Senate Democrats Promise to Keep Health-Care Costs Down, Except When They Won't

Slate's John Dickerson links to this story in The Hill with the tweet: "At the same time Congress is promising to keep health care costs down, they're undoing past promises to keep costs down." It's true! From The Hill:

The Senate is looking to quickly move legislation costing more than $200 billion over 10 years that would adjust Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, but it does not plan to pay for the bill with offsetting spending cuts or tax increases.

The AP explains the strategy behind this move:

By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama's conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.

Granted, this approach may not work as planned. But the hope, it seems, is that by passing this quickly and separately from the main health-care bill, Democrats can hold on to their fishy budget projections.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The grumbling always watching for bias conservative would note that now it's just "Congress" doing this, but of course in the past any journalist would note that it was the "Republican Congress" doing it, no?

    It's pretty laughably ridiculous. The Baucus bill introduced new cuts similar to these that are being repealed. Those new cuts will, of course, be repealed.

  • ||

    Let's not forget there is no actual Baucus "bill", at least not in any rational universe sense of the word. They deliberated over and voted on a set of 'principles' that weren't even sketched in crayon on a napkin.

  • ||

    Very true. I remember seeing polls in 2008 that many or most voters didn't know that Democrats had controlled Congress for two years. I suspect that was due to the way the media tended to report on it.

  • ||

    Perhaps the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s and if we are not lucky the start of a great depression is not the best time to worry most about the 47 million uninsured. The Dems are insane for socialized medicine. They see this as their last and best hope to get it. And they don't care if getting it means bankrupting the country or helping the economy slip into a depression.

    People like Bachus really are depraved at this point. Bachus wants his name on a historic bill he doesn't care what the price is to get it. This is all about ego and ideology. The truth, facts or anything else have nothing to do with it.

  • Peter Suderman||

    Thacker,

    That's probably accurate, although these days I just think of Congress as an essentially Democratic entity. It's not like Republicans are setting the agenda.

  • ||

    But to the cheetos chomping homo americanus normalis, loaded adjectives are important for maximum propagandization.

  • ||

    Oh sure, but have you ever seen the polls that ask who controls Congress? It was especially bad last year.

    Frankly, from the way that Democrats are talking you would think that the Republicans are setting the agenda.

    Anything negative from 1994 to 2006, it was always "Republican(-led) Congress," but now it's just "Congress." It's a stupidly minor thing, but it's one of those things that adds up. Like the old game of "if the politician in the scandal doesn't have his party listed prominently in the first paragraph, he's a Democrat."

  • ||

    Here's a polling example.

    It's gotten better, since apparently lots of voters assumed that since GWB was President, the Republicans must control Congress. Now, I heard ridiculous things like that from foreigners (in the UK, someone swore to me that the Prime Minister had a harder time getting votes in Parliament than the President did in Congress), but it's just sad from US citizens.

  • bmp1701||

    Dishonesty? In my politicians? It's more likely than you think!

  • ||

    " That's probably accurate, although these days I just think of Congress as an essentially Democratic entity. It's not like Republicans are setting the agenda. "

    I think that's John Thacker's point. The media, if they were truly unbiased, would now refer to Congress as "Democrat-led Congress" since they refered to it as "Republican-led Congress" from 2002-2006.

  • Barney Rubble||

    John-

    I'm not so worried for the next few years. I worry about having to apologize to my kids and grandkids for the crappy health care they will be getting while the government taxes them into economic mediocrity.

    It's like we are going back to the Stone Age.

  • @||

    You exaggerate, Barney. Bronze Age at the worst.

  • ||

    Don't you realize how polluting mining is, and the carbon footprint of bronze smelting? It cannot be allowed.

  • ||

    I worry about having to apologize to my kids and grandkids for the crappy health care they will be getting while the government taxes them into economic mediocrity.

    I suggest you pair that apology with a gift of firearms and ammo. You'll need to stock up now, of course.

  • Rich||

    Obama to Congress: "the time for games has passed".

    What a stinking pile of excrement.

  • zoltan||

    They are "promising" to keep prices down, not costs. You can't magically reduce costs, but you can magically reduce prices, with lots of problems, of course.

  • ¢||

    It's not like Republicans are setting the agenda.

    The fundraising emails I get from the DNC say otherwise. You get 'em, too, right?

    You didn't notice how creepy they are, relying on their own most active voters' not knowing or being willfully in denial about who controls congress?

    It's been one of their base-whipping strategies for years now. Works, too. It's kind of amazing.

  • ||

    It's not like Republicans are setting the agenda.

    The fundraising emails I get from the DNC say otherwise.

    Do they refer to the Republicans' sinister mind-control powers? Because I don't see any way people who aren't even allowed in the room when legislation is being created can set the agenda.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    Hey, I'll never doubt the evil genius of Republicans.

    Not since Dick Cheney used a state where almost all of the election machinery was controlled by Democrats to steal an election, I won't. :)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If only Congress would use this industrious cleverness to do actual good.

  • ||

    They promise everything, but you will only get this - all in this video

    '3-D Halloween Obamacare Horror show'

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

  • fashion life||

    If only Congress would use this industrious cleverness to do actual good.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement