Free Markets, Free People

Democrats Unveil Their “Affordable” Health Care Plan

And yes, that’s right, just because Democrats put “affordable” in the title doesn’t mean it is anything close to being affordable (unless another trillion in spending is something you find affordable). In fact, you can almost count on the opposite being true.

Another vitally important point to keep in mind is that trillion we’re batting around like we’re talking about spending ten bucks, is a government estimate. Anyone remember the government estimate about the cost of Medicare and how that turned out?

The Democrats are claiming the CBO “scored” this bill and it came up under the “affordable” column.  But the RNC says the CBO didn’t actually score the language in the bill:

In the second paragraph of CBO’s letter, it says, “”It is important to note, however, that those estimates are based on specifications provided by the tri-committee group rather than an analysis of the language released today.” So they scored what Democrats asked them to score. Not the actual bill.

Yes, in this infernal rush to get a bill out, we obviously couldn’t be patient enough to have the CBO score what the bill actually said vs. what the committees declared the bill would say. And we all know how honest our Congress is about such things, don’t we? Last but not least, the politics of the thing. Here’s a graph to show you how the planned appropriation of your money will take place:

houseDemHC Note carefully when the costs will actually begin to kick in. Yes, when Obama is safely in his second term and hopefully, at least as the Democrats reason, still with a Democrat majority Congress (since both the 2010 and 2012 Congressional elections shouldn’t be effected). Note the slope of the curve after that. Philip Klein, who put the chart together, explains:

It’s important to keep in mind that the most costly aspects of the legislation involve providing subsidies to individuals to purchase health care ($773 billion) and to expand Medicaid ($438 billion), but it takes several years for those provisions to kick in. As you can see from the chart below, that means that the costs start out relatively modest but ramp up over time. In the first three years of the plan the cost of the subsidies and Medicaid expansion is just $8 billion; in the first five years, it’s $202 billion; but in the last five years, it’s $979 billion. Put another way, 17 percent of the spending comes in the first five years, while 83 percent comes in the second five years. What this means is that the American people see $1 trillion over 10 years and they think that means the bill would cost about $100 billion a year — but the reality is more than double that. In the final year of the CBO estimates, 2019, the spending hits $230 billion.

Another important note – at the end of 10 years, that line on the graph isn’t going to drop to zero. It’s going to continue to climb. That’s “affordable?” If so, Democrats have given new meaning to the word.  And all of it to be paid for by taxing the rich.

Yes, in the midst of an economic crisis, the con artists in Washington are at it again.  They’ve co-opted “affordable” to sell their snake oil, ignored the impact of such a bill in a weak economy but carefully weighed the politics of it, and have decided that funding it on the back of “the rich” won’t have any adverse consequences when it comes to the economy and its health.

You can see this train wreck coming from miles and miles away, can’t you?

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

35 Responses to Democrats Unveil Their “Affordable” Health Care Plan

  • When do i get my chance to call these people idiots to their faces?

  • We already have a lousy economy, massive deficits, horrendous national debt, colossal unfunded costs for SS and Medicare/Medicaid.  Then you throw on Cap & Trade. a guaranteed economy killer.  To that add Government “health-care” with trillions more in costs.  What is next?  We cannot possibly afford what we have on our plate now!  I know you’ve said it, too.  We cannot afford it!!!  I don’t even want to start on the constitutionality of any of these programs.
    If the voters don’t completely throw these bums out in 2010, we are truly doomed, because it would mean the voters want even more of this collectivist garbage.

  • Don’t you all see, it IS affordable. Something is always “affordable” when someone else is paying for it. Barack is going to help that woman put gas in her car and pay her mortgage — he didn’t promise he’d help everyone, though.

    Liberals operate under the ex-wife motto, without exception: “What’s yours is mine, what’s our is mine, what’s mine is mine.”

  • I saw a train wreck coming back in 2002 when Bush was pushing for war in Iraq.    The economy has been brought into severe crisis by unsustainable policies, and has already wrecked.  The health care industry is broken and overly expensive, covering those with wealth lavishly, but pushing the poor either to expensive ER treatments (to be paid for by others) or to avoid getting health care.    It’s got to be completely re-organized, the current system simply doesn’t work.   Is the Democratic plan the best alternative?  I don’t know.   But doing nothing is also not a viable alternative.
     
    But there is something ironic to people who supported policies that have caused our massive decline to complain that policies promoted to improve things for the future will cause problems.      Your credibility is shot.   You supported what’s brought failure in the past, why should anyone take you seriously now?    Your problem, as always, is that you have an ideology-driven understanding of reality.  Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that your world-view might be in error, you simply interpret everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments.   That means your position on issues is predictable because you do not follow evidence, logic and rational thought, but rather a twist of information into a pre-conceived ideological perspective.   Politics becomes sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas; opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to.  That subverts democracy and leads to unreflective political posturing.

    • Oh, look…Erb cut and pasted his crap for about the hundredth time. What a surprise.
      Don’t you get bored just writing the exact same thing over and over again? Can’t you just stick to the point of the post and present some facts. Just once?
      This is exactly why so many of us believe you have a psychological problem. Seriously. I’m not just being mean. If you don’t want to be ridiculed, then don’t be a troll.

    • Your post comes down to a claim that the opinions of those opposed to Obama’s economic policy are politically biased.  I’m sure this is true to some extent, and similarly so for those in favor.  However, surely even the most partisan person can do some basic math and understand that we’ve accelerated a course that we have been on for decades now, and that we’re very quickly approaching a point where that course is no longer sustainable.  You say that “doing nothing is also not a viable alternative,” which is true in regards to health insurance and medical coverage.  But that doesn’t mean that taking one of the most damaging courses is a preferable approach.  When a man is on fire, we cannot help him by doing nothing.  But does that mean that dousing him in gasoline is better than doing nothing?
       
      And surely you don’t have to be a cynic to recognize that the curve on that chart indicates that spending on health care is structured so as to have as small a negative impact on Democratic control of the government as possible.  Once the elections in 2010 and 2012 are over, the spending accelerates dramatically.  Anyone who saw this train wreck coming in 2002 can’t help but notice that we’ve just made it worse by orders of magnitude.

    • Hey Scott
      “Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that your world-view might be in error, you simply interpret everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments. ”
      Does the irony of you writing this just go completely over your head?  I mean, with all the contrary evidence that exists refuting global warming, “Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that your world-view might be in error, you simply interpret everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments. ”
      Jeez man – a few years ago you had at least SOMETHING to offer.  Now, when I see you post, I scroll through looking for Ott Scerb.  At least he’s funny.

      • Jeez man – a few years ago you had at least SOMETHING to offer.  Now, when I see you post, I scroll through looking for Ott Scerb.  At least he’s funny.
         
        Indeed.  You got that right, me again.  At least he’s funny.
        For a long time, I’ve often wondered who is behind Ott Scerb.  I’ve looked for subtle clues in writing styles, punctuation, brand of humor.  I can tell you, I’m at a loss.
        I have no idea.
         
        You got any ideas, me again?  Who is behind the curtain?  Surely it’s not Dorothy, who as we all know, had the power to take us home with just the click of her heels – the entire time.
         
        Cheers.

        • No clue Pogue.  But between his/her sharp wit and the easy target Erb presents, they have it pretty good.

          • Ott Scerb is the superhero of QandO. Like bystanders in a metropolis, we wait for him to arrive whenever the arch-villain begins its mindless rampage on the streets. Although we may never know his true identity, we recognize his heroics in action, and his example gives us hope against the darkness.

    • “Politics become sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas; opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to. That subverts democracy and leads to unreflective political posturing.”

      Your words Erb. Now go back and read your comment until you get to the last two sentences shown here. You are doing exactly what you accuse us of being guilty of – political posturing. Shall I break it out for you:

      “Politics become sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas” – Using your own words: “Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility your world-view might be in error, you simply interpet everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments.” – Physician Heal Thyself! Or put another way, remove the beam from your eyes before you complain about the toothpick in mine.

      “Opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to.” – Again your own words: “Your credibility is shot. You supported what’s brought failure in the past, why should anyuone take you seriously new.” That’s telling us – what is it telling us Erb? That you are guilty of what you accuse of us!

      “That subverts democracy and leads to unreflective political posturing.” – Once again your own words: “That means your position in issues is predictable because you do not follow evidence, logic and rational thought, but rather a twist of information into a pre-conceived ideological perspective.” Who’s posturing here? What evidence have you brought to the table in this comment thread except “You guys suck.” Sound a whole lot like “unreflective political posturing.”

      Erb, once in a while you come here and spew your Left talking points and then we ridicule you and you go away. But every so often you come here with comments that are so beyond the pale that it boggles the mind. You are everything you accuse us of being and more. I agree with Me Again that once you had something to say but now I think McQ had it right years ago when he saw through you to see the empty suit you really are.

      Small Steps, there Erb. And now I’m done with you.

    • Your problem, as always, is that you have an ideology-driven understanding of reality.
       
      Said the chum to the sharks.
       
      Do you enjoy handing over your balls on a platter?  I think you do.  You’re a sick, twisted f*ck Erb.
      And I thought I told you to get rid of that ridiculous portrait, J.Crew.

      • But it did permit the mind and hand of the man (or woman) behind Ott Scerb to demonstrate that not only can he/she capture the writing style of the original…he/she can use Photoshop as well, and in so doing, captures the inner image of Dr. Erb, the true inner man behind the portrait, as it were.
         
        Lately it’s almost as if Erb’s inner mind is rebelling and causing him provide quotes that can be taken directly, in context,  to respond to Erb’s own diatribes.
         
         

    • And to reply directly to you, clown – are you seriously linking the health care ‘crisis’ to the War in Iraq?
      Is that just so you can repeat your Iraq rant in preface?, or did you think you needed that to draw a credible link to George Bush to blame him for the state of the economy today?
      Your last paragraph – entirely, and completely, self referential.  You are truly, and have always been, your own worst enemy during your rants.   I’ll give you this, I can’t top it, so I’ll let you say about yourself what you say best….
       

