Althouse: "House Republicans plan to vote tomorrow to repeal last year’s health care overhaul."

January 18, 2011

"House Republicans plan to vote tomorrow to repeal last year’s health care overhaul."

"One of the key defenses of the law is that it will reduce the deficit over the next decade and the decades to come. But the projections employed to make this argument just aren’t believable. Democrats gamed the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring process, producing a score that distorted the long-term numbers and was believable only under a set of fantastic and improbable assumptions."

53 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: Draw a line in the sand.; 1/18/11, 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: The important thing will be to take note of the number of Democrats who join Republicans in a bipartisan repeal vote.

Will Barack Obama reject bipartisanship? Or will he join with House Republicans and Democrats to eliminate this corrupt law that has already been ruled unconstitutional?

Remember ... courts have already proclaimed this law unconstitutional.

Can someone with the middle name of Hussein live up to his oath of office to defend the Constitution.

I don't think someone with a middle name of Hussein can or will do that.

We'll see.; 1/18/11, 10:28 AM
Original Mike said...: Anybody arguing that repeal would raise the deficit is being deeply, deeply dishonest. Or dumb, but ya gotta believe (hope???) that in the case of politicians making the argument, it's dishonesty.; 1/18/11, 10:28 AM
garage mahal said...: Best to take Reason's word for it rather than the Congressional Budget Office. Yep.; 1/18/11, 10:30 AM
MayBee said...: Best to take Reason's word for it rather than the Congressional Budget Office. Yep.

You are right. It is important to just take the Congressional Budget Office's word for it.

Challenging the government's word is for anti-government right wingers.; 1/18/11, 10:32 AM
Scott M said...: I've never heard a single Democratic congress critter back the cost curve bending in their favor with anything more than "that's what the non-partison CBO says". Garbage in, garbage out.

Nobody, that I've seen in a head to head, ever takes them directly to task for 6 years of benefits on 10 years of revenue or any of the other myriad of problems with this "reform".

I'm hopeful the courts will throw out the individual mandate that the rubes in the Democratic party weren't wise enough to give a separation clause for just such an occurrence. Short of that, I'll settle for getting the ball rolling toward repeal and defunding. The House can slow things down enough to drag this out until 2012.

I'm not bitter about the whole thing (much). I'm convinced it's a bad deal for our country and not willing for the same people that run Amtrak and the VA to make my families health care decisions for me.; 1/18/11, 10:33 AM
Original Mike said...: "Best to take Reason's word for it rather than the Congressional Budget Office."

Better yet would be to actually use your head.; 1/18/11, 10:34 AM
Tank said...: "Best to take Reason's word for it rather than the Congressional Budget Office."

See below post re: critical thinking.

Really garage, even you know the Pres and Dems gamed the system with the set up they gave the CBO.

Con Man.

Con Man gotta con.; 1/18/11, 10:38 AM
Tank said...: Really, EVERY post relating to Obama should have the tag Con Man.

Just sayin.; 1/18/11, 10:39 AM
MadisonMan said...: Anybody arguing that repeal would raise the deficit is being deeply, deeply dishonest.

I would say that just about anything Congress does raises the deficit.; 1/18/11, 10:40 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Anybody arguing that repeal would raise the deficit is being deeply, deeply dishonest. Or dumb, but ya gotta believe (hope???) that in the case of politicians making the argument, it's dishonesty.

It won't raise the deficit because all we need to do is press a button and voila! Instant greenbacks to pay for this.

Easypeasy.; 1/18/11, 10:40 AM
Unknown said...: Now they're even talking about the possibility it could pass the Senate also.

Too cute.

And does The Zero triangulate on this one or just rotate?

This would leave him with the delightful task of trying to raise taxes and defend a policy Rasmussen says 70% of the people dislike.

Pauline never had such perils.

