This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Barack Obama A Lesson On How To Avoid Smoke And Mirrors, Double Counting And Ponzi Schemes "That Would Make Bernie Madoff Proud"
Rep. Paul Ryan slams Obama's healthcare reform in one of the most concise critiques of the proposed plan. Furthermore, he observes some of the critical flaws in the Obama plan, which contrary to the President's frequent appearances on TV discussing the "lies" promulgated about his proposal (and even misguidedly allowing citizens to temporarily rat each other out in witch hunts straight out of the Stazi or Sekuritate playbook), is in fact itself full of - inconsistencies, for lack of a better word.
Quoting Ryan:
Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're right. We
agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability.
That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation,
our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's
suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have
no means to pay for it... If you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary...this bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead,
this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how
to pay for the entitlements we already have. What has been placed in front of [the CBO] is a
bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I
say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a
trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars,
to pay for six years of spending. Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3
trillion. It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social
Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for
Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on
paying those Social Security benefits. It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the
long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are
designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets. The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that
would make Bernie Madoff proud... You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare
solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double
counting.
All this and much more below.
Full Ryan transcript from the WaPo:
BOEHNER: Mr. President -- Mr. President, Mr. Ryan is going to open this conversation on behalf of us.
RYAN: Thank you.
Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.
Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're
right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion
unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my
parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's
growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's
adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it.
Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation.
And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you
basically said -- and I totally agree with this -- I will not sign a
plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because
it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the
Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief
actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs.
This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new
health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for
the entitlements we already have.
Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the
bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10
years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day
-- very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But
their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has
been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and
smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?
Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half
a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a
trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.
Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.
It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher
Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's
really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting
them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the
long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that
are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.
The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill
essentially does -- it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a
half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare
solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the
chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of
Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to
stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on --
who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now
enjoy.
You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare
solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double
counting.
And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the
double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10- year
cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of
this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
And I think, probably, the most cynical gimmick in this bill is
something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring
every year for the last seven years.
We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc
fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first
iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and
it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit, that bill was
-- that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone
legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the
backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so
when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.
And so let's just -- I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?
Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're
bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding
more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.
And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the
deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really
is a difference between us.
And we've been talking about how much we agree on different issues,
but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this.
We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We
want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the
big difference.
Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year.
Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get
fixed. It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's
hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.
But we don't think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.
Now, I'll just simply say this. And I respectfully disagree with the
vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or
whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf. So...
(LAUGHTER)
... we are all representatives of the American people. We all do
town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to
tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a
government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're
not listening to them.
So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean- sheeted
paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring
down health care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the
point.
h/t Nihilarian
»
- 21952 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Healthcare "reform" is just a political power grab. No different that proposed Cap & Trade. No different than foreign wars. Federal control of the economy equals final control of our lives. Neither party cares about "The People". Fortunately we know this. Out with the bums...
Barry looks stunned that somebody actually in DC can talk sense!
We need more elections, more frequently to throw the bums out when they decide to "do what is right" based on the denomination of the dollar bills stuffed into every orifice and when they use a "good sob story" to support a patently ridiculous and wasteful government policy that simply will cost too much and not work.
I've always thought that a good idea would be to set up a "Congress Lottery".
Every year, one name out the group of 535 gets picked at random.
The winner, gets,.......wait for it,..........
Public execution.
Take one for the team, so to say.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be every year. I'd even settle for every 2 years.
I think it would change the character of the team a bit.
To make it even more palatable, we could have a group of 20 citizens, chosen at random, that could pardon the idiot if they had a unanimous vote to do so.
+1
That may be the greatest idea in the long history of great ideas. Would you like to take bets on the number of Congressman who WOULD do what is in the best interest of the citizens of the republic and not what would assist him in the purchase of vacation homes in Ireland and Nantucket?
Also, I figure that members of the randomly chosen "citizen panel" could also be entrusted with the power to charge any federal politician with treason, punishable by death, if they should decide that the said politician had introduced a piece of legislation that violated the text, or spirit of the US Constitution. All decisions would be required to be unanimous.
