Obama's Latest Health Care Lie

That would be in remarks the president made yesterday:

The Congressional Budget Office now reports that this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade, and by as much as $1.3 trillion in the decade after that.  So I just want to be clear, for all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big spending government bill, this cuts our deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years, and by over a trillion in the second.  That argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water.

There are actually multiple lies and deceptions in this paragraph, beginning with the verb "reports" to describe what the Congressional Budget Office does. The CBO, as Peter Suderman documented in his foundational Reason feature on the organization, does not "report," it "projects," in highly speculative fashion, what a proposed piece of legislation may cost. What's more, as Suderman detailed in a more recent piece that every American should read before listening to a word the president says, the CBO is bound in its "scoring" to take at face value what every living politician–Obama included–knows to be a stinking lie. That is, Congress' promises to make hundreds of billions of dollars worth of unspecified future spending "cuts." From the article:

[A]s the health care debate has progressed throughout the year, Congressional Democrats have become far more adept at getting the CBO to count the beans just the way they want. [...]

Indeed, they have become so skilled at getting what they want out of the CBO that the office has taken to including strongly worded warnings that the various bills' real costs may not actually match their estimates. [...]

Analysts at the CBO are not blind to this, but they must score bills as if what is written is what will happen. However, they are not prohibited from issuing strong warnings about what might happen if the legislative reality they assumed for scoring purposes somehow does not come to pass

Which is exactly what they have done (read the whole thing for multiple examples). And even given Obama's root lie of "reports," and passing over the absurd lie that this is somehow not "a big spending government bill," there's a lie built into the very CBO claim that the president is waving around like a lie-shattering club. Cue ABCnews.com's Jake Tapper:

But the deficit reduction number cited by the president has been disavowed by CBO.

When CBO first guesstimated by how much the Senate health reform legislation would reduce the deficit, they said it would be about half a percent of GDP -- $1.3 billion, said Democrats.

But on Sunday, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf issued a correction, downgrading the estimate from half a percent of GDP to between a quarter and a half a percent. The reason is that CBO misinterpreted when recommendations from the Medicare Advisory Committee would kick in.

Finally, as Suderman again has tirelessly pointed out, cutting the deficit is not the same as spending less, contra Obama's formulation here. Why, it's almost as if you could write something every day about the president's health care mendacity!

I'm still waiting for those who whooped and hollered when Obama said "we will call you out" to react with similar enthusiasm when the caller-outer-in-chief is caught red-handed. I guess we'll have to wait until they find themselves on the other side of the legislative argument. Who coulda guessed that the "reality-based community" would fudge facts to win fights just like the faith-based monsters they replaced?

Watch Reason.tv below on what typically happens to entitlement 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.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "Let me be clear" as the alt-text for the first pic is damn near genius Matt.

    Well done.

  • ||

    Seconded.

  • Doc Merlin||

    thirded.

  • Rich||

    the CBO ... has taken to including strongly worded warnings that the various bills' real costs may not actually match their estimates.

    Great. May I suggest that the following warning be placed on every page of "the various bills"?

    "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

  • Medic001||

    I found it interesting that they picked on Acupuncture and chiropractic, but left out elective cesareans tare covered by insurance. Chiropractic and acupuncture both work, and are cheaper than traditional western medicine.

    If they want to place things that are relevant and aren't working in the health care system, lets look at perscription drugs that are mandated to be covered.

    lavitra, Viagra, tafadil. None of thses are life saving, nor do they truly do a body good.

    Sorry, I'm tired of groups bashing alternative medicine. Perhaps reason should do a little more home work on the efficacey of certin things that do help and are cheaper, more cost affective, and show real progress.

    my burning 2 cents.

  • CTObserver||

    Your comment is a perfect illustration of the central problem with the government deciding what should be covered (or not) by health "insurance". This issue is not what works or doesn't; the issue is not whether some procedures have "medical" or merely "hedonic" benefits. The issue should be what patients are willing to pay for. The central problem is the government mandate.

  • Mike||

    I disagree. The central problem is that whether we like it or not, directly or indirectly we are already paying for each others healthcare. The central problem is: how do we make it cheaper. We make it cheaper by narrowing profit margins and proactively managing our health and individuals access to health services. This is a no effin' brainer people, come-on!

  • Rich_H||

    "narrowing profit margins"? Against what industry should the government baseline the profit margins for health care companies? What happens if the cost of health care continues to rise, how much should those profit margins be reduced?

    Let's start with three things then try your command-and-control economic policy...

    Cut out waste - Obama claims there's $500 billion in waste to cut from Medicare, let's do it and put it in Al Gore's "lock-box"

    Tort reform - proven to lower costs in states it's been implemented in.

    Increase health insurance competition by allowing sales across state lines.

    Why do we have to rush to solutions that do not fit the reported problem (cost)? If you think about it for a minute you will recognize that Obama could care less about cost. Cost is simply the latest marketing gimmick that resonates well given current economic sentiment. If he were honest, he'd say cost be damned, rationing be damned, nothing matters but amassing more control at the federal level and incentifing a whole new class of government dependants to vote "progressive".

    The answer to the problem of high cost should involve lowering the cost. And at the end of the day if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

  • Mike||

    You bring up an excellent point about baseline profit margins which underlines a huge problem with health insurance: the lack of competition. There is no reliable gauge of profit margins because there's little to no competition in the market. This is a fundamental problem that could be addressed with a public option for instance.

    Tort Reform - Give me a break, anyone who knows anything about Tort reform will tell you it adds far less than 1% to overall healthcare costs. I agree that it's worth a look but in the aggregate it's only a tiny fraction of healthcare value. On the flip side of that, if your doctor were to amputate the wrong arm or operate on the wrong organ causing you serious harm you'd probably be pissed to find out the value of your suit is only $150K or $250K.

