Thursday, December 31, 2009

Health Care 'Reform' Not increase deficit?

Happy New Year friends!!

I have friend named Jim who insists that ObamaCare will NOT increase the Federal Deficit, that it will NOT cause people to lose their current health care plans, that it will NOT impact national debt...

I have, alternately, insisted that it will. (How could it not?) You can check out our discussion in this comment section if you're into details, specifics; if you enjoy the minutia of the issue.

If you're like me, you enjoy details, but every so often one must take a step back & see the 'forest for the trees.' I've written before about Charles Krauthammer's brilliance; how he displays his nimble intellect every time he opens his mouth. And, true to form, Dr. K again shows us how to step back & see that there is, in fact, a forest among the tedium of trees.

Watch & learn, friends. Watch & learn (you too, Jim):



And if this isn't enough - or recent enough - take a look @ this article. Here are some quotes, just in case you're in a hurry...

"Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of 'Bernie Madoff accounting' for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill."

"The real score on this legislation is that it would cause the deficit to increase, and not be a surplus as the president has promised," Sessions told Fox News. "And a lot members of our Congress have said I won't vote for this bill unless it's deficit neutral. It's not deficit neutral. It will add to the debt. That's clear today."

"To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."

"Either you've weakened the Medicare substantially or you're going to have no money to spend on the new program that's being created," he said. "You cannot spend this money twice."

"Bernie Madoff accounting..."
"Bernie Madoff accounting..."
"Bernie Madoff accounting..."