Spin the wheel, raggedy man.
Yeah, that is a very interesting idea.
Let's pass it tomorrow. Oh, wait, they won't do it. Too bad for us!
LOL, sounds promising....
PS: U Rusty on TSL's UWS?
I don't know what "TSL's UWS" is so probably not.
What is it? Just out of curiosity.
http://www.techsideline.com/message_board/america/
An unadvertised message board attached to a Virginia Tech sports webpage. It's an attempt to get controversial political / religious threads off the main (read: advertiser-sponsored) message board. Be forewarned: while mildly entertaining, the level of discourse rarely rises above name-calling. One of the more thoughtful posters is nicknamed "Rusty."
I don't think it should be a lottery. That is not an incentive to be honest. Afterall, it's just chance.
I think there should be a Committee To Decide, composed of a panel of completely undistinguished laymen, who then vote the fate of the biggest bullshitting crook in CONgress.
Then, to address the national debt, we have national lottery.
First Prize: The winner gets to kick the chair out.
Make a bet that advertising rights for that public lynching would pay ultimate premiums?
Now we're cooking.
On a serious note, I think the ability to bring up a recall vote of a congressman should be written into the constitution. And as a check and balance, for recalls, a state referendum for that official should be held. If a congressman is from a district in say, TX, and his district loves him/her because he/she brings home the swag, then the rest of the TX might be able to counter the earmark bribery if that congressman is such a douche that only his district loves him.
I know Rusty is joking. At least I hope so.
How about the following for the House and Senate: House - every two years, 30 days before an election, two names are drawn from the registered voters, and they campaign for the job, and once elected they have their assests placed in trust for two years (Senators - 6 yrs). If at the end of their term, their assets have increased more that the COLA, they are hung. Staff members, can only work on the Hill for 6yrs.
REPEAT
i just kid the president.
I became disillusioned with the Republican party in 1994, with their 1st 100 days of promised change. Clinton shutdown the government and the Republican's blinked, that was it for me. The Republican's in power after that were just self serving whores! Both parties suck!
Im wondering who was in charge in 2003 when congress passed a medicare bill than added 8 TRILLION IN FUCKING UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. Yes thats not a typo. 8 FUCKING TRILLION. It was done on the "fiscal conservatives" watch. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
How quickly historical facts are forgotten.
The left gave us social security, medicare, medidcaid, and federal education.
These entitlement programs cannot be eliminated because it would take a supermajority of republicans to do so.
Although the Repubs briefly held the White House, Senate, and House, they lacked the supermajority to clean things up.
Instead, they gave us a horrendous, pork-laden budget wasteful in extent second only to TARP and the Demos most recent budget.
When the repubs did so, they lost my respect. All the talk of fiscal conservatism was relegated to the dustbin of political lies.
It appears the the repubs will regain some political power next November, and perhaps the White House in 2012. Will they stand by the principal of less government, less spending?
We can only hope.
As for the current administration and legislature, there is no hope of fiscal sanity.
"How quickly historical facts are forgotten.
The left gave us social security, medicare, medidcaid, and federal education.
These entitlement programs cannot be eliminated because it would take a supermajority of republicans to do so.
Although the Repubs briefly held the White House, Senate, and House, they lacked the supermajority to clean things up."
Huh? "The Repubs briefly held the White House..."?? What planet are your "historical facts" from?
The GOP has had 9 of the previous 14 presidential terms, had a majority in both houses of Congress 1994 - 2006, and has appointed 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices and a majority of the federal bench. This is your mess, moron. Your guys sold the country to their big biz campaign donors.
Repub or Dem -- matters not a whit. Two sides of the same bad penny. We need to vote all incumbents out and make real changes.
-------------
From Shedlock's blog:
Voters Madder Than Ever; 63% Say Better If Congress Not Reelected
Posted: 26 Feb 2010 03:27 PM PST
Here are a few polls from Rasmussen in January and February that many will find interesting.
75% Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies
Voters are madder than ever at the current policies of the federal government.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.
Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.
63% Say Better for Country If Most of Congress Not Reelected
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of likely voters believe, generally speaking, that it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.
Just 19% disagree and say it would be better if most congressional incumbents were reelected. Another 18% aren’t sure.
59% Say Cut Taxes to Create Jobs, 14% Expect Congress to Listen
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of voters nationwide believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool.
Only 15% of voters hold the opposite view and believe that increasing government spending is the better approach.
However, while voters overwhelmingly think cutting taxes is the better approach, they also overwhelmingly expect Congress and President Obama to take the opposite approach. Seventy-two percent (72%) say the nation’s elected politicians are more likely to increase government spending than cut taxes. Only 14% think they’ll cut taxes instead.
Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
45% Say Random Group From Phone Book Better Than Current Congress
More voters have greater confidence in the telephone book these days than in the current Congress, and most think their national legislators are paid too much to boot.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 45% of likely U.S. voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress. That’s up 12 points from October 2008, just before the last congressional elections. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree, and another 19% are not sure.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters continue to believe those in Congress are paid too much. This is virtually identical to findings last August. but in October 2008, only 49% felt that way.
Can Republicans Retake The House?
In light of the above surveys many are wondering if republicans can retake the House of Representatives.
Please consider Republican Renaissance?: GOP Will Gain Significantly, But Probably Remain in House Minority
Some pundits are already predicting the GOP could even take back the House, which would require a net gain of 40 seats this November. To put that into perspective, in the past sixty years there have been thirty House elections, but only four have resulted in either party gaining 40 seats or more. In fact, over the past thirty-five years (and sixteen House elections), only once has either party picked up 40 seats or more. That year, of course, was 1994 when Republicans came to power following a net gain of 52 House seats.
The average pick-up in a midterm year (since 1946) is 22 seats and Republicans should exceed that, but the magic number of 40 still seems out of reach, as of February.
All in all, the Crystal Ball projects that Republicans would gain 27 seats if the election were held today. Both parties have reason to be glad the election is not until November: Democrats still have time to recover and Republicans can push their gains even higher. All of us observing can celebrate as well: 257 more days of House campaigning to enjoy!
Do Not Underestimate The Anger
While not calling for it yet, I think a Republican pickup of as many as 52 seats should not be ruled out.
Anger is clearly brewing and there is no reason for that anger abate by November.
Any surprise in Republican pickups will be to the upside.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Man O MAN I see a whole lot of mental masturbation here. Live life with the understanding that nothing we do will ever change this f=upped system.
Want a simple way to live without the frustration?
Heres my formula.. Democrat = Failed experiment
Republican=Failed experiment
Democracy =Failed experiment
Dont vote, wont change a thing, don't feed the beast.
The whole situation is very simple: there is no money to pay for all obligations. This is the truth. The rest is lies. Obama lies. The Congress lies. etc.,
Presently, for the same job, workers in Asia are paid 10-times less than workers in America and EU. It cannot continue for too long. Some sort of balancing will take place driving American and EU standards of living sharply down regardless of what Obama or any other lying-shit promises. This is the reality!
fuck it - take over China
even if we lose it resets the whole fiscal fuckup we are in now
it's late babe, i'm going to bed
Capitalistic greed wins out over all political ideologies. In other words if you cant afford to buy a politician and legislation why play the game? You're just fooling yourself.
true - everyone here is just window shopping, going home and asking Santa for their wants
all of you are idiots. arguing among yourselves.
ever hear of ....
DIVIDE AND CONQUER?
open your eyes...and stop arguing with eachother using talking points from corrupted parties.
you all...are the problem that is bringing down america.
wake the fuck up
I predict a short-lived health care bubble.
What is with the language on this forum? Crude rude and ugly. Can anyone make a point without using vulgarity any more?
No, needed for effect. I love cursing, too. Mostly because it harms no one but offends so many, which I find quite amusing. I will refrain from doing so much more when the world gets its shit together. For now, I find it necessary.
