cbo

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (423)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (394)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Claire McCaskill of Missouri is just another Democratic deficit scold and she proudly said that she wouldn't vote for a health care bill that didn't totally reduce the deficit. With friends like these, conservatives need no enemies. She ratifies conservative beliefs. Thanks Claire.

The wonderful and all powerful OZ, the CBO, will guide her vote as if it came from GOD! And she was so proud to be in a bipartisan agreement with Mr. Wingnut himself, Judd Gregg, that she almost couldn't control herself.

Transcript:

Senator McCaskill, do you know enough about the Reid compromise to say whether you’ll support it?

MCCASKILL: Well, the whole reason we’re doing this bill is to bring down cost, first for the American people in health care, and secondly for the deficit. So until we get the numbers back from the Congressional Budget Office, we’re all on hold.

Until -- I have to be assured that this is going to bring down the deficit and it’s going to bring down health care costs for most Missouri families. WALLACE: And if it doesn’t?

MCCASKILL: Well, then we are going to have to go back to the drawing board. I’m optimistic we’re going to get a bill. There’s a lot of good stuff in this bill. There’s a lot of misinformation out there about this bill. So I’m optimistic we’re going to get a good piece of legislation passed.

But all of us are focused on those two very important ingredients, bringing down the deficit and bringing down health care costs for most American families.

WALLACE: Senator Gregg, do you know enough about the Reid compromise to be able to say whether or not you’ll support it?

GREGG: I don’t think anybody’s seen it. Basically, it’s being drafted in camera, behind closed doors, by Senator Reid and a few folks. We’ve seen the outlines of it, which are very, very suspicious relative to their effects on cost, which Claire has outlined is one of the primary concerns.

We just got an actuarial summary of the present bill, the present Reid bill, which was done by the president’s actuary, CMS. They said that the cost curve goes up under the Reid bill by $235 billion.

In addition, we know that if you let people buy into Medicare at age 55 instead of going on Medicare when they qualify for it in the 60s that you’re going to definitely get the people who are the sickest buying in, and therefore the cost of Medicare is clearly going to go up.

Now, Medicare is already a bankrupt program. It’s got $38 trillion of unfunded liability out there. And I think putting more people into Medicare is going to simply aggravate the bankruptcy of the program which is coming at us.

WALLACE: Senator McCaskill, those were two of the points I was going to raise with you. I mean, the Reid plan would expand Medicare, which is already in serious financial trouble, and no one knows how much this plan will cost.

Isn’t it crazy to talk about passing a plan that affects a sixth of the economy in the next couple of weeks?

MCCASKILL: No, it’s not. We’ve been working on this for months and months. There’s...

WALLACE: But not this part of it.

MCCASKILL: Well, there have been all kinds of things in this bill that the Republicans -- in fact, there’s a lot of Republican amendments in this bill that we’re debating right now.

And here’s the thing. We’ve got two different analysis of this bill, and the bill’s not complete yet. Both of them say that this bill is going to extend the life of Medicare. Both of these -- both CMS and CBO say we’re going to extend the life of Medicare.

And both of them say we’re going to reduce the deficit long term.

And both of them say for most Americans it’s going to stabilize the cost of health care over time and begin to bend that cost curve.

So we’ve got to stay focused on the positive things in this bill. You know, there’s a lot of politics around this thing. This is the time of year not only do the planes stack up in terms of legislation we’re considering, but it’s also the time of year that we drift away from policy and start playing bare-knuckled politics.



TOPICS

So it comes down to this: Joe "I Don't Know How Anybody Can Decide Until You See The Actual Language" Lieberman got his widdle feelings hurt, and so Joe will do anything to get back at the mean liberals who hurt his feelings - even if it means hundreds of thousands of people have to die without health care.

Doesn't that make him a sociopath? And doesn't that make the Democrats co-conspirators?

The Huffington Post and Roll Call are both reporting that Joe Lieberman notified Harry Reid that he will filibuster health-care reform if the final bill includes an expansion of Medicare. Previously, Lieberman had been cool to the idea, saying he wanted to make sure it wouldn't increase the deficit or harm Medicare's solvency. That comforted some observers, as the CBO is expected to say it will do neither. Someone must have given Lieberman a heads-up on that, as he's decided to make his move in advance of the CBO score, the better to make sure the facts of the policy couldn't impede his opposition to it.

To put this in context, Lieberman was originally invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And it's hard to imagine there's a policy rationale here, as he decided against even bothering to wait for the CBO's analysis before moving against this idea. At this point, Lieberman is just torturing liberals. That is to say, he's willing to directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.

[...] The final path would be to try the reconciliation, the parliamentary procedure that would allow Democrats to pass chunks of health care reform by a simple up or down vote. There are a host of hurdles that come with going down this route, including questions over what, exactly, could be passed. And at this point both the White House and Reid's office seem hesitant to use the procedural tool, even after Lieberman's latest round of opposition.

Reid could also try and find another compromise, but it's not clear there are many of those left. And at this point, the underlying dynamic seems to be that Lieberman will destroy any compromise the left likes. That, in fact, seems to be the compromise: Lieberman will pass the bill if he can hurt liberals while doing so. From Lieberman's perspective, the compromise is killing the compromise.

Chris Bowers points out the Democrats have put Holy Joe in this position:

Nothing Lieberman is doing would be possible without the ongoing support of the majority of the Democratic caucus. If Democratic Senators wanted to punish Lieberman for his consistent transgressions against the party, they could. If Democrats wanted to use reconciliation, and just circumvent him altogether, they could do that, too. But they are not going to do either.

