Pay more, get less

NY Post ^ | September 17, 2009 | MICHAEL TANNER

[Scanian]

THAT'S it?

For the past six months, six members of the Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Max Baucus, have been laboring mightily to design a health-care bill. Yesterday they finally brought forth their product -- and it leaves us with more questions than answers.

Despite months of work, Baucus hasn't really produced a bill yet, only a 223-page summary of what he hopes a bill will contain.

Here is some of what we know and don't know:

First, he claims the bill would cost only $856 billion. (Remember when that sounded like a lot of money?) In fact, that likely understates the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office only looks at a 10-year budget window, that is, 2010 to 2019. But most of the bill wouldn't even start until 2014. Thus, the "10-year cost" covers only five years of actual spending. Future costs are expected to increase dramatically.

[This_far]

First, he claims the bill would cost only $856 billion. (Remember when that sounded like a lot of money?)

I remember when the first rendering (why are bills rendered, as is fat?) of the program would be funded only by SAVINGS! (Zero had identified and would eliminate waste and inefficiencies).

Guess we won't be able to conserve our way out of the "Energy" bill either.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Baucus also wants insurance regulations similar to the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions that failed so spectacularly in New York in the 1970s. Those provisions would drive up premiums for younger and healthier workers in order to subsidize premiums for those who are older and sicker.

Ponzi scheme.

[TomGuy]

First, he claims the bill would cost only $856 billion. (Remember when that sounded like a lot of money?) In fact, that likely understates the true cost.

Reminds me of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill which was supposed to cost some $300 billion, then a month later was some $500 billion, and a while later was revised to be some $700 billion.

==

None, including The O, still have been able to offer a credible explanation of how all this massive spending is going to be deficit neutral.

[The reason they can't explain it is that it isn't going to be deficit neutral. It is just that the costs (ie, taxes and premium increases) will be kicked down the road.]

[mosesdapoet]

The only way to “dump this junk” is to get into legislators faces who are pushing cap & tax, and O-B’S care. And that is by getting the message out particularly to their constituents through leaflets and signs in their respective districts.
http://www.theusmat.com/

[This_far]

The only way to “dump this junk” is to get into legislators faces who are pushing cap & tax, and O-B’S care.

Unfortunately, even THAT is not always result positive. On tonights local news, Montana's (sole) Representative, (R) Rehberg, said that, despite what he heard during the previous weeks, most favor the HC bill.

Now, ain't THAT bullshite, with a poke in yer eye?

[Scanian]

When they toss figures like that around as if money were jellybeans, it just demonstrates how out of touch those yo-yo’s really are.

[Scanian]

This bill is going nowhere.

I didn’t think you could gore everybody’s ox at the same time but Baucus managed to do it.

[This_far]

This bill is going nowhere.

I'll give temporary agreement. Baucus has nothing to lose politically and at 68, he should have enough to fulfill his remaining time.

The only way to keep this bill from passage is constant pressure...

(MT Rep Rehberg is a Rino, NOT a (R))