I am a highly educated person, but I prefer using vulgarity with certain posters. Some ideological divides just can't be bridged. When I see a hard-core communist posting hard-core communist propaganda, at least I can make myself feel better by calling them an obscene name. They deserve the worst this world has to offer, and while I realize they don't really care about being called names, they don't deserve a logical argument either.
ohh.,..ohh!! the Obamaman studdered!!
Beautiful arguments and data! The reality is that we have no industry. As long as China pollutes at will and is allowed to manipulate their currency, we are in a losing industrial production position. I contracted with a company that ships grey iron castings from China because it was cheaper even during the oil spike! In my opinion, both parties and the American people are at fault. You really can't expect a politician to represent his constituents when lobbyists have a huge cash reserve. We need to eliminate vote buying or take up a collection and lobby the "ins" to represent the populace.
Thank you rep. Ryan.
There's republicans and democrats in this thread. I knew I smelled shit somewhere.
someone tell them there is no spoon.
We need a conservative government, which does not neccesarly mean republican, but it could.
Bush is the guy smoking a cigarette in bed who starts the house on fire. Obama is the fireman that shows up and pours gas on the fire.
Single payer. I mean, we need something, but really, it all comes down to money once again.
Yeah, just as long as you don't take my money for your health care fucker. Do whatever the fuck you want with yours, don't involve me in your plans. You want to be fully protected from any eventuality with other people's money? Count me out!
That's a good one Zombie .I hadn't heard that one. I do believe Obama to be a man with good intentions and when that gas can was handed to him it was marked "Water" on the can but convoluted/morphed into gas. Lets face it, hes just the poor guy that was handed the grenade.
I suppose republicans can talk themselves into believing "what financial mess?McCain" would have smoothed out all the ripples because Bush left him a perfectly functional govt.
The only thing worth your votes are campaign spending and term limits.
1) Vix to rise moderately week March 1; correlation from ***junk*** posts at zerohedge.com topic ***health"care"*** 2) China Bankers to take note on how to deal with the opposition a la Obama. Flip them off. Subtly played sir, subtly played.
Don't fuck with Wisconsin. They know how you're cheese is made.
hep your phuckin late to the party
cheese and pot packers too ;)
Isn't it amazing that most politicians make rational points when they are in the minority or opposition party to legislation? I'm talking about both parties. They are apparently only able to apply logical, mathematic, and economic principles in argument against a particular bill or idea. Put them in the majority, and all they spout is BS and half-truths.
This is probably a corollary to the idea that nearly all federal legislation is counter-productive.
That's why the ultimate solution is depriving the government of most of its powers. They can't solve problems reliably, and sooner or later will destroy the country. We are almost there now. Therefore, the government needs to be prohibited to spend on anything other than protecting the citizen from illegal force. Ayn Rand all the way!
Both parties are supporters of big and Bigger government. The whole lot of politicians, academics and bureaucrats have accepted the fraud of Keynesian economic theory that enables them to think the more money they arrange for government to spend, the better off we all will be.
"C+I+G"! Well, I hate to break it to all the smart people, but when government spends money, it never does so with the same effect and efficiency as when a private party does so in free exchange.
To add insult to injury, Keynesians think that when I don't want to spend my money, I am hording it, and that gives them the justification to either try to seize it from from me in the form of taxes, or inflate it away from me in the form of printing and mouse clicking. (fiat money now comes in both paper and plastic)
Well, the game clock is almost run out, and there are only two exits: default (after which we just resume inflating our way to big and Bigger government), or a rational, and honest, workout.
We can workout. We have enormous energy resources that we could develop, if only to stop the hemorrhage of money and jobs to other countries. We must stop spending more than we can raise in taxes without crippling the economy. We must stop inflating the currency.
Obama logic:
1. "If we spend an additional few trillion on healthcare, we will end up spending less on healthcare."
2. "Because George Bush dunked a few terrorsits heads underwater, it is urgent that we implement national healthcare. Urgent!"
3. "If your car won't start it most likely because you have a blue couch."
well done mr ryan a lesson in positive economics for the most normative economic politician of them all!
