanks for posting that. Great analysis of the Time Wasting Party’s efforts to waste more time.

  113. filistro says:

    Comment just posted on the repeal thread over at NRO:

    Approved commenter] kreminitly

    01/19/11 18:49

    “Obama is up in the polls, and now this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/19/wsjnbc-poll-americans-split-on-health-care-repeal/

    Getting very worried.”

    I’ll just BET they’re getting worried! LOL…

    Of course, somebody later in the thread reassured this worried conservative that it’s okay because…

    (wait for it…)…

    ….it’s not a poll of “likely voters!”

    :: chuckle ::

  114. NotImpressed says:

    Cantor says “I think the American people deserve to see a vote in the Senate, and the Senate ought not be a place where legislation goes into a dead end.”

    Oh. My. Gods.

    Republicans have no shame. Their hypocrisy and dishonesty know no bounds.

    Soon we’ll be hearing about how important it is to have an “up or down vote” on nonsense coming out of the House.

    Excuse me while I go throw up.

  115. NotImpressed says:

    @Monotreme
    “I found this to be a pretty good analysis of the situation.”

    It is excellent indeed. And it shows Obama’s wisdom in getting these powerful forces involved in the solution.

    PPACA will not be repealed. It will never even be weakened. It has some problems, which will be fixed as time goes on. It will save money. It will save lives. It will insure President Obama’s reelection.

    The world has changed. And we are witnesses.

  116. shiloh says:

    Bart, hang in there buddy, hopefully a new thread at 538 will be started soon for you to escape/flee to …

    Just sayin’

  117. Mr. Universe says:

    Favourite Palindrome:

    Never odd or even

  118. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    THEY TAX NOONERS?????????

    Ooooh shit!

    Anybody know the penalties and interest on (two)back(ed) taxes????

  119. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    The GOP led House passed repeal of the Health Care Act.

    In more news:
    I had bean soup for dinner. Details at eleven.

  120. filistro says:

    @Max… THEY TAX NOONERS?????????

    Nononono! I think it means “nooners are taxing.”

    But that would be for ordinary people… not for Max da Man… 😉

  121. shiloh says:

    Nooners are a way of life in the navy, especially now that females are allowed to serve aboard war ships, eh.

    ok, nooners have several definitions ~ good ship, good crew, f*ck you, turn to …

    Port and starboard er 12 on 12 off er port and report!

    Anchors Aweigh !!!

  122. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    WHEW!! Thank God!

    I was beginning to fear I’d have no retirement money left!

    Thanks for straightening that out.

  123. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Yes, nooners CAN be taxing.

    Particularly if the husband should come home early!

  124. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    News at Eleven: (Imagine the voice of Edward R Morrow)

    The GOP led House today passed the repeal of the Health Care Act.

    This reporter had bean soup for dinner. A short while later, HE passed a stinky.

    And Les Nesman will have the farm report after this from our sponsor.

  125. Mainer says:

    I find it hard to imagine real reporters such as Murrow or Cronkheit reporting on any of this. I’m not sure just who they would reserve their greatest distain for. Our wanna be pretend political leaders or what passes for todays press. Oh for a few of them or Russerts or Chet Huntley or maybe Brinkley even. Odd to live in a time with so much information and so little real news. One wonders what a Jack Anderson would make of it.

  126. Number Seven says:

    Speaking of news: Cops fire over the heads of protesters, dozens on the second floor killed.

    Ok, I promise, no more Carlin rip offs, I swear 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s