WV "forehorn" A guy's appurtenance which can make two women smile at the same time.; 1/18/11, 10:57 AM
Larry J said...: The CBO's projections were based on the assumptions given to them by Congress, such as cutting $500 billion from Medicare. It also imposes an artificial 10 year timeline. There are 10 years of tax increases and only 6 years of medical expenditures, so on paper it looks like ObamaCare isn't adding to the deficit. However, if it those 10 years of higher taxes only pay for 6 years or so of expenditures, what happens in 2022 or so when the expenditures catch up and exceed revenues? That's the fundamental dishonesty of the ObamaCare legislation and the CBO analysis - stacked and unrealistic assumptions and artificial timeline constraints. It's all a big lie.; 1/18/11, 11:04 AM
Scott M said...: Now they're even talking about the possibility it could pass the Senate also.

Too cute.

Who's they?

lol

WV - "hooman"; 1/18/11, 11:11 AM
ark said...: @garage mahal: The CBO doesn't buy it either. Their report made it pretty clear that they were required to meet the technical requirements for a 10-year estimate, but that they knew perfectly well that the rules had been gamed by offsetting ten years of taxes against six years of spending.

Not sustainable.; 1/18/11, 11:17 AM
Original Mike said...: @ark - He knows that. Why he persists is a mystery.; 1/18/11, 11:19 AM
paul a'barge said...: Kill it (pardon the eliminationist rhetoric).; 1/18/11, 11:21 AM
Scott M said...: @paul a'barge

Harry Reid has pretty much already said "bite me".; 1/18/11, 11:28 AM
DaveW said...: Rep Ryan had the CBO do a new analysis of the impact of the bill without the budgeting gimmicks the desm used to create fantasy that the bill would save money.

It projects a 10 year increase in the deficit of $701 billion, not the fantasy $140 "savings" used to sell this sack of poo to the public.

You can see it here.; 1/18/11, 11:33 AM
Hagar said...: The CBO is non-partisan, but not independent. It is a creature of Congress and is "non-partisan" as specified by Congress. Any attempt at going beyond its instructions will result in a "re-organization" of the agency.; 1/18/11, 11:35 AM
Peter Hoh said...: While he's at it, maybe Ryan can get the CBO to figure out how much Medicare, Part D adds to the deficit.

I've read projections in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.; 1/18/11, 11:45 AM
Scott M said...: Then it needs to go too, peter. Good point. You do realize, don't you, that Thatcher was right?; 1/18/11, 11:46 AM
Unknown said...: Scott M said...

Now they're even talking about the possibility it could pass the Senate also.

Too cute.

Who's they?

John Fund of the WSJ yesterday on Neal Cavuto.; 1/18/11, 12:01 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Scott, I don't know that I've ever criticized Thatcher. Was there a particular line you had in mind?

My criticism of the criticism of Obamacare is directly tied to the passage (and silence on the right) about Medicare, Part D. I would be happy to see both repealed.; 1/18/11, 12:02 PM
Scott M said...: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

I don't know a lot of people, including a healthy chunk of seniors, that are against Obamacare that aren't also against Part D.; 1/18/11, 12:04 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I've read projections in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.

Doesn't sound unreasonable. That being said, perhaps we need to re-evaluate how much in services we expect from our government and how much of our paychecks we'd like to keep because you really can't have your cake and eat it too.

Then it needs to go too, peter. Good point. You do realize, don't you, that Thatcher was right?

Or significantly reduced. I'm not advocating an elimination of Medicare but when half a trillion/year is devoted to 42 million beneficiaries (out of a nation of 300 million) it stands to reason the current benefits are unsustainable. Just look at Western Europe with its confiscatory tax rates, emasculated militaries and they are facing the abyss, why do liberals insist on rushing headlong with them?

As Original Mike says, 'tis a mystery'.; 1/18/11, 12:05 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: My criticism of the criticism of Obamacare is directly tied to the passage (and silence on the right) about Medicare, Part D.