Me? I'm not sure how it could be any more clear...You?

~~~

43 comments:

Law and Order Teacher said...

HE STILL CAN'T SAY IT. EXTREMIST? TERRORIST!
According to the president's statement of the last few minutes this near tragedy was the act of an extremist. He still refuses to use the work terrorist because that would imply we are at war and he really can't wrap his mind around that fact. This is not a criminal problem, robbers and burglars are criminals. People who try to detonate a bomb while a passenger on a plane with nearly three hundred people on board are terrorists. Terrorists, not extremists.

Oh and by the way, someone made a mistake and he's going to correct it. I'm sure those reviews will fix the problem. Gibbs today stated that the terrorist was lost on the lists because there are over 500,000 on the "watch list." This brings up a question. If they can't keep track of a "watch list" full of terrorists, how in the hell will they keep track of over 70 million people enrolled in government health care?
I'd say they have to keep the scum alive to question him, but then I realized Obama is president and will probably make sure he has a lawyer and isn't forced to talk by putting him in a room that may be too cold. I can’t believe the moron is still alive!!! The passengers should have killed him for us. But what would those bleeding hearts say!

DUTA said...

Reforms, any reform ,including Health Care, require big money which America doesn't have it , she won't have it. She's a superpower of debts.The american people ignore the fact that they are celebrating the holidays with money that is being printed now, money that has nothing to do with real economy. That's both sad and dangerous.

USA_Admiral said...

Happy New Year to you!


How dumb does this administration really think half of the people are?

Frank The Thinking Man, said...

I agree with Law and Order Teacher.
In other words, the administration's anti-terrorism policy can be summed up as, "Blame Bush."
This seems to be the theme thruout the Liberals blogs theses days. Blame Busg!
Mind-boggling.

Right-Wing Libertarian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right-Wing Libertarian said...

Heck, Suz ... This wingnut (Obama) has hired (at our expense) a whole gaggle of "experts" to skew the data and make this train wreck look affordable. Clearly it is not. To digress, I once had a professor in college who used two blackboards to "prove" that 1 = 0! A student had to clearly understand algebraic laws and proofs in order to find the errors which led to this flawed identity. If our small, modest-budget college professor could do it, I'm sure there's gotta be a whole gummit office fulla people who can do the same thing.

To be honest, I was NOT among the first people to find the flaws in our professor's math. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who do not see the "flaws" in Obama's math. Simply put, neither he nor anyone in his staff of magicians, knows how we can possibly pay for the health care train wreck that he chose as his pet project. I still predict that Obama will have a tough time spinning this mess into a reasonable legacy for himself. I believe this is all he really wants. It is vitally mportant that we give him only one term in which to do it.

(comment modified because I'm grammatically challenged)

Anonymous said...

The liberals keep telling us that, thanks to Obama’s policy of speaking endlessly and carrying a very small stick, America has gained renewed respect around the world.

The liberals preferred position is fetal; cowardice is all they've known their entire lives.

If I may rant……..

Nations that drove their countries into ruin from the despotic rule of communism have over the decades adopted more and more capitalism, which has allowed their nations to prosper and thus creating a burgeoning middle class, the bedrock of any stable society. Capitalism has benefited humanity more than any other system, which even communists could no longer ignore, yet here in America silver spoon liberal ingrates in their BMWs are squealing against capitalism and yammering for decrepit socialism [frankly they want communism based on their anti business rhetoric].

These caviar communists are always bleating about the “working man” and demonizing the “greedy capitalists”, the same "greedy capitalists" that pay their undeserved exorbitant salaries. They decry profits yet refuse to work for less than x amount of millions for simply reciting lines in front of a camera. These overpaid leftwing Hollywood ingrates should all be paid the same as the grips and catering staff. We all know they’re shameless hypocrites; if I could I wouldn’t allow them to live the capitalist life they deride. I’d make them live in the woods and hunt for their own food. They’d be allowed nothing made by a corporation. Basically they’d be walking around in loin cloths and tie-dyed sweaters sewn by hippies.

Susannah said...

L&OT~ Good to see you!
"HE STILL CAN'T SAY IT. EXTREMIST? TERRORIST!"
And he won't. It may just be offensive to those who don't like us very much.

"If they can't keep track of a 'watch list' full of terrorists, how in the hell will they keep track of over 70 million people enrolled in government health care?"
It simply defies all logic, doesn't it?

DUTA~ So glad you're here! Welcome!
EVERYTHING you just said is exactly correct. Thank you. Could you come talk some sense into our Congress, this neophyte of a president we have? Please?

USA! Happy New Year to you! They think 1/2 of us are pretty dumb, & the other 1/2 they have over a barrel.

