Jacob Sullum | July 15, 2009
House Democrats have found a way to provide medical coverage to the uninsured without new borrowing, spending cuts, or tax hikes. The New York Times reports that "Democrats said the cost would be fully offset by proposed savings in Medicare and other health programs and by revenue-raising changes in federal tax laws."
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Translation: We don't know what the fuck we're actually doing, but we're going to throw out a lot of language that basically says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
But health care is a right, you understand? Just like a college education. And food, clothing, and shelter.
"Democrats said the cost would be fully offset by proposed
savings in Medicare"
Can you say "ration"?
Just you wait till granny hears about this. The only thing that scares the Dems more than the UAW is AARP.
... and by revenue-raising changes in federal tax
laws."
Don't worry, the taxes will only be on the very rich. Nobody really
needs more than [insert your income here] a year.
And Amtrak will be profitable in three years. And Medicare will be self-sustaining within a decade.
You will soon see me out there with my "WILL WORK FOR
EUPHEMISMS" sign.
More valuable than food!
Thankfully, lots of groups have vested interests in health care.
Doctors, patients, companies... and as Timmy (Tiiiiimmmmmmy) notes,
the AARP.
And they all have disparate and conflicting interests. This makes
crafting a satisfactory bill nearly impossible.
Hopefully.
And they all have disparate and conflicting interests. This
makes crafting a satisfactory bill nearly impossible.
It makes crafting a clusterf@ck a certainty. Everyone will get
something to sweeten the pot, which will screw things up even more
than the current system.
Once, just once, I'd like to hear a reporter with just a modicum of honor ask a politician: "Sir, with all due respect, you're pulling these economic forecasts right out of your ass, aren't you?"
Stuartl.
Well, yeah, that's a possible outcome as well. Of course, just
about anything the guvmint crafts qualifies as that, so I was just
taking that as an assumed.
I'd blog something profound, but my cousin just got home from her appointment at the VA medical center and she's going off on how they screwed up her treatment again.
Old people already have universal (aka single-payer) healthcare
through medicare. They have aboslutely nothing to gain from
"reform" that will divert funding away from the existing medicare
program.
I am truly shocked that AARP spokes-critters haven't been all over
the TV bitching about the House bill.
I am truly shocked that AARP spokes-critters haven't been
all over the TV bitching about the House bill.
Because for all their talk about helping a given class of people,
when the needs of that class conflict with the needs of govt, govt
wins out. The people they presumably speak for are just a means to
an end and that end is govt.
I am truly shocked that AARP spokes-critters haven't been all over the TV bitching about the House bill.
Because as
the NYT reports, they're being forced to play ball or else get
really screwed in the bill,
just like everyone else. I'm sure that they're criticizing in
private and in negotiations, as they try to shift the burden on
others, but public criticism of our Government would lead to being
screwed over.
"It's kind of a give-and-take, quid pro quo kind of environment," said Tom Daschle, President Obama's first choice for health secretary, who remains in touch with the White House on health care issues. "I think that the stakeholders wouldn't do this if they didn't think there was something in it for them."
...Over the past year, Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, has strong-armed industry groups, warning them not to publicly criticize the process if they want to stay in negotiations.
Mr. Baucus, in turn, has said little about his talks with industry players. On Tuesday, he said only that he was "heartened" by how many groups were supporting the health care overhaul.
These are the consequences of a filibuster proof majority and an
Administration determined to pass a bill that they can claim as a
victory regardless of the details. This was entirely predictable
after the elections. Anyone who didn't foresee exactly
this occurring on both health care and cap-and-trade wasn't paying
attention to our politicians and how they acted and voted (as
opposed to spoke) at all.
I am truly shocked that AARP spokes-critters haven't been
all over the TV bitching about the House bill.
Don't be. AARP is being bought off with the promise of being one of
the vendors under the new Obamacare plan. AARP, Inc. will make out
like bandits, financially. And, when the rationing starts to bite,
they can "lead the fight to protect the elderly" that they just
sold out.
AARP is being bought off with the promise of being one of
the vendors under the new Obamacare plan.
Figures 8-(
Saying they'll pay for health care reform by cutting back on Medicare is like a drunk saying he'll pay for his new heroin habit by cutting back on booze.
On the plus side, this plan may be an efficient and effective way to rid the productive people of the burden of supporting the greedy, demanding old AARPers.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245