    As for selling insurance across state lines, that's a great idea if you believe saving 5% (under the best case scenerio) is the answer to our healthcare woes. Check out the 2005 CBO report on this issue: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6639&type=0

    At the end of the day tightening profit margins and changing the way people access healthcare is the sane and fiscally conservative way to attack this problem. Again - NO BRAINER.

  • TallDave||

    If by "NO BRAINER" you mean "NO ONE WITH A BRAIN COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THIS" then yes.

    Did you miss the last century of economic history? If attacking profit margins led to efficiencies, North Korea would have the world's highest living standards.

    Saving 5% sounds a lot better than centrai planning, rationing, and price controls.

  • TallDave||

    Also, the indirect benefits of tort reform might approach 5-10%. Every dollar in litigation cost creates several more in spending to avoid litigation.

    Tort reform, freer market in insurance, and giving individuals the employer tax incentive could work wonders. Many people would take policies with $10,000 deductibles and start negotiating prices for things they currently have little price incentive on.

    Finally, everyone should keep in mind ealth care costs will only fall overall if we provide less health care to people. That's not a desirable outcome.

  • ||

    NO BRAINER - Are you a lawyer? or a politician? Who are you to tell an insurance company how much profit they can make? The frugal consumer looking to save 5% on his insurance dictates how much profit an insurance company makes - not some lawyer or politician. Besides, it's the trial lawyers getting rich - not the insurance companies.

  • Mark||

    Problem solved, buy insurance. If you don't buy insurance you will be stuck with the medical bills and will not be able to mitigate them in bankruptcy court. You will have to pay.
    Part of the cost that insurance covers is the non-insured because the hospitals charge more for those who have insurance to help off set those who don't. No free ride.
    No one should be denied insurance from the private sector.
    The President wants "affordable" health care, just like he want's "affordable" housing. Look at what happened to the price of housing when he pushed the banks into lending to those who could not afford to pay their mortgage. Look at what happens to "affordable" college when the government subsidizes college costs. Get the government OUT of the "affordable" business and do what they should be doing, making it "fair".

  • Draco||

    I could "reduce the deficit" by passing a law that hires people to dig holes and fill them up again at a cost of $100 billion over ten years while also raising taxes $120 billion over that same period (including taxes on tanning salons, because they're obviously related to the problem of not having enough refilled holes). And anyone who said I didn't reduce the deficit by this scheme would be a damned liar.

  • ||

    Seconded. The difference between spending and the deficit is a key issue here on cost.

    The CBO's cost also doesn't include state costs and personal costs going up. If it did, it'd be at least double.

  • Mike||

    The problem is not your analogy but your analysis. Think of it like this: Whether we pass health reform or not we'll be digging ourselves a hole. The US already spends more on healthcare than any other nation and 45 million people aren't covered! The real question is, we will attempt to save our economy and fill that hole in before it swallows up everything? If we act on health reform at least we have a chance of filling that hole in. If we don't act to reform healthcare then the hole just keeps getting deeper. The problem is, the bigger the hole gets the more it will cost to fix. The more it costs to fix, the more paralysis we will see in congress. It's time to fix this problem, we've been having this debate for almost 50 years!!!

  • TallDave||

    The number of people who want coverage, are U.S. citizens, aren't eligible for Medicaid, and can't afford insurance is only 6 million.

    We spend more because U.S. health care is vastly superior in outcomes.

  • Some dude||

    C'mon, his nose is a lot longer than that by now.

  • ||

    for all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big spending government bill

    Carping?

    *W C Fields voice*

    I hate him.

  • Medic001||

    Is that coy tossing?

  • ||

    The arguments for Obamacare are getting increasingly bizzare to border on insane. They say that we need to "bend the cost curve" of medicare, which I think means cut medicare expendatures. Well, that is true. Medicare is going to broke and we need to do something about it. And Obamacare does claim to do that. But, it then takes that money saved and spends it on coverage for the uninsured. How does that keep us from going broke? Shouldn't you have to save the money and then not spend it to keep from going broke? Obamacare is the equivilent of a bankrupt cramming down his mortgage and using the savings to buy a new car.

  • The Howard Dean||

    Progressive reform can work if Obama would give it a chance. It's got a proven record. Check out the facts, jack!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/P.....id=8777030

  • Rich||

    Interesting comparison tool via the link. Thanks, The.

  • Cawdy Woadths||

    Your link was interesting until it reveals Mississippi tops the list in Medicaid money but has a bureaucratic procedures that deter 77% of medicaid eligible people from joining the program. The simple fact is Mississippi is a bureaucratic shithole littered with idiots and swindlers.

  • Ghiena||

    Thanks for share the link,.

  • ||

    Yeah, just look what progressive government did for me.

  • California||

    Yeah, me too!

  • ||

    What we need is a Death Panel for legislation.

    "This law does not deserve to live."

  • ||

    That photo is racist.

  • brotherben||

    We all know that black fellas have bigger noses.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    The blacks, the Italians and the Greeks.

  • .||

    You left out the Jews and Arabs.

  • Scott66||

    It would have been racist if they had made it wider. Since they made it longer it is ok.

    Racism - a simple concept made complex by the academics.

  • brotherben||

    So to sum it all up. The CBO projects savings and costs based in part on what Congesss says they are gonna cut from certin entitlement programs. So the figures given by the CBO are projections based on projections? So the American people can believe whatever they chose about whether the reform will cost money or save money and they will be right? Because the numbers are pretty much all just guessing? Great. Got it now.

  • California||

    They can believe that the government's track record at accurately predicting the costs of new entitlement programs is abysmal.

    It has massively underestimated the cost of every single one of them.

  • ||

    Indeed. Obamacare opponents should be hammering on this. E.g.: in its first 15 years Medicare ended up costing about nine times what was projected.