Frank~ They'll squeak as much mileage as they think they can get out of Bush...then they'll find some other way to deflect responsibility for the deeper hole they've dug. We MUST hold their feet to the fire.

RWL~ Excellent comment! Reckon Bernie Maddof had the same math Prof?

Only one term & only 1 1/2 years with his Congress.

Anon~ Do, please tell us who you are next time. We're friendly for the most part, & I promise we've all had our shots!

"Obama’s policy of speaking endlessly and carrying a very small stick, America has gained renewed respect around the world."
Please...weak, weak, weak...ugh! How's he liking his Iran policy lately? Yeah, Ahmadinejad fell right in step when BHO was nice & diplomatic w/ them! (Ha! What a joke!)

"overpaid leftwing Hollywood ingrates" love it!

"We all know they’re shameless hypocrites" all of us except them!

Great talk here, folks! Happy New Year!

Jim said...

Happy New Year everyone!

Krauthammer may be brilliant, but in this video he presents nothing more than his anti-Obama opinion. He does not cite one fact nor one source of any factual information. Not one.

And thanks for the link to the article about the CBO letter to Sessions. It actually gives me MORE FACTS to support my argument. From Session's site, I went to and read the letter sent to him by the CBO. Interesting. Did you read it?

In it the CBO says it was asked (apparently by Sessions) "Specifically, CBO has been asked whether the reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues under the legislation can provide additional resources to pay future Medicare benefits while simultaneously providing resources to pay for new programs outside of Medicare."

And his answer is NO. He says savings for the Medicare Trust Fund would be over $300B but net savings to the overall Federal Budget would only be $130B. You can't count both as combined savings.

Of course not, and the CBO's scoring of the HCR bill doesn't do that. That's why the CBO said the 10 year deficit reduction would be $130B and not $430B. And no Democrats are saying that the first 10-year savings is any more that the CBO's $130B.

So "The real score on this legislation is that it would cause the deficit to increase, and not be a surplus as the president has promised," Sessions told Fox News...is actually untrue.

Try reading the CBO letter yourself instead of accepting Sessions' partisan and false spin.

BetteJo said...

It makes me crazy that there are people out there that take the president at face value. He stated he will not sign a healthcare bill that is not deficit neutral - so all he has to do is SAY "this healthcare bill is deficit neutral and I am signing it."

They do not question whether or not he is twisting the truth, fudging the math, or out-right lying. ARGH-H-H-H!!!

Jim said...

BettyJo, regardless of what the President says, the non-partisan CBO says that the bill will REDUCE the deficit, better than deficit neutral. And no Republican or talking head, not even Krauthammer or Sessions can refute it with facts.

Pedaling said...

looking forward to a new year,
a new election and new friends on the right.

love your site!

Happy New Year!

Susannah said...

My friend Nancy (wife of retired Air Force) emailed me w/ this comment:

"Your friend is an idiot and you can tell him/her I said so! Whoever this idiot is must be swallowing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's spin that it won't increase the deficit without question why it won't.

He needs to understand that if taxes are increased immediately, but health care does not start until 2014 then deficit spending SHOULD go down.

Of course, as soon as any deficit starts showing any sign of being reduced for whatever reason, the Dems. will find some damn excuse to start another spending/borrowing spree and that will take care of that. We live in a country full of idiots!"

Susannah said...

Jim~ Please see Nancy's comment.
Happy New Year to you, too!

BetteJo~ So glad to see you!! It's called Bernie Madoff math, regardless of what Jim's explanation is.

Ped! Welcome! So glad you found us! I'm looking forward to a new year & new friends too. Please come back any time.

Dan said...

Regardless of what Jim says he is just he presents nothing more than his pro-Obama opinion.

Susannah said...

Dan~ You're a hoot! ;) Glad to see you here!

Dan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan said...

Rule 3 of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Most people work, raise their children, enjoy their families, and live their lives in the best way they know how. They do not have time to be intimately acquainted with the inter workings of the C.B.O., the politics that are at play, or the minutia of a 2000 whatever page document that even those who voted for it in congress don't even seem to understand. But most people who look past the freebie aspect of this bill know a rat when they see one. Jim said the bill pays for itself. That's great, why not have a bill pay for us all to be able to quit work?

The problem remains that we are being asked to anti up today for promises in the future. This is typical for there is no way to measure today how well the promises will be kept tomorrow, but there is a way to measure today the promises made yesterday. And this does nothing to instill confidence into heart of the sceptic.

So dealing with the promise that the bill will pay for itself. Read increased taxation, decreased jobs requiring further increase in taxation on those still working. That, tacked onto this silly notion, and of course another future event, that fraud will be gotten under control, and there you have it, the bill will pay for itself. It does sound oh so nice as long as you don't think about it too much, and as long as you are ignorant of history, and as long as you don't look too closely at past promises, and as long as you don't think too much about what this is going to cost in terms of liberty, and as long as you don't consider the fact that as long as health care was a private affair the government could carry out its constitutional mandate of governing externally as opposed to internally, and as long as you don't think about the fact that the government is made up of the same sinful men that insurance companies are made up of, and as long as you think about the reality of the government never saying that's enough taxes, or power... you know... just so long as you fix your eyes on that future event where everything's going to just peachy, and history began in the year 2000, why this health care bill is the best thing since sliced bread.

Susannah said...

Okay, first:

Jim~ I'm so sorry that I didn't clarify this yesterday. When I said "see Nancy's comment" I didn't mean the "idiot" part. I was referring to the part where she says "He needs to understand that if taxes are increased immediately, but health care does not start until 2014 then deficit spending SHOULD go down."

I hope you'll still join us, even if you thought I was insulting you. I didn't mean it that way - & yes, I do have some fairly passionate friends.

Susannah said...

Dan~ What a fantastic explanation of what's going on here! You articulated exactly the sense that I had in my gut, but couldn't transpose into my brain to put to words. Thank you.

I'm going to read it a few more times to make that neural pathway from my gut to my brain more concrete!

Joe said...

We need to clarify whether we are talking about a budget deficit or an increase in debt, with regard to the health care bills set to be reconcilled by lawmakers.

With the ensuing bill, we will, of course, have both.

Aside from saddling our grandchildren with a huge deficit, we will also be forced to borrow more money to support this plan, or else it will not be funded.

We already owe more money to other countries (China in particular) than we who are living today will ever see paid back.

In Chicago, when you owe money to someone and you don't pay it back, sooner or later they will send a cousin around to see you. He'll have an Italian sounding name like Vito or Pasquale. He will demonstrate physically why you should pay the debt...like, today.

It won't be long before other countries (specifically, China) will want to collect on the debt we owe them, or else they will physically demonstrate why we should.

What we should be moving toward is living within our means, balancing our budget and reducting both our deficits and our debts.

For this health care legislation to reduce the deficit it would have to ignore or disobey every sound economic theory in existence, violate every axiom of mathematics and be seen by people with their heads in the clouds while wearing rose colored glasses.

Jim is wrong and unable to see that he is wrong.

Dan's explanation was spot on.

Susannah said...

Joe~ Thanks so much for joining us. You make some excellent points about our national debt. THAT is truly frightening. It scares me to think that we're so beholden to the Chinese - never mind our dependence on Islamic Oil cartels.

When did our national personality take on such dependent traits? Ugh.

Z said...

I KNEW you wouldn't have used that 'idiot' remark of Nancy's had you noticed it, Susannah....I smiled when I saw your apology!

I don't get people like Jim. I WISH he was right, oh, brother, DO I.
WHY didn't Obama FIX MEDICARE if he thinks he can do that now, for a start?
Dan's right....our healthcare is going to really take a terrible hit and our country's will even be worse. WHY couldn't they just fix the problem for those who needed the fix?

Jim said...

Susannah, thanks for the "clarification". Just for the record, I'm the son of a 21-year Army officer veteran, for whatever qualification anyone is looking for.

Dan said, "The problem remains that we are being asked to anti up today for promises in the future."

And Nancy said, "He needs to understand that if taxes are increased immediately, but health care does not start until 2014 then deficit spending SHOULD go down."

I understand perfectly. Why would either of you complain about raising some of the money now to pay for something ahead of time instead of borrowing it all when all the benefits have kicked in? Wouldn't you start putting away money now for a down payment on a car you're going to buy next year?

Nancy also said, "as soon as any deficit starts showing any sign of being reduced for whatever reason, the Dems. will find some damn excuse to start another spending/borrowing spree and that will take care of that."

History says "nope". Here, here, and here.

Dan said, "That's great, why not have a bill pay for us all to be able to quit work?" I don't know why.

Joe said, "We need to clarify whether we are talking about a budget deficit or an increase in debt" Not really. A budget deficit by definition increases the debt.

I worry about the debt just as much as you. And I worried about it during the Bush administration, too. I didn't just start worrying about it. This debt was not created by Obama. Check out the graph here and note that TARP and the stimulus are a very small fraction of the deficit over the next 10 years. The bigger components are the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I have presented facts about the CBO's scoring of the Senate HCR bill. And you can read the CBO Scoring here. Has all the charts and numbers you could ever hope for. The bill decreases the deficit.