Perhaps the hue and cry wasn't as loud mainly because the legislation targeted a specific demographic (Medicare beneficiaries) and wasn't viewed as a complete overhaul of the health care system which affected the nation as a whole.

Then again, it bears repeating that those GOPers passed a lot of legislation that ended up getting them sent to the political wilderness in 2006 so 'silent criticism' was leveled at the ballot box.; 1/18/11, 12:09 PM
Unknown said...: peter hoh said...

Scott, I don't know that I've ever criticized Thatcher. Was there a particular line you had in mind?

My criticism of the criticism of Obamacare is directly tied to the passage (and silence on the right) about Medicare, Part D. I would be happy to see both repealed.

Damned little silence about it. Part D was one of the first things where Conservatives broke with Dubya. You might want to check out Porkbusters or some of Insta's archives.; 1/18/11, 12:13 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Edutcher, can you cite any critique of Medicare, Part D on FOX NEWS or Rush?; 1/18/11, 12:19 PM
jungatheart said...: What if Obama surprised everyone, including the House and Senate who voted to repeal it, and did not veto it?

How would this work for Obama?; 1/18/11, 12:20 PM
Scott M said...: peter

I don't listen to Rush, but I do remember a LOT of hand wringing on the Saturday and Sunday panel shows. Not sure about the prime time lineup.

My father is a Mason (although not high enough in level to be able to teleport yet, more's the pity) and he's a got a LOT of fellow members that are both seniors and not very happy with Part D or Obamacare.; 1/18/11, 12:22 PM
Scott M said...: How would this work for Obama?

Maybe Bill Daley can convince him it would be the ultimate triangulation move or, in the words of our soon-to-be former Senator from Missouri, "Message received".; 1/18/11, 12:23 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: We believe the CBO only when it suits our purpose.; 1/18/11, 12:24 PM
Original Mike said...: We PRETEND TO believe the CBO only when it suits our purpose.

Fixed your post.; 1/18/11, 12:32 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Scott, maybe Rush said something once, and maybe the FOX Sunday crew said something, but the constant drumbeat from Hannity, et al, never happened with regards to Medicare, Part D.

If one of Obama's White House officials lied to Congress about the costs of the program, and then went off to work for those who benefited from the program, there would be no end to the ruckus from Hannity, Rush, Malkin, Palin, etc.

But when a Republican does it, as did Thomas Scully, there is silence.; 1/18/11, 12:35 PM
Original Mike said...: Peter: I also remember a lot of criticism from the right about the cost of Part D. If your only point is that "Hannity, Rush, Malkin, Palin" (Palin wasn't around yet, but whatever) did not criticize it, I won’t dispute you because I don’t remember. Nor do I see why I should care.; 1/18/11, 12:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: But when a Republican does it, as did Thomas Scully, there is silence.

Yes Peter, because those individuals are partisan hacks who parrot the GOP line. This is not a revelation to anyone here, particularly the conservative voices on this comment section who are quite vocal in thier criticism of the GOP.

Again, when you look at Part D (effects 42 million Medicare beneficiaries) and Obamacare which effects, well everyone in the country, well there you have it.

Also bear in mind Part D was passed at a time when the economy was roaring, unemployment was low and (wise or not) deficits didn't matter. Contrast that with passing Obamacare when unemployment was approaching 10%, deficits were ballooning, tax receipts declining and well...there you have it.

I'm not excusing one over the other, just pointing out the political landscape at the respective periods.; 1/18/11, 12:48 PM
Original Mike said...: We all remember the Democrat's position on Medicare Part D, right?; 1/18/11, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "Kill it (pardon the eliminationist rhetoric)."

Kill it with fire.

(Said without the slightest bit of guilt for the eliminationist rhetoric.)

The courts have ruled this law unconstitutional. Our lawmakers have all, every single fucking one of them, sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and now they will be presented with the opportunity to do precisely that.