  • ||

    It is worse than that. Even if you buy the make beleive numbers, they are just going to spend the money they save covering the uninsured. Who cares if they save medicare from bankruptcy if they are just going to spend all the money they save on something else? We still end up broke either way.

  • Mark||

    A friend of mine is in the medical supply business. He was buying diabetic shoes for $80.00 and in turn selling them to diabetics for $340.00. That was OK because what the government wouldn't pay he would write off. They covered 80% which is $272.00. Why in the world would our government pay that much for a pair of shoes? Why would anyone let our government pay that much for their shoes? If it doesn't cost "me" anything, no skin off my nose. If people would take responsibility for their own health care "costs" we would not be in the mess we are in. I would not pay $272.00 for a pair of shoes, but it they are "free" (provided by the government) than I'm OK with that.

  • hmm||

    That Obama image is racist.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Dude, relax. That's him in makeup. He won the lead in Roxanne 2: Presidential Boogaloo.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    EXCELLENT.

  • The Ghost of Michael Jackson||

    That is a terrible, terrible nose. Reason is so mean.

  • ||

    the figures given by the CBO are projections based on projections?

    If, by "projections" you actually mean "lies".

  • ||

    It might not be a lie. At some point the government won't be able to borrow anymore money to pay for medicare and there won't be the political will to raise taxes enough to cover it. At that point, medicare gets cut whether we like it or not. And it will get cut by the government coming in and deciding who and what gets paid for and essentially owning everyone's healthcare, which is of course exactly what the liberals want.

  • brotherben||

    Part of the owning of everyones healthcare will be the increase of people getting Medicaid due to the raising of income limits for eligibility. About 60 million people are on Medicaid now and that was expected to grow by 11 million with the new guidelines. That estimate was prior to the sweetheart deal in Nebraska that, if I worked the numbers right, wil set the limit for medicaid at almost 39,000 annual income for a family of four in Nebraska.

  • ||

    The Howard Dean|12.22.09 @ 9:24AM Leaves a bit o troll droppings of ABC linx to a Commonwealth Fund study that is another POS propaganda from another typical leftist imbued NonProfit the Commonwealth Fund....trust but verify anything that any NP "NonPartison" Foundation puts out....this one has some heavy ties to the Rockefeller's NP.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Mission creep:

    The act where a creep makes it his/her mission to fuck things up.

  • Barack Obama||

    I saw that. I'm sending Rahm and some of his enforcers to your house to rough you up.

  • Flush Obama||

    I hope they remember to flush when they're done.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    rough you up call you out

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Shit, that was supposed to be a strikethrough, not italics.

  • Flush Obama||

    How ironic. The Senate's vote (in the dark of the night) on Dec. 21 that moves the process forward in the government's eventual Soviet-style command and control takeover of our health care system is on the day of Josef Stalin's birthday.

  • .||

    How appropriate.

  • ||

    Lies, lies and more lies, why should he be any different.

    RT
    www.online-invisibility.net.tc

  • BakedPenguin||

    That photo is racist.

    Yeah. A ginger safety? C'mon.

  • ||

    If only safety Dave Elmendorf was CBO Director.

  • CTObserver||

    That is a totally undeserved swipe. Doug Elmendorf, although coming from a liberal background (Brookings, etc) has been scrupulously forthright in calling it straight through this whole process. He started out by pointing out the obfuscation on preventive care (Pres and his team said covering more preventive care will save money; he showed that more care means more cost), and has pointed out the red flags and gaping assumptions in everything he and his office have been asked to "score". He has rules to follow, but he's been upfront about highlighting the questionable assumptions and unlikely future actions.

    Go Doug!

  • ||

    There has always been a salon theory among small government activists that the best thing for the country in the long term would be for the Dems to own the government and run completely amuck. Such a disaster it is thought would finally cure people of their tolerance of big government and either replace the Republican Party with a third party or scare them so badly at the fate of the Democrats that they would have to give up their big government ways.

    I think we are about to find out whether that theory is correct. It is a rare piece of fortune that the Dems have exactly 60 votes. This allows them to get this monstrosity without a single Republican vote. That means they own it. No bi-partisian bullshit here.

    The reason why the country hasn't done a big "healthcare fix" in the past is because people get very emotional and angry over healthcare and you can never get a majority to agree on a big fix. Instead, since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid the government has done lots of smaller things. Those smaller things have of course created a lot of mischief. But they have generally passed below most people's radar. This bill won't. Everyone knows and will be affected by this bill. It is wildly unpopular and horrifically bad. The backlash against this bill is going to be like nothing anyone has ever seen. Phil Graham once said that if the Dems had passed Hillarycare, people would be hunting Democrats with dogs. Once this kind of populist backlash gets started, there is no telling where it will go and who it will destroy. It won't be pretty, that is for sure.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    Are you serious? Are you serious?

  • brotherben||

    John, I've been saying for well over a year that this kind of Democrat control is just what the Libertarian doctor ordered. The only that remains to be seen is how fucked up the country will be when this bill takes full effect. The libertarian talking points should be real popular after health care "reform" kills the economy via government spending.

  • ||

    I think the liberals objecting to this bill is just the smarter liberals preparing themselves for this disaster. Liberals like Jane Hamsher who are objecting to this bill are smarter than doofsuses like Ezra Klein who are still supporting it. Then again, most sentient beings are smarter than Klein. The smart liberals are starting to understand that this bill is going to be the Democrats' doom. So they are getting a head start in damage control. If liberals were against the bill, they can plausibly claim that it isn't their fault when the Dems get kicked out of power for the next twenty years. Hamsher and other liberals will blame Reid and Obama and claim they would still be in power if only they had used the historic moment for real liberal health reform like single payer or a public option that the public wanted. Klein and Krugman and others in contrast are too stupid to see the train coming and is still selling the idea that this bill is going to save the Democrats.

  • ||

    Exactly- they need to lay the groundwork for blaming the failure on the lack of a public option, etc.