These are facts.

Dan, Joe, Nancy and everyone else have presented fear, supposition and talking points. Not one fact.

I've presented facts AND the CBO's report. But, then, I'm an idiot.

"Jim is wrong and unable to see that he is wrong." Show me a fact. Please!

Susannah said...

Jim~ You're welcome for the clarification. I owed it to you.

I looked @ all the links you provided. The only one that impressed me was the "National Debt Graph," which shows Reagan/Bush experiencing an increase in debt following the CARTER Admin. (remember gas lines & 'malaise'? I was only about 8) & wrestling w/ a Dem. Congress for at least part of the time. Looks to me like Bill Clinton - with his REPUBLICAN Congress enjoyed a lot of the byproduct of the Reagan years.

HOWEVER, the insinuation you're making is that Clinton was responsible for the debt decline that he enjoyed. We all know that's a laugh!...I was just coming into my intellectual 'own' at that time, & discinctly remember that Clinton fought w/ his Republican Congress about their fiscal decisions.

Like I said, I'm not impressed w/ your 'facts,' friend. I'm much more impressed w/ the legacy of Service you come from. Many thanks to your Dad/Mom(?).

We all know that graphs & stats can be skewed for most any purpose (think Bernie Madoff). An especially good example is the one you plucked from that 'Democratic Underground' site.

So, I guess we're back where we started. I stand by my post & the statements it makes. I completely & wholeheartedly agree w/ the statements that LOT, Frank, DUTA, RWL, Dan, Nancy, Joe, et. al have made. Their consistent, clear, concrete logic matches mine, & far outweighs a cross-sectional CBO analysis that only -at its best- operates on a theoretical understanding of this behemoth bill -- sans all the variables, outliers & unforseens that most certainly WILL affect the fiscal outcome (read here: debt/deficit, etc.).

If we move forward w/ this thing using your logic & CBO 'facts,' Jim, we're in deep doo doo.

Jim said...

You can disbelieve the CBO, the US Treasury Department and the Bush White House website if you like.

Where are YOUR facts? You can't convince me of anything with your "logic" and suppositions. I'm looking at analysis and facts, and they support my position. Where are your facts to change my mind?

I guess we are at a standstill.

Susannah said...

you~ "I'm looking at analysis and facts, and they support my position."

me~ "CBO analysis that only -at its best- operates on a theoretical understanding of this behemoth bill -- sans all the variables, outliers & unforseens that most certainly WILL affect the fiscal outcome"

We looked @ your facts, graphs, etc. & I made a logical 'supposition' based on things which have ACTUALLY happened in the past - see Dan's list of examples (btw, best predictor of future behavior is past behavior).

"Where are your facts to change my mind?"
Nothing I say will change your mind, Jim dear, I'm afraid.

I don't claim to be a cracker jack CPA (though I know some who are) or a budget analyst. However, I've given you my best 'analysis' based on my concrete observations of our governmental institutions, their penchant for confiscatory taxation, borrowing & spending, etc. I've analyzed your 'facts' & given you my interpretation thereof - again based on my own life experiences & observations during my short history as an adult American.

It seems to me, you simply don't want to step back & see the forest for the trees. I'm looking @ the forest, Jim. You're looking at a sapling that hopes to SOME DAY join the live oaks, never mind that she's a diseased specimen. And then there's deforestation, wildfires, etc. Oh, & then there's the pack of beavers who need juicy saplings for their dams.

Yep. We're at a standstill.

Fredd said...

Suze: don't bother trying to argue the 'facts' with Jim The Troll. He has his own.

Jim: Krauthammer points to all of these savings we can make on cutting waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system as a joke. Where's your facts to debunk this? Are you OK with continuing the waste, fraud and abuse, do you really think this adminsistration is serious about doing anything about it, or do you not see the waste, fraud and abuse as fact?

Jim, you are just a troll trying to muddy our crystal clear waters. Stick with your buddies at the Daily Kos, where your fuzzy 'facts' can carry the day.

Dan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan said...

Jim Said:

Where are YOUR facts?

Where are YOUR facts Jim? Are you saying that it is impossible for the CBO to be wrong?

If it is possible that it can be wrong then the only "fact" that you've presented to us is the fact that the CBO has made a prediction.

BTW, I don't think you're an idiot and would never say or imply it. I think it is fair to say that both of us see the other as deceived, and that at least one of us is, but I for one leave the name calling to liberals.

Jim said...

Thank you, Dan. But.."but I for one leave the name calling to liberals."

Does that make Fredd and Nancie "liberals". I don't think so.

Anyway, "Are you saying that it is impossible for the CBO to be wrong?"

Nope, not at all. But it is a very serious analysis done by people who do these kinds of analyses all the time. They could be wrong. Could be. But there is no equivalent analysis refuting what they are saying. None. Just "it's gonna take over 1/6 th of the economy, and it's going to pull the plug on grandma."