Anyone who votes against repeal is thus guilty of treason in my view because they will be voting to keep a law that has already been ruled by a court of law to be a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Oaths of office have to mean something. Or our nation is finished.; 1/18/11, 12:56 PM
Robin said...: George, if you bothered to read the CBO report, you'd know that the CBO didn't take the CBO's word for it.; 1/18/11, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: "What if Obama surprised everyone, including the House and Senate who voted to repeal it, and did not veto it? How would this work for Obama?"

A Democrat would assassinate him.; 1/18/11, 12:58 PM
Larry J said...: peter hoh said...
Edutcher, can you cite any critique of Medicare, Part D on FOX NEWS or Rush?

Rush blasted it loud and often. Here's a quick cite, you can do your own searching if you want to find more. As for Fox, several people there also blasted it when it was in Congress. If you want cites, Google is your friend. Like someone else said, that was one of the things that caused many conservatives to break with Bush '43.; 1/18/11, 1:07 PM
Unknown said...: peter hoh said...

Edutcher, can you cite any critique of Medicare, Part D on FOX NEWS or Rush?

I'll bet Cavuto did - I was still working at the time. Since I don't hear Rush all that much I couldn't say one way or the other.

In any case, Rush and/or Fox aren't the end-all and be-all of Conservatism. There was plenty of noise about it at the time and since. So your point is shot down.; 1/18/11, 1:12 PM
Scott M said...: Rush blasted it loud and often. Here's a quick cite, you can do your own searching if you want to find more. As for Fox, several people there also blasted it when it was in Congress. If you want cites, Google is your friend. Like someone else said, that was one of the things that caused many conservatives to break with Bush '43.

Assuming the above is true, peter, at least for the moment, what does that do to the narrative? I understand you said you were against both, but how does this square with your view of Obamacare criticism? As Hoosier said, I think a good point is made that the outcry was analogous to the number of people it affected.

You've got to give it to Obama. He really knows how to organize an entire community.; 1/18/11, 1:13 PM
Fen said...: George, if you bothered to read the CBO report, you'd know that the CBO didn't take the CBO's word for it.

You need to also know that the CBO is only allowed to work with the information given them. When Congress does an accounting end-run around the system, they can't include that in their scoring.; 1/18/11, 1:15 PM
jungatheart said...: lol, probably Pelosi.; 1/18/11, 1:15 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Okay, I'll accept that the conservative pushback against Medicare, Part D, was louder than I remember.

As for the number of people affected by Medicare, Part D, I would think that those of us footing the bill ought to be included in that number.; 1/18/11, 1:43 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: As for the number of people affected by Medicare, Part D, I would think that those of us footing the bill ought to be included in that number.

I don't disagree. That said, when it comes to more government benefits, it would behoove everyone to start asking how much in taxes we ALL are willing to shell out. Continued reliance on 1%of the wage earners to foot the bill for the rest of us is unsustainable.; 1/18/11, 2:41 PM
Scott M said...: @Hoosier

End withholding. It's a bit of a racket anyway. Make taxpayers pay a bill once a month or once a quarter and see how long it takes. If someone wants to argue that it would require too much bureaucracy to handle that, I invite you to look at bill outlining Obamacare.; 1/18/11, 2:48 PM
MadisonMan said...: End withholding.

I like that idea. We do it already for Property Taxes, 'tho those are paid yearly. I know my parents pay Federal Taxes quarterly, too.

Of course, all that free loan money to the Feds would go away. Too bad.; 1/18/11, 4:35 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Logic tells us that we will save bazillions when we provide govt insurance to an extra 30 million people. And I'd love to see Obama's SAT scores in math.; 1/18/11, 5:15 PM
Original Mike said...: "End withholding."

I think that's a great idea.; 1/18/11, 5:17 PM
Scott said...: "End Withholding"

Let me add a small ammendment to that: End withholding and move election day to the day after taxes are due.

There will be a bounty on Democratic hides within 18 months....; 1/18/11, 10:48 PM