  • ||

    Bill Clinton blamed his 1994 congressional thrashing on the fact that the Democrats couldn't pass Hillarycare. No doubt thay will claim the losses in 2010 will be because the bill was too little.

  • ||

    Did ANY of you notice that the All Wise and All Conniving Bubba was driving the Democrats like lemmings to the cliff to pass this atrocity while Hillary was remaining quiet as a church mouse?

    You all don't believe that to have been an accident do you?

    Obama and Soros control the machine of the Democratic Party today. Shameless prediction: once the full effects of National Socialist Health Care take effect, the Clintons will find a way to blame Obama and claim that that's "Not what We would have Done...."

    "Give US back control of the Party from these callow youngsters from Chicago, and we will save you from Palin!"

  • The Worshipful Order Of Doofus||

    Up yours, bitch!

  • ||

    I'd love to think this bill would cure people of their tolerance of Big Government. But then Bush signed the Patriot Act and got re-elected.

    For example, I don't understand why people aren't up in arms about the fact that they will be ordered, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to purchase health insurance. My only conclusion is that people are generally stupid and happy to hand over their liberties.

  • ||

    There's no way libertarianism could get going as a serious concern inside the GOP as long as the Bushtard crowd were controlling the Party.

    That's just a fact. They had to go, and so did the GOP.

  • ||

    I'd like Republicans to propose a non-binding resolution where each Senator and congressman promised that s/he would not vote in the future to reverse any of the cuts to medicare in the bill. If the dems voted for it, it could be used against them in future years when they tried to reverse the cuts (could probably be used next year when they try to undo the physician SGR rate cuts)- if they vote against it, it could be used to show they are damned liars.

  • creech||

    Maybe RP and a few others have the guts to introduce this, but the rest of the GOP wouldn't because something like this could be used on them in the future. "Vote for this War and you have to enlist or send a relative in your place." Every congressional district needs a "truth squad" operating for every election. Sure, there are some safe seats but let's do what we can to expose and depose the liars, poseurs, and silver tongued snakes that infest Capitol Hill.

  • ||

    Some politician's kids have served in Iraq. John McCain's son did. And so did Sarah Palin's.

    Screw the kids, some of the reps are young enough to serve themselves. When World War II broke out, then Senator Harry Truman, an artillary officer in the First World War, trid to volunteer. They wouldn't let him. I think we need to change that and let a few of them serve tours themselves. It would be a very educational experience.

  • ||

    John, Harry Truman was fifty-seven years old in 1941. I think that had a lot more to do with him being rejected than his importance as a senator.

    After all, LBJ put his congressional career on hold to serve in the Navy.

  • ||

    Lyndon's Navy career was the stuff of dreams, mostly consisting of him and John Connally chasing skirts in California. He was in exactly one combat situation, as an observer on a routine bombing run out of Australia. For some reason, never actually explained, Gen. MacArthur gave him a Silver Star for not getting killed. Lyndon waved the medal around Washington to show how he personally won the war in the Pacific, nearly single-handedly.

  • ||

    Give JFK this much: he got his PT boat sunk by a Japanese destroyer escort. Bad situational awareness compensated by after action heroism in saving his crew.

    Because he was a Kennedy, there was no Hearing or Court Martial.

  • ||

    Oh, hell, by the way, did I mention that my favorite politician, Tricky Dick, played cards as a Navy Supply officer in the South Pacific while Tailgunner Joe was, well,....a Tailgunner.

    The Tailgunner got some Bejesus commendation from Hap Arnold or Nimitz for "being there". Ann Coulter got all wet down there in her book about the Tailgunner in describing McCarthy's war heroism.

  • TickleStick||

    There are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules.

    The Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

    there's one provision particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

    "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

    This is not legislation. It's not law. This is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

    I'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

    I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

  • ||

    Then of course they will claim it is a "rule change that requires 2/3s vote". Reid and company are true scumbags.

  • eb||

    i'm pretty sure thats unconstitutional isnt it? any given congress canlt bind the actions of a future congress... its why the rules have to be adopted agains at the beggining of each congress.

  • ||

    How is it possible to pass something by a 60/40 vote that says it can't be repealed except by a 66/34 vote?

  • anonymous||

    Then shouldn't the bill itself require a 2/3rds vote?

  • ||

    You have to watch to believe it. It does require a 2/3 vote, but add a little Orwell and 2+3 does not equal 5 and the bill stating in dems' words states "changes rule 15" is not a rule change...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....RkY2VlYTI=

  • ||

    I find it somewhat ironic that a Congress that flubbed the unemployment stats by two percent assumes that it is infallible. They also assume that this particular bill is the quintessence of humanity's understanding of all things medical. So at what point do we resort to leeching and barber surgeons for medical care? Or curanderas?

  • ||

    "Nobody ever went broke [or failed to get re-elected] by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

  • Mitch Sorenson||

    This bill was constructed without feedback from the opposition party. It was laced with pork. It requires a holiday vote and then a rapid evacuation of Washington.
    My own Senators are Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. They are Senators for a state that has over 63% of its population against this health care bill. Do they listen to them? Of course not. Do they listen to the senior community and their concerns over Medicare? Of course not? Have they lost this persons vote? Yes. I am voting against Dorgan this year and voting for his opponent Paul Sorum. Byron Dorgan stopped listening to me, therefore I will stop voting for him. Sorum in 2010.

  • ||

    They have to hurry in order for Barry and Michelle to meet Oprah at the beach in Hawaii. Get your priorities straight. Trillions in spending don't matter. Higher economic penalties on the middle class don't matter. Situational ethics put into play don't matter. All that matters is that Oprah has a date with Barry to meet on the beach in Hawaii.

  • ||

    The biggest lie Obama told in the campaign was the story about how his mother haggled with insurance companies prior to her death.

    The reality is that his mother was living in Indonesia without insurance(making a good salary free of taxes).

    She became ill (later diagnosed as cancer) and moved back to the States so she could get decent healthcare. She purchased insurance, lied about her condition, and then was pissed the insurance companies questioned her claims. That's fraud. It's like buying car insurance after being in an accident.

    The worst part? Her son cried victimization during his campaign. Notice how he doesn't bring up the issue anymore? Where is the media on this?

    His mother was a cheat and he is a liar. If government cracked down on people like Obama's mother, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.

  • ||

    This article is 100% crap.

  • ||

    You made a comment, not an article

  • ||

    Her's the mirage in the cost:

    $897bb cost to fund PLUS the pay-in costs by policy holders = $2.3 Trillion.

    Here's the mirage on the current legislation requiring you to carry insurance under penalty aka individual mandate.

    UnConstitutional - Heritage Foundation.co has an excellent legal opinion from recognized Constitutional scholars.

    The Democrat re-election mirage: we will be loved for this legislation and voted into even greater majority...

    I'll let the thread comment for itself on that one....

  • ||

    Oh hell, CATO figures that the actual costs of this thing could skyrocket to 6 trillion.

    Dollars, meet wheelbarrows.

  • ||

    Hey I think this is great!

    The Dems make believe we are not watching them and we make believe we will vote them back into office in 2010/12,

    AGW Scandal, Acorn, Hockey Sticks, Health Care Final Solutions, Card Check, it goes on and it is having consequences

    America just cracked open a Tsunami sized can of woopazz in NJ and VA against the marxist Progressives.
    And the best part is Pelosi and Reid and Obama and their supporters posting here just keep pouring gas on the flames.
    God bless their blackened Saul Alinsky souls.

    After America, led by President Ronald Reagan and our outstanding military, shut down the Soviets and Eastern Europe, the marxist Progressives had one last bastion - the bi-coastal Salons on the East and West Coast and in Chicago.

    And the best part is, they are publicly outing themselves everywhere they can in every media thinking (?) they can get away with this. Painting targets on their heads is the greatest gift we freedom loving Americans have been given since the hard won gift of our Country and our Constitution.
    Ya gotta love 'em!

    This cancer is being eviscerated, one state, one election at a time. And the momentum is BUILDING.

    The pressure, the anger, the revenge that is building on an unprecedented scale going towards the 2010 / 2012 elections to destroy the Dems, would make the eruption of Krakatoa appear a mere f-art.

    The marxist Progressives in our Statist led Government act with impunity in their quest. What is their quest?

    In Healthcare - why do they want control of our bodies and why do they wish to import policies demonstrated in other countries to be personally and financially destructive?

    In Energy - why do they want control of carbon, a fundamental component of every compound in commerce including transpo fuel, electricity, food and all other consumer goods?

    In National Security - why do they persistently attack to undermine Defense, Intelligence and Anti-Terror policy?

    In Environmental Issues - why do they monetize and create legislation over every blade of grass, every cricket and every molecule of atmosphere?

    In Government - why do they attempt to concentrate political and legislative power away from the individual and the community and toward the State and Federal Government, while growing government and its beauracracy to an unprecedented scale and size with reach into every corner of our person and communities.

    In Spending / Deficit Creation - why are so many States in deep deficit, the Federal Govt in terminal velocity of spending with incalculable debt which is impossible to pay off?

    In Justice - why the vigorous defense of the terrorists interred in Guantanamo, and the release of the photos of our military defenders and guardians to the terror networks in the on-going fight against the Jihadist's?


    When you begin to answer these questions, you will be well on your way to the realization of the threat they are to our country, our culture, our survival going forward

  • ||

    I don't think its very fair to call Obama a dishonorable liar, even though the objective evidence clearly shows that assertion is true. It's also true that Obama has already helped lots of people.

    I, for one, appreciate him arranging for inattentive American taxpayers to pick up my medical coverage in addition to all the other direct and indirect taxpayer-funded benefits I've been enjoying for an extended period. The prospects of successfully surviving as a lazy, shiftless bum have never been more favorable thanks to Obama!

    And now, with the new health care bill, it looks like I'll be able more fully enjoy my free time now that my health is guaranteed by the "full faith and credit of the United States". Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't see any reason for me to get up off my fat, lazy ass to go to work every day when all I have to do is kick back and expect everyone else to pay my way for me.

    Although I did occasionally feel guilty when there were jobs available, that's no longer a problem thanks to the recession. As a result, the good news for everyone is it looks like I may not have to immediately exercise my new mental health care benefits to address my severe traumatic stress syndrome (which should save you hard-working bozos a fortune - so long as the support payments keep showing up).

    No thanks are necessary. I feel proud to have done my part to help reduce the deficit.

    Cheers,

    L. C. Countryman

  • wackyjack||

    You want to know what really scares me? DemTrolls in hiding.

  • ||

    Now read this...... perhaps no one else has detailed it from this angle.......

    http://lpowatch.blogspot.com/2.....ation.html

  • ||

    So true.....

  • ||

    Early in the CBO/healthcare scorings the CBO announced that a correct scoring of a healthcare bill for a second consecutive decade is impossible!!

  • ||

    During eight years of the Bush presidency there was NO discussion regarding the spiraling menace of health care "costs."
    Ignoring a problem [like tooth decay] does not work.
    Consider this:
    -The Obama presidency is the first presidency in decades to make any progress at all on this subject.
    -The Obama presidency is the first administration to even have a serious discussion on the subject.
    -This much maligned administration has started a national debate, obtained a starting point, and moved the conversation forward in the face of "just say no" opponents to any action; any conversation at all. These "just say no" opponents would let thousands DIE every year for lack of health care - just so that they get their "way."
    Consider this as well:
    -There are massive "costs to leaving millions uninsured:
    --uninsured workers miss thousands of work days, costing the economy millions;
    --uninsured families end up in emergency rooms, needing ridiculously expensive treatment for "emergency" care CREATED by our inability to figure out how to get them basic treatment for illnesses like the flu;
    --uninsured children do not learn well;
    --uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy deprive hospitals/doctors of fees - they have to charge the rest of us to make up the difference.
    --uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy no longer pay taxes, lose their savings, lose their dignity - a loss for all of us.

    To all of you on the far right or far left who did not get what you want:
    Be quiet and let the rest of us do something to fix this country.
    You have screamed enough.
    the rest of us have to actually DO something.

    I am so relieved that we have a president who understands that arguing over how to put out a fire for too long leaves you with ashes.

  • ||

    --uninsured workers miss thousands of work days, costing the economy millions;
    If they are uninsured, then what are they doing at home? If they don't go to the doctor, how do they know they are sick? Plus, if they are low income they qualify for a variety of free programs middle class people cannot access.
    --uninsured families end up in emergency rooms, needing ridiculously expensive treatment for "emergency" care CREATED by our inability to figure out how to get them basic treatment for illnesses like the flu;
    How many of the uninsured are here illegally? How many of them get free care in their home country? How many of them come here specifically for the free clinics that you claim don't exist? How many of these same children get health services via county or school district? (It's a big number-I teach in a public school in Texas...)
    --uninsured children do not learn well;
    So would you like to explain how children in South Korea who come here do so well? And how do you explain how Indian and Pakistani children who live in relative poverty kick our kids' butts in academic endeavors? Remember, I'm a teacher and I have a very diverse school population.
    --uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy deprive hospitals/doctors of fees - they have to charge the rest of us to make up the difference.
    That is true. But I also many people who are eligible for insurance at their work who CHOOSE not to get insurance. They would rather buy new cars or take trips. There is something called priorities that comes into play.
    --uninsured patients who are forced into bankruptcy no longer pay taxes, lose their savings, lose their dignity
    Many hospitals write off charity cases. The problems occur when the individual abuses the system then ignores their claims. Unless the hospital can take it as a write off, they have to keep billing. Most cases can be negotiated, but most people who abuse the system run up unnecessary bills through their own laziness or ignorance
    - a loss for all of us.

  • ||

    "figure out how to get them treatment" - this is not rocket science: high risk pools for those w/ intensive care requirements, CHIP for kids w/ the flu; vouchers/tax or cash subsidies for those who "can't afford" health care. DONT turn the sytem for 270 million people upside down for 10% of the pop.

  • ||

    As a teacher, you demonstrate a shameful lack of ability (or, perhaps, will) to distinguish between your own prejudices and fact. If you look at the statistics on the uninsured in this country you will see that the facts simply don't support your claims. Instead of hard numbers, your argument relies on "I know many people who..." and "it's a big number...."
    I sure hope you are not this sloppy in the classroom, but I suspect differently.

  • ||

    they kick educational butt because only the rich ones make it here

  • ||

    Thank god for conservatives and libertarians who told us the truth that increasing payments to for profits for providing Medicare services will cut Medicare spending because for profits always cut costs and by paying more the government will spend less.

    Plus the conservatives and libertarians have given us the truth that tax cuts always pay for them selves in higher tax revenue from the far greater economic growth and employment rates, so we know the "oughts" have been a decade of much higher growth than the 90s when Clinton's high axes crushed the economy into the Great Recession. Thank god for the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 tax cuts that created the record high employment and economic growth and the Bush budget surpluses.

  • ||

    This article is 100% correct. I've read the bills and the CBO scoring of the Manager's Amendment. CBO states that (Paraphrased)...projections after the first 10 years are MEANINGLESS as the uncertainties are too great. Great article.

  • ||

    One half of one percent of annual US GDP is ten times or so the $1.3 billion you state. Is this your mistake, Obama's, or CBOs?

    "When CBO first guesstimated by how much the Senate health reform legislation would reduce the deficit, they said it would be about half a percent of GDP -- $1.3 billion, said Democrats."

  • frieda||

    One more lie added to the list of Obama's lies..
    For list of Obama's lies visit:

    www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com

  • chris||

    Under no uncertain circumstances I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!

  • ||

    glenn greenwald made you look foolish this morning:

    http://www.salon.com/news/heal...../24/reason

  • ||

    So, when CBO "speculates" in favor of the Right it's lauded. When it "speculates" in favor of the Left? Not so much. What transparently hypocritical cretins you all are. You wouldn't know a double standard if one teabagged you in the head.

  • ||

    I find this hilarious. Greenwald is an excellent analyst, but a sixth grader who knew how to use google could have unearthed this contradiction. Don't you people have editors?

  • ||

    So because it was "easy" to expose this hypocritical lie by the Reason editor, it shouldn't have been done?

    Heh.

  • Wek||

    Hey Welch- Next time, before you put out an article, ask yourself "Will Greenwald make me look like a fool if I hit the 'post' button?" It could really save you from being humiliated.

  • blah||

    seconded, a million times over

  • KR||

    You have to wonder about the state of this nation when the Editor-in-Chief of "Reason" magazine is himself a master of doublethink:
    ___________________________________

    just five months ago, the very same Matt Welch -- who yesterday accused Obama of telling a "lie" all because he cited a CBO "report" as authoritative -- himself praised the "expert feedback" of the "nonpartisan" CBO to warn that Obama's health care plan would increase deficits

    http://www.salon.com/news/heal...../24/reason

  • ||

    Why was there so little fuss with the Medicare Prescription Drug Act a few years ago that sent costs sky-rocketing yet passed with bipartisan support? It seems to me strange that legislators from states with the largest % uninsured oppose funding health insurance for their constituents, especially without the public option on the table. I think it is a shame that even editors of Reason don't seem to understand the bill the current health care crisis and the ramifications of inaction.