I'd LOVE to see a thorough analysis of the bill as proposed that makes legitimate economic and actuarial assumptions and comes up with a significantly different conclusion.

Can you point me to one?

Dan said...

So your facts are only an educated prediction. Yet you ask me "where are YOUR facts?". And again, you say: "I'd LOVE to see a thorough analysis of the bill as proposed that makes legitimate economic and actuarial assumptions and comes up with a significantly different conclusion. This is an argument based on the fallacy Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Of course no one can prove you wrong no more than you can prove Krauthammer wrong other than the typical ad homs or well poisoning.

But let's look at your "fact" for there are several problems with it.

1. The CBO's results depend on the data put in. So the CBO, and me too for that matter, has no problem with adding up the estimated cost for five years then subtracting the increased taxes for ten years and the savings from stopping fraud, and there you have it, a ten year no deficit health care reform. It doesn't really take a genius or a liberal to agree with this math. But as you agreed there are lots of unknowns which brings me to my next problem.

2. The Economic laws of cost and demand will come into play. In a static view of economics, if taxes are raised a given percentage, income should increase by that same percentage. If we lived in a static world I may be more inclined to trust the CBO numbers. But we live in a dynamic world and as increased taxes are levied there will be a corresponding decrease in demand for goods and services along with a decrease in tax revenues resulting in deficits.

3. Krauthammer touched on this which is the raised question of: if this extra money from abuse was always there, why do we need a health care bill to stop it? Isn't abuse already against the law? SO now I'm suppose to believe that the government is going to suddenly get a handle on this after near a half century of fraud and abuse? As Krauthammer put it, that is an insult to my intelligence. But again, as is typical, we are told that this savings is out there somewhere, down the path of time in the land of promises. But we can always consider history in making out prognosis:

4. Again I say that today is yesterday's tomorrow and we do know how that turned out which brings to question the issue of trust. I honestly don't know how the CBO did these numbers; whether they counted the surplus SSI funds to make this appear to be deficit neutral or not, perhaps you know and can enlighten us. But I do remember being told some years back that the Clinton administration had a surplus. And of course, unless you employ the same accounting gimmicks, this was never true and can be seen here on this Treasury site by the continued increase in federal debt during his presidency. This was done by the accounting trick of not counting as debt the money borrowed out of the "trust" fund for other promises made yesterday, which incidentally is going broke sooner than we thought. It would be nice if we could make good yesterday's promises before we make even more that can be kept, yes?



I have more good reasons why you and everyone else should oppose this bill, but they digress away from the scope of this post. I don't expect to change your mind, Jim, but my hope is that some teetering soul might come by here, read this, and perhaps be convinced by my arguments.

Susannah said...

Excellent discussion friends.

Fredd~ What Dr. K didn't say is that the 'waste, fraud & abuse' which BHO promised to eliminate is his bread & butter. If he actually DID something about it, he may very well be sabatoging his own re-election campaign. It's the people committing the WFA who're on the g'ment 'dole,' who are dependents, & will absolutely NOT vote out their sugar-daddy. Therefore, Sugar-daddy is blowing smoke about eliminating WFA (sounds good, right?) w/ absolutely NO intention of lifting a finger. Sad. Really sad. And so transparent as to be insulting, as Dr. K aptly notes.

As for muddied waters, no problem. I actually find it oddly clarifying. Solidifies my position when I know that I know I'm right. (And on other unrelated topics, it sometimes tweaks my thinking, which is good.)

Susannah said...

Jim dear & Dan~ more excellent discussion, thank you.

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam": the claim that an argument is correct simply because it has not been proven INcorrect.

"argumentum ad ignorantiam" : this type of reasoning is a fallacy (misconception coming from incorrect reasoning).

Fallacious arguments are built on rhetoric which OBSCURES the logical argument (note Rule 3 of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals);

eg., "If you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right." or for our purposes, "I've given you facts - never mind they're fallicies - now, where are yours to prove me wrong?"

Thus, argumentum ad ignorantium = "red herring."

Jim, your facts may very well be correct. However, as my 1-4-10 post addresses, 'facts' grounded in hopes & change for the future do not hold up under the scrutiny of reality over time.

Dan~ absolutely, positively spot on. Brilliant logical, rhetorical dismantling of the fallacious premise. Thank you. (Fredd, this is what I was talking about re: clarity.)

Jim said...