Traders who shorted the hole unite against healthcare reform. "Yeah, he did not put a period at the end of the sentence, who's he saving it for? He's a commie! He's a liar! "
lol
LiberTARDians are out in force.
LiberTARDians are out in force.
As of right now, I'll put the odds of Paul Ryan, someday, being President of the U.S. at 2-to-1.
Even Obama seemed impressed while he was talking...You can almost see Obama thinking "Holy $#!^...this guy actually knows what he's talking about."
Granted, I don't know if he actually does...
Aaah, political debate. Without question when Zero Hedge is at it's most useless.
Entirely true. And the comments section decreases the credibility of everything else posted by a few orders of magnitude further.
+1
...your comment included.
avg deficit under republican controlled congress is 100 billion avg deficit under democrat congress is 1.1 trillion. Cant argue facts
The only thing more fucking retarded than Ryan's limp criticism are the comments laughably proposing that the Democrats raped the U.S. blind since Roosevelt. Seriously, you need to get off that Glenn Beck crack. It can make you go blind, and when you're blind you can't read or think for shit.
Ok, people the gov is already insolvent because of the unfunded liabilities, the largest of which are Medicare and Medicaid. (30T+ combined). To whom these money are due… retirees? … hardly – they are due to the hospitals treating them. You see, the gov had promised healthcare already and the bill is due. It’s unfunded …. So what do we do? … Simple – we crate one BIG healthcare plan for the nation; pass a new tax, making sure the plan is fully funded and then roll the retirees into it – no more unfunded liabilities. Magic!
Wow, the comments in this thread are better than comments in a gold/inflation/deflation thread.
Mission accomplished. Democrats pitted against Republicans. Un-united we stand.
Jeez... I've never had to click the "junk" tab as many times while browsing one thread as I've had to this morning. Full disclosure... I gave up after the first 30-40 posts. Anyway... ON TOPIC: All I want is the opportunity to purchase true catastrophic insurance at a reasonable price via an MSA/HSA system where beyond my premiums going towards funding actual actuarial realities the "excess" "contributions" I make which are not relegated towards "regular" healthcare expenses don't simply disappear down a black hole and instead serve as a general investment vehicle and GROW over time. BILL
Please! Tyler, ZH readers, and excited anons.
Either watch the entire 7 hours of the debate. Or read the entire transcript from the web. (GO TO THE SOURCE!)
(It might be boring TV, but it sure is a good digest of what they were up to in the last year in the govt on this issue.)
Namely, what Xavier Becerra said in response to Paul Ryan. In my book, Paul Ryan's credibility is shot by Xavier.
Here is what happened shortly after Paul Ryan spoke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXeUAWmT17s&feature=youtube_gdata
---------------------------BEGIN
CONGRESSMAN BECERRA: Mr. President, thank you very much for bringing us all together. And I do want to address something that my friend, Paul Ryan said, because I almost think that we can't have this discussion any further without addressing something Paul said. Paul, you called into question the Congressional Budget Office. Now, we can all agree to disagree, we could all have our politics, but if there's no referee on the field, we can never agree how the game should be played.
CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Let me clarify, just to be clear.
CONGRESSMAN BECERRA: No, no. Let me -- let me -- if I could just finish. And so, I think we have to decide do we believe in the Congressional Budget Office or not, because Paul, you and I have sat on the Budget Committee for years together. And you have, on any number of occasions in those years, cited the Congressional Budget Office to make your point, referred to the Congressional Budget Office's projections to make your points. And today, you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/26/Summit-Transcript-Afternoon.aspx
-------------------------END The truth of the matter is that both parties is at fault, but Bush did nothing for 8 years, and Obama at least know some facts about the debate and have the ability to actual hold one.Here is where Obama won me over:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/25/health-care-reform-transcript.aspx
----------------------------BEGIN
For folks who even with those lower costs still can't afford coverage, we'd provide some subsidies. But here's what I want to emphasize is that even without the subsidies it's estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that the plan we put forward would lower the costs in the individual market for the average person who's just trying to buy health insurance and they don't -- they're not lucky enough to work for a big company, would lower their costs by between 14 and 20 percent.
