CBO: Healthcare Bill is NOT deficit neutral

Saturday, October 17, 2009

This is regarding the Baucus bill, the one that was recently given the ok by the Senate Finance Committee and is, as I understand it, the most considered bill currently.

When the liberals defend that their bill is deficit neutral, they are dishonestly telling only half the story. Here is what they know (or ought to know), but don't mention:

The Congressional Budget Office broke its calculation down into two projections, one for this upcoming decade AND the decade following. Concerning the next 10 years, the bill would indeed appear deficit neutral. But only because most of the bill doesn't actually go into effect until 2015 i.e. 10 years of taxes covering only 5 years of healthcare costs. Funny how that pesky little fact puts "deficit neutrality" into perspective.

But wait, it gets worse. The mainstream media doesn't even mention the CBO's projection for the decade following. Why? Because in the second decade alone, the CBO estimates that the bill's costs would TRIPLE to $2.8 trillion dollars!! They calculated a total cost of $3.6 trillion dollars, thus raising taxes by $2.3 trillion and quadrupling Medicare cuts by $1.9 trillion.

Note carefully that these are trillions with a 'T', not that $829 billion that Obama and the liberal media have been fraudulently pushing. Oh, and this, would also leave 25 million non-elderly still uninsured.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I sure hope they change this thing to have:

1.No public option competing in the market- government shouldn't be a business and no business should be able to set the rules for their competition,
2.Tort Reform (specifically aimed at decreasing frivolous court cases) to decrease need for medical malpractice insurance for the doctors, thus lowering our costs indirectly,
3. Deregulation to allow all insurances to compete across state lines to increase competition in the market naturally without the need of excessive governmental intervention,
4. Anti-trust laws so insurance companies can't artificially manipulate prices= use the free market to fix the system.
5. No taxation for opting out of health insurance. No fees, no taxes, no legal ramifications. If I do not provide myself with health insurance then I should have to pay the bills myself when I get medical services.
6. No expansion of bankrupt Medicare. It's bankrupt, which means it was a failed experiment. Perhaps it would have to be phased out over time as the decreasing costs due to tort reform and increased competition take effect.

A free market approach will make insurance more accessible for those who currently don't have it, and they will be more likely to be able to purchase it for themselves rather than relying on employers to do it for them. Shopping for insurance should be more like a geiko commercial than espionage. The problem is that the free market got manipulated decades ago and competition-inhibiting legislation should never have been passed (except anti-trust and monopoly laws which protect the free market with competition).

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the above comment!

Lorne S. Marr said...

I have as much faith in the claim that the proposed Health-Care bill will be "Deficit Neutral" as I have in a three-year old child's claim that she can blow out the sun by blowing hard through a straw. Check out my post on weird insurance if you like ;)

Take care, Lorne

Adoniram said...

Wow!! This really helped me argue with someone about it! I totally won ;) Thanks!

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).