"This is an argument based on the fallacy Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Of course no one can prove you wrong no more than you can prove Krauthammer wrong other than the typical ad homs or well poisoning."

This is ridiculous, of course. I'm claiming no such thing. I'm saying that I'm presenting analysis and numbers by people who do it for a living and Krauthammer is postulating based on his hatred of government and Democrats. No analysis, no numbers, nada.

Again, you complain about collecting money in advance to bankroll future cost. How much more "conservative" can that be. Then with the ball rolling from the first decade, in the second decade, the CBO predicts savings of $1.3 TRILLION.

But let's not even try to eliminate fraud and waste in Medicare. Because fraud and waste is how Obama became a millionaire.

Or something like that?

Huh?

Dan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan said...

"I'm saying that I'm presenting analysis and numbers by people who do it for a living and Krauthammer is postulating based on his hatred of government and Democrats. No analysis, no numbers, nada."

"Hatred of government and Democrats"

So if anyone is not clear yet on what a ad hominum fallacious argument is, this is about as blatant an example as I've seen, and of course the continued ad ignorantiam argument.

At any rate, I gave Jim four points. He has responded to none. He keeps going back to his talking points, hingeing what is amounting to the first step in the government takeover of health care on some CBO numbers that he himself admits could be wrong.

Jim, Now don't forget when you respond to keep putting that 10 year figure in there for everyone so that your points can remain valid in your own mind.

Anyway, I would like to reiterate point number 4 on trust by pointing open minded readers to words from the man himself, Obama. Given this promise, why would Obama be behind clothes doors now with the C span camera's at bay?. Is that his definition of transparency? This bill is a watershed bill that will have a huge impact on every citizen. Why would he want to meet in secret to hash it out? In a word, dishonesty. This is a huge step to put in the hands of such dishonesty.

There were many people, most likely majority of the people that actually desired health care reform, I count myself among them. But this is not how its done.


BTW, here's another one.

And here's another one about tax cuts.

That's it for me. Yall have a nice day and remember if you can't sleep at night from worrying about all this, the CBO says its all going to be peachy! :)

Susannah said...

Jim said - "you complain about collecting money in advance to bankroll future cost. How much more 'conservative' can that be?"

Oh boy...step away from the keyboard, please...

1) 'Collecting money' = CONFISCATING ASSETS from people who do NOT want to be robbed!

2) the "collectors'" arrogant assumption is that they can spend the people's $$ better than the people.

3) after confiscation of the people's assets, the 'collectors' will spend the people's $$ on something that the people DON'T WANT

4) The 'collectors' will then re-distribute the people's $$/services according to their own wisdom (remember? the people are too stupid), which equates to robbing Peter to pay Paul

That, Jim dear, is NOT conservatism. It's socialist, even communist, but it is not fiscal conservatism in a Republic.

PLEASE refrain from twisting that kind of logic at this blog in the future. It mocks fiscal conservatives & insults my intelligence, sir.

Our healthcare system needs reforms, but this surely is NOT the way it should be done. This 'process' is akin to some sort of sick, secretive political molestation. It should NOT happen like this in my country, & I'm really, really angry about it.

It's late. I can't sleep. I'm worried. Sorry, but the CBO's 'peachy' forecast ain't cuttin' it for me. No matter who tries to extol its virtues.

Buck said...

Let us not forget that after the CBO's initial and unfavorable analysis of the first versions of healthcare back in July, Obama summoned the CBO director to the white house to demonstrate some Chicago-style politics, probably followed-up with some dead fish (or fetus or something)in the mail. Funny how ever since then, the CBO analyses have been much more favorable. Yeah - the bill has changed and yeah, they are supposedly non-partisan - so why did Obama summon the director and taint the appearance of objectivity? Hint: because he doesn't give a rat's arse about objectivity or truthful analysis. He just wants to force this garbage down our throats. If Barry wanted us to believe the CBO, he should never have pulled that slimy stunt. He is a control freak - who will not allow the CBO or anyone else to stop his master plans. He thinks this is "leadership". That's the leftist spin these days. Corruption, pure and simple, in leftist speak is "leadership".

Susannah said...

Buck~ Ouch. Excellent point, & a fact that none of us here had considered. You have a way, sir, of cutting right to the chase on some things. Thank you.

Susannah said...

Hey, Z~
How're ya doin'? I was re-reading this comment thread & realized that I didn't respond to yours! Sorry - oversight...

Everybody, Z has a new 'foodie' blog. Wonderful sounding recipes over there. When I read some of it to my husband, he said, "If I was ever gonna have a blog, that's the kind I would do."

That's sayin' a LOT from Mr. Susannah, Z!! ;) He says Hi, btw.

charles said...

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Susannah said...

Charles~ Thanks for coming by! As for what you're saying, I say "TERM LIMITS!"

Come back when you can stay longer!