So, Lamar, when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up -- that's just not the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
SENATOR ALEXANDER: Mr. President, if you're going to contradict me, I ought to have a chance to -- the Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no -- let me -- and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight.
SENATOR ALEXANDER: That's my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, exactly. So let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage as they're currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is, is that because now they've got a better deal because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now and that might be 10 to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously. But they didn't say that the actual premiums would be going up. What they said was they'd be going down by 14 to 20 percent. And I promise you, I've gone through this carefully with the Congressional Budget Office. And I'll be happy to present this to the press and whoever is listening, because this is an important issue.
Obama clearly understands the details of this 2,700 pages bill, and Bush won't ever DREAM of having this debate/summitt on TV. He doesn't even understand the 3 pages that Treasury Paulson handed to him...----------------------------END
+1
Based on the Flags... it seems some just can't handle the truth, even when it's spelled out for them in black and white.
ok. whatever !! wake me up when the Dow hits 2500 !!
The fact is that Obumbler had a super majority in the Senate and couldn't pass the POS bill. Even after bribing Senator's Landrieu, both Nelsons and the Unions.
The Lefties here trashing Rep Ryan didn't address one fact in his statement. The fact is his math is correct and this is a 2.5 trillion over 10 years. It will raise private medical insurance premiums and won't bend the cost curve.
Whatever your political leanings one fact that should be obvious to all is this isn't about health care reform, it's about politic power and power over your life. Some may be willing but I just want to be left the hell alone.
Xavier's comeback is this????
"And today, you essentially said you can't trust the
Congressional Budget Office."
And this invalidates Ryan's argument??? The CBO only scores what is in the bill. If you fill the bill with crap, they can only score spared on that crap.
Like he said, then there is no rules to the game. Everything is a food fight.
Sorry, Paul Ryan is full of shit here, and seems to conveniently forget his own voting record. I'm surprised that you'd praise him. Sure the reform plan isn't a great solution, but compared to incoherence of the GOP's arguments, it's good.
The question is who is going to bite the bullet. The drug companies (peddling drugs like its candy and the FDA approving them) Hospitals, doctors, or the taxpayer. My bet is the taxpayer because he is the only one that doesn't have representation.
Look at all of you Monkey's Dancing for the Lobby!
Any report that does not allow a rebuttal?
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html
Or, you could immerse yourself… http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=healthcare+reform+lobby&aq=5sx&aqi=g-sx6g-msx1&aql=&oq=healtcare+reform+lo&fp=baa94940edcea411
The point being that anyone who thinks the Republicans are for the people or the Democrats are for the people… should realize that both parties yield to the Lobby, only.
JW
Solution - Give the decision making power back to the states and allow them to come up with a healthcare plan for their citizens and to merge with neighboring states if beneficial. Anything done on a national level will be full of pork, corrutpion, mouche fest etcetra and become just another political football to pass back and forth to make each party look stupid.
If the states were allowed to control their own destiny the market would determine who has the best plan in the long run.
+1.
Government should be as local as possible for it to be held accountable. MA voters are certainly letting their state officials know how they feel about their skyrocketing premiums. Everyone is at liberty to move into (or out of) MA if they don't agree with MA policies. Where do people move to when everything is covered by federal law?
The US was founded on the notion of a union of sovereign states, a republic, not a national democracry. A simple majority of 51% at the national level thwarts the will, dreams and aspirations of almost 150 m people and leaves them with no escape to another state.
For all the talk from Obama, no one has told me yet why he could not spearhead similar 'reform' for the state of IL while he was a state senator and show its evidence. Would the evidence have shown that such extensive government control and entitlements would have bankrupted the state?
Holy left-right paradigm, Batman!
Hello, anyone cite Switzerland's private universal healthcare system. It's the most expensive in Europe, but it's still much cheaper than the US. Holland's is also private.whatever
Another thing regarding the Swiss model. The US is too entrenched in a private system to go single payer. It's not practical or feasable. It would be nice to live in a socialist utopia, but tort reform and other tweaks to the system might be all that's needed. I'm not taking sides...just sayin.