  • KR||

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

  • paramedicx||

    the big thing, as i see it, is that you KNEW you were writing pure bs in relation to your mags recent past articles and analysis. how do you publish this and sit back and think "job well done"? stephen glass is smiling at your job well done. crappy journalism always has an upside in this day and age....maybe ann coulter will call now and buy you that drink.

  • ||

    I've been a Libertarian for at least two decades, and I know a hypocrite who speaks out of both sides of his mouth when I see & hear him.

    Hat-tip to Glenn Greenwald today for exposing Matt Welch as an idealogical fraud, fake, certifiable phony.

    I gave up on Reason when Welch began his masquerade, but he's truly taking the magazine down to levels that must surely embarrass and shame the rest of the editorial staff there.

    Not that they don't worsen it for themselves. How they could permit this Welch hypocrisy to pass without notice says EVERYTHING about how Reason is a magazine for lazy, sloth-minded, dim-lightbulb, ignorant stooges, not Libertarians or Libertarian ideas.

    Get a clue.

  • ||

    Seriously, I can't remember a case of exposing a more transparent hack. Shorter Matt Welch and "Reason": CBO "reports" = good if they favor me; CBO reports = bad if they don't. You really need to change the name of your magazine.

  • ||

    Comrades --

    Do as Matt says; not as Matt does.

    And all shall be forgiven & forgotten in the United States of Amnesia.

    Nothing to see here, move right along, and, oh...

    There goes Santa Claus!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Report vs. Project: So you guys are all liars too? Looks that way. Can't have it both ways dumbasses.

    Reason Editor Peter Suderman, July 10, 2009: "I won't dispute that Medicare is popular, or that politicians -- even Republicans -- don't usually criticize it, but it hasn't exactly been an unqualified success. On the contrary, as the CBO reports, the program's fiscal future looks dire."

    Suderman, Reason, July 27, 2009: "In response to the Congressional Budget Office's report that current health-care reform proposals were unlikely to solve the country's long-term budgetary problems, the Obama White House put forth a plan to reduce spending it hoped would prove to be a 'game changer'."

    Ronald Bailey, Reason, April 7, 2009: "A 2007 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study reported the results of a hypothetical 23 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions (the Waxman-Markey bill proposes a 20 percent cut by 2020). The CBO found that 'giving away allowances could yield windfall profits for the producers that received them by effectively transferring income from consumers to firms' owners and shareholders'."

    Veronique de Rugy, Reason, February 10, 2009: "How bad is the stimulus bill just passed by the Senate? . . . . Don't take my word for it. In a report to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) laid out in plain English—well, economic language—that the Senate bill would eventually cause not a stimulus but a recession in 'the longer run'."

    Ronald Bailey, Reason, September 29, 2009: "About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology," declared a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report last year."

    Ronald Bailey, Reason, December 23, 2008: "But will comparative effectiveness research really reduce health care spending, as Daschle claims? Not by much and not soon, according to a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if the research is limited to comparative clinical effectiveness. . . . The CBO report makes it clear that comparative clinical research won't significantly cut health care costs."

  • ||

  • ||

    Good job, Mr Welch!

    You've called the President a Pinnochio-nosed liar for saying the Congressional Budget Office "reports" and accused him of "fudging facts" about the CBO.

    A few months ago you yourself and your editors were lauding the CBO and saying it "reports".

    So nice that I can share a laugh about your writing with any 12 y.o. who's read Orwell's 1984 . As the man said, "We've always been at war with Eastasia"

  • WCW||

    Just got pwnd by Greenwald.

    If you had any sense of shame, you'd resign, Mr. Welch. Or at a very minimum, issue a very contrite apology to all your readers.

  • ||

    Hooboy, I just read Greenwald's smackdown.

    It boggles the mind how Matt Welch can publish this garbage in any credible magazine, let alone one that calls itself "Reason."

    Forfeit!

    Under Matt Welch's stewardship, the word "Reason" has lost all meaning and relevance.

    Good luck selling the sweatshirts and hoodies with "Reason" emblazoned on the crest. Doorknobs and clowns foolish enough to pull that nonsense over their heads must adore being mocked and ridiculed, thanks to irrational hypoocrite asshats like Matt Welch.

    Matt. Welch.
    Nice. Try.
    Epic. Fail.

    Good luck trying to fundraise and promote subscriptions with hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity. When there's no "reason," then "luck" is all you've got left. You're gonna need it.

  • ||

  • ||

    GG busted Welch so good that "wanker of the day" is insufficient; luckily there are still a few days left in the year so "wanker of the year" is in the cards. BUT look at the commentary. I have seen so many parrots since my trip to the Amazon basin. And they all fell for it too. LMAO.

  • ||

    Matt Welch can't be very joyous over the "Christmas present" he got from Glenn Greenwald: "Reason Editor suggests his own magazine is lying." http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

    Unfortunately for Mr. Welch and "Reason" readers, it looks like Welch more than deserved it.

    If Mr. Welch has an ounce of honesty or integrity, he'll answer this devastating refutation and indictment.

    At first reading, it sure seems to me that unless Mr. Welch's real ambition is to be known for hypocrisy and inconsistency, his best course of action would be to admit to the misjudgements Greenwald identified and to apologize to us readers with a vow to do better next time.

    If Welch did do it'd reaffirm my faith in "Reason." We'll see if he does.

  • ||

    wow, yeah, let's argue samatics, since you can't win an argument about facts

    the CBO "reports" are only estimates, and highly suspect when they say things you don't like

    but in the past when those CBO "reports" supported your argument, they were dependable and non-partisan

    it's a clever bait and switch argument, that probably works on the rubes who read your hackery

    but you have a nice grift going here, and the rubes will never be able to figure out google, so you're safe from most claims of intelectual dishonesty

    but it didn't work on me, griff

    I call bullshit on your specious argument

  • ||

    'Reason' - ha! Greenwald soo kicks your ass when it comes to actual 'reasoning'. This is the problem with pompously naming your blog 'reason' when you really have no interest in reasoning. What's your response to Greenwald? Let's see it.