      But there is something ironic to people who supported policies that have caused our massive decline to complain that policies promoted to improve things for the future will cause problems. Your credibility is shot. You supported what’s brought failure in the past, why should anyone take you seriously now? Your problem, as always, is that you have an ideology-driven understanding of reality. Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that your world-view might be in error, you simply interpret everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments. That means your position on issues is predictable because you do not follow evidence, logic and rational thought, but rather a twist of information into a pre-conceived ideological perspective. Politics becomes sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas; opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to.

      Seek help.

  • Not to worry, Obama promised to post the bill on the White House website for at least a week before signing it.  Therefore, the public will have the chance to identify problems and get them straightened out.   So, nothing to be concerned about here…

  • Scott Erb is an all-star in the field of projection.

  • unreflective political posturing
    Remember how the “evil” Bush wouldn’t give up his immortal soul to allow the use of embryonic-stem-cells …

    Though ES cells have long been touted as the miracle just down the road, researchers keep driving into big potholes. For starters, there’s the rejection problem: Your body naturally attacks foreign cells, even ones that might help you. So cell recipients must permanently use dangerous immunosuppressive drugs.
    Further, the cells have a nasty tendency to become cancerous or to form teratomas — meaning “monster tumors.” While usually benign, these can grow larger than a football and often contain hair and teeth. Yech!

    I’ll show you unreflective political posturing by stupid politicians.

  • Scott says the economy has been brought into crisis through unsustainable policies. A quick question : Where has the crisis been most severe? California, Michigan , New York , Illinois. What do all these locals have in common? They have been governered almost entirely by democrats who have had a monoploly on policy for the last few decades. Coincidence?

  • California, Michigan , New York , Illinois .. their credibility is shot.   They supported what’s brought failure in the past, why should anyone take them seriously now?    Their problem, as always, is that they have an ideology-driven understanding of reality.  Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that their world-view might be in error, they simply interpret everything to fit what they believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments.

    • I think I’ll save a copy of Scott’s quote and drop it on him again, and again, and again…

  • I expect credible lies from this administration. These efforts are so lame and transparent as to be insulting.

  • I am pretty sure that it is Joe who is Otto Scerb.

  • Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.
    It is so ironic that the elderly – who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security – are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals. Bush’s Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly. But Obama’s plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.

  • At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.  Now it is close to $500 billion.

  • Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans and hundreds of State Medical assistant programs that make up 50% of the health care spending of 2.4 trillion dollars is so burdened with fraud and miss management that they need a bail out, which of course is the private sector or the tax payers. A more serious fact is that the Government programs are so drastically underfunded that 44% of claim risk are transferred onto the private sector, responsible for the record health care rates. google “organized chart of the house democrats health plan. It is a hiest in the process.

  • You know Erb it amazes me how utterly stupid and childish you are. Your argument boils down to this:  “If you supported a bad and expensive policy in the past then you cannot be against an even worse and much more expensive policy!  No, there is no room to change your mind and  there is no weighing of values, nor is it legitimate to point out that our expensive foreign policy “mistake’ has been to some extent successful. No, No, No, you are just unreasoning fools and now you are going to have to take your socialism and like it! Mine is the superior intellect!”
    That really is basically what you are saying. you are a little person, a very very small minded person.

  • Is the Democratic plan the best alternative? I don’t know.

    I don’t know what the rest of the comment was about, but here’s the relevant part.

  • But there is something ironic to people who supported policies that have caused our massive decline to complain that policies promoted to improve things for the future will cause problems.      Your credibility is shot.   You supported what’s brought failure in the past, why should anyone take you seriously now?    Your problem, as always, is that you have an ideology-driven understanding of reality.  Rather than think through different arguments and take seriously the possibility that your world-view might be in error, you simply interpret everything to fit what you believe, ridicule those who think differently, and refuse to engage honestly contrary arguments.   That means your position on issues is predictable because you do not follow evidence, logic and rational thought, but rather a twist of information into a pre-conceived ideological perspective.   Politics becomes sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas; opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to.  That subverts democracy and leads to unreflective political posturing

    ***
    Yeah, and we don’t have Ph.Ds either!

  • On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government’s contribution to the District of Columbia’s city budget.
    No way, Democrats said.

    Maybe Scott Erb can explain this away.
    Politics becomes sport, not a respectful exchange of ideas; opponents are to be ridiculed, not listened to.  That subverts democracy and leads to unreflective political posturing.
     

  • Both Republicans and Democrats have been playing the same game.  That’s my point: people get so caught up in the “sport” of ‘two legs bad, four legs good’ they just blame the other side for all that goes wrong, rather than critically assessing the problems facing the country, and the fact there is blame (and good ideas) across the political spectrum.

  • Nice rant, Kyle.  It reminds me of my six year old when he gets mad.

    • Sneaking back in after a couple of days to get the last word, eh, Erbie? Your usual scummy behavior.