Hey I can pull numbers out of my a$$ too and extend it for as many years as I desire. The idea is to get everyone to pay into the health care system. Not a hard concept to understand.
Because it has worked so well for retirement...
Why don't these guys focus on balancing the scales of justice in their own thieving chambers? They all have their hands out...no loud cries from any of them...
Rangel says ethics report "exonerates" him
"The Report further finds that Representative Charles B. Rangel violated the House gift rule by accepting payment or reimbursement for travel to the 2007 and 2008 conferences. The evidence shows that members of Representative Rangel's staff knew that corporations had contributed funds to Carib News specifically for the 2007 and 2008 conferences. This information was not provided to the Standards Committee when he sought and received approval from the Committee to accept these trips. The Committee does not find sufficient evidence to conclude, nor does it believe that it would discover additional evidence to alter its conclusion, that Representative Rangel had actual knowledge of the memoranda written by his staff. However, the report finds that Representative Rangel was responsible for the knowledge and actions of his staff in the performance of their official duties. It is the intention of the Committee that the publication of this Report will serve as a public admonishment by the Standards Committee of Representative Rangel. The Committee will also require Representative Rangel to repay the costs of the trips to the respective entities that paid for his travel."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/26/charles-r...
What hasn't been said is that when I am badly treated by my insurer, I can change insurers or sue them. Enough people do that and the bad guys go out of business, hopefully. (Naive, I know) But what do I do when the gov't is the only game in town and mistreats me? Just because the gov't is the monopoly doesn't make it any better than any other monopoly. Worse, actually, because they coerce the money out of me for whatever they decide to give me, rather than letting me pay for my own coverage.
We are screwed because there are so many liberal simpletons. Just look at Venezuela and realize that Obama and company are copying Hugo Chavez's takeover of that country. You can not continue to put more taxes on businesses and expect them to be able to hire more people and grow. If businesses do not grow there will be fewer jobs and no sustainable recovery. No one in Obama's group has any business experience, they think businesses exist to pay taxes so that they can redistribute the wealth. How did that work out in Cuba?
Obama is BS.
Why the F are yall duking it out amongst yourselves? Both parties are in on it. This we know. Why the vid doesn't include O's rebuttal calls into question the entire post.
The day of reckoning (higher tax/lower benefit) is coming. I feel really sorry for my 9 yr old daughter and her kids when (if?) they come. My lifetimes' gonna have some turmoil, but I fear the real trouble is 10-15 years off.
Gee, this is pretty odd.
Paul Ryan voted to expand Medicare Drugs to Seniors, and voted against negotiated Federal pay schedules, meaning the Government buys millions of the same pills at full retail price.
Some fiscal irresponsibility watchdog!
Tyler, this website is starting to suck.
clinton inherited a good economy.
the previous administration is responsible for all economic conditions. Why else would Obama create a budget that doesnt even give the representation of fiscal responsibility until after he is long gone, collecting his lifetime pension. But he cares, he knows, blaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh
righteousness is a simple term for you anonymous educated types.
It is called doing the right thing.
The right thing is getting out of debt.
Every American should be debt free.
The government has nothing to do with every American being debt free.
The government is supposed to make sure that every American doesnt require a government to be debt free.
If you owe anyone anything, you are not your own man, person, woman, etc.
Pay your debt
be responsible
If you look to the government, you are the weakest link in America.
Government programs, and their citizens, are what will vote in the next (you dont have to work, just vote) president.
Government program whores will be the source of fleeing wealth. Welcome to the end of America.
ucvhost is a leading web site hosting service provider that is known to provide reliable and affordable hosting packages to customers. The company believes in providing absolute and superior control to the customer as well as complete security and flexibility through its many packages. windows vps Moreover, the company provides technical support as well as customer service 24x7, in order to enable its customers to easily upgrade their software, install it or even solve their problems. ucvhost offers the following different packages to its customers.