  • ||

    Thank goodness for folks like Glenn Greenwald, who has a gift for exposing hackery like this article.

  • 9of278||

    Resistance is futile, Welch, Bailey, et al. You will all be assimilated by the sockpuppet. If you don't believe it, just ask his flying monkeys. Or his cabana boy.

  • Rob Levine||

    Hilarious that the esteemed Mr Welch can't even deem to reply to Greenwald in these comments. As they say, the silence is deafening. Is Matt Welch related to the John Birch Welch?

  • ||

    Funny how all the lap poodle MW fanboys have disappeared from this thread.

  • ||

    And even given Obama's root lie of "reports," and passing over the absurd lie that this is somehow not "a big spending government bill," there's a lie built into the very CBO claim that the president is waving around like a lie-shattering club.

    So you say the president is a liar because his speech on Monday did not reflect the correction issued by the CBO on Sunday. Maybe he just hadn't heard about it yet? He's a busy guy, you know...

  • ||

    This level of analysis completely misses the larger picture.

    Okay, so Obama use "report" instead of "projects" and even projecting is based on a loose set of facts.

    What's missing is the fact that we are being told by corporate America that our government doesn't work while they use the government and our ignorance to their advantage.

    It's not important that Obama lied. What possible difference does it make?

    If health care is passed we end up with an expensive, non-working system because we've given power to pharma and insurance. If health care isn't passed we end up with an expensive...

    Lobbyists and politicians have citizens fighting in their back yards about the exact location of the lot line while they empty out our house through the garage.

  • ||

    This is something approximating hilarious. Matt Welch is the self-described "least qualified libertarian at Reason". Gotta agree with Greenwald here, this is largely hair-splitting.

  • randall||

    Sad day. I won't be reading Reason anymore after being shown the fatal flaws in your argument style, Matt. I can't have my idea base be built up by this type of baseless reasoning.

  • ||

    Matt: DO NOT BREED!
    you risk passing on the brains
    and balls of a gnat!

  • ||

    Is this the same libertarian magazine that employs the guy who admits he flies to France to leech off their healthcare system instead of acting like an American patriot and subjecting himself to the U.S. market driven system? If so, this latest instance of hypocrisy is almost as awesome.

  • Public Service Announcement||

    Ah, classic Matt Welch. Smarmy, with a large dose of pandering thrown in. What a life. I never though it would come to this either. I'll light a candle for you.

    Hopefully Matt's insecure enough to squabble with the opposition in the comments section yet again. He's never been good at ignoring anonymous verbal stings. Of course, his responses tend to make him look about as silly as the phony intellectual costume that he wears; replete with Malcolm X glasses, and an elderly woman's skin tone.

    Anyway, using the term "Reporting," instead of "Projecting" does not constitute a lie, but as we have seen Libertarian pundits have to feign disgust to keep the peasants riled up, and, in this case, have that disgust lead them to Reason.tv.

    Well, that and repeating the word "lie" eight times in the piece. You know, in case the expected reaction from the peanut gallery isn't vehement enough.

    Hey, it beats having to work for a living, right Matt?

    Also, is Gillespie trying to become the second coming of Ted Koppel? Like Koppel, he insists on wearing a ridiculous leather jacket and having his hair cut at the Lego factory. You don't look cool Nick. By the way, it's okay to own another set of close.

    Anyway, all of this is further evidence that Libertarians still display an eerie penchant for poor judgment.

  • Public Service Announcement||

    I didn't read all of the comments before I posted.

    Wow. Welch, once again, looks eager and stupid. Hopefully the magazine is rethinking his role as editor. Welch has been a lightweight since day one.

    What's interesting is that Matt has not been above trading catty comments with his detractors on this blog, yet he suddenly seems above responding to the debunking of this trivial spin job.

    Libertarians, and Conservatives have been trying to turn American political discourse into an ideological fist fight since the Goldwater campaign, and they succeeded in doing exactly that in the 80's and 90's. They received a huge boost from Rupert Murdoch with the likes of Fox News. Now, it seems that their culture of spewing bullshit to confuse the discussion is simply the norm. It's classic propaganda strategy. Since they couldn't win the intellectual argument, they resorted to reducing the standards so that emotion played the primary role.

    They've effectively turned our media into a cesspool of punditry, pseudoscience, and commercialism.

    Commentary like Matt's only highlights that decline. It's nice to see that other people have noticed, and are actually taking him to task for it.

  • Public Service Announcement||

    A fitting snippet from the Welch L.A. Times interview.

    "Matt Welch: Well, I can just say, weasel-like, that straw men are among what we look for in editing. It's always a fine line in polemics between letting a person use their own rhetorical devices and making sure they're being 100% totally pure on every argument. It's a moving target."

  • ||

    Glenn Greenwald rips Reason a new excretory orifice here:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

  • ||

    Sorry for the redundancy - well, not really; anybody who plays the Reason game deserves it.

    Frankly, just the "I go to France for that great socialist medical care, but you peasants can f*ck off" statement would give Matt 'wanker of the year' title.

  • bebop||

    Why discredit CBO in your article and then use it in the same article to further bolster your claims?

  • ||

    What a rank and pathetic hypocrite you are, Matt Welch! Your latest screed is absolutely laughable.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • sathi2000||

    Obama has flipflopped on everything he campaigned on. He is a complete and total liar. All he is is an empty suit and Wall Street sock puppet. He apparently is the smoothest liar in the history of the Earth. We must run a third party.
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

  • دردشة يمنية||

  • دردشه||

    You'll need your tin foil to keep your prozac in

  • دردشه||

    You'll need your tin foil to keep your prozac in

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