As such, Lieberman is simply taking the power that is being handed to him by the rest of the caucus. Since he knows that Senate Democrats won't ever punish him, and won't ever circumvent him, he now has free reign to dictate whatever legislation he wants, get tons of face time with the White House and Senate leadership, regularly be the top story on news outlets around the country, receive millions in campaign contributions, and appease his Republican base (at this point, most of Lieberman's supporters are Republicans). It is a great deal for Lieberman, and it would not be possible without the ongoing consent of the majority of the Democratic Senate caucus.

Since we have already defeated Lieberman in a Democratic primary, there is clearly nothing more as progressive activists to threaten Lieberman. What we need to start doing is taking action against the Democrats who enable Lieberman and his ilk. If other Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Lieberman taking control of the entire caucus, then really, what is the difference between those other Senators and Joe Lieberman?

Never though I would echo George W. Bush, but we have reached the point where it is time to stop differentiating between problematic Senators like Joseph Lieberman and the other Senate Democrats who enable them.


I had a dream.

I've been reading and listening to all the arguments made who are for and against the supposed new Senate health-care compromise bill that Harry Reid has sent to the CBO to be scored before they present it to us. Even as we see the Senate shut down because politicians don't want big PharMa to take a hit, thanks to an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada.

I've talked to a few sources myself and Greg Sargent's account comports with what I've heard as well. It's confusing because it's been kept secret, and so staffers didn't know what had transpired at the end of the day. I have heard from sources today who said it's not as bad as was first thought, but the bottom line is that we'll know soon enough. Harry Reid knows it will be impossible to spin it when it does surface so why the chicanery? Anyway, the process is still a long way from being over and Congress should not take a single day off until they have a great bill finished before the New Year. They can at least act like working Americans for once instead of crying about working weekends. This new bill is not the final bill that will eventually be voted on to reform our health care system. The House is very much in play although the Senate seems to think that they alone are the Guardians of the Gate and they have to weigh in and not let it get watered down into a bag full of beans.

The committees have to be appointed by Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid as they head to conference and now it will fall on them to finalize the health care bill that will be voted on.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a champion of the public option has said he will not vote for the Senate bill as it now stands while Americans still favor the public option by a wide margin in the newest polls. Howard Dean has found some comfort in the idea of expanding medicare to cover people fifty five years old.

It appears that committee heads George Miller, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel of the House probably will be part of the conference coming out of the House, and I say let them do their part to strengthen the bill against the pressure from the Senate side so that when it comes out of conference the ConservaDems like Baucus, Landrieu, Conrad and Lieberman will be faced with two choices. Either act like our elected politicians that are representing Americans or be exposed as health insurance shills and if the bill is to go down then put it on the shoulders.

Let President Snowe use her fantasized veto pen to sign away our health care. Let Lieberman have to cast the vote that will kill a historic day in American politics.

Let Ben Nelson get in front of the cameras and explain to people like the thousands who were being treated at the Kansas City free clinic, with the incredible help of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann who had nowhere to go for care and tell them that he had to kill health care for them because he valued the profits of the health care industry over the well being of their families.

Let the ConservaDems go down in flames and burn to ashes with the bill if they choose to abandon the campaign promise that President Obama ran on and the mandate they rode in on with his victory in November.

We will keep fighting to make this bill a better because it won't be us that abandon the American people.

It will be the members of the House of Lords who value their positions of power over the less of us, the same as us and the more of us that inhabit this great country. It it by their pettiness that America regresses. It is with their utter contempt for the people that elected them that health care reform will fail. And all of America will know you because we shall speak. And all of America will despise you because they will know. Even those that oppose you will begin to suffer as the months go by and they too will realize that your cowardice has hurt their families even in their blindness to reality.

A Scarlet Letter will forever be burned into your foreheads for all to see.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1443)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5498)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

God we need about a hundred more Howard Deans out there to put a stop to the Republican fear mongering. When Newt Gingrich tries to say that getting the waste out of Medicare Advanatage that is a giveaway to the private insurance companies is taking something away from seniors, Dean straightens him out and tells him no, it's taking away from the insurance companies that are ripping us off.

Dean and Durbin both did a good job on Meet the Press today against Gingrich and Cornyn.

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about the deficit. And the president made a very important pledge during this speech on Wednesday.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

PRES. OBAMA: I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin, a hard pledge to meet when you've got House legislation that already does that, it already breaks the deficit. It can't be paid for over 10 years, according to the CBO. Here's a Washington Post editorial this morning having to do with where are the details, does the math work: "When politicians start talking about paying for programs by cutting `waste and abuse,' you should get nervous. When they don't provide specifics--and when the amounts under discussion are in the hundreds of billions of dollars--you should get even more nervous." How does this get paid for without adding to the deficit?

SEN. DURBIN: Members of Congress should take the president at his word, he will not sign a bill that adds to the deficit. He walked into the White House and inherited a $1 trillion-plus deficit from the Republican administration because they had fought a war in Iraq they didn't pay for, the gave tax breaks to the wealthy they didn't pay for and they had a prescription drug program under Medicare they didn't pay for. This president said that's over, and members of Congress should take that seriously. Now, I disagree with The Washington Post. The fact is, under Medicare now we are providing multibillion-dollar subsidies to health insurance companies for something called Medicare Advantage. The health insurance companies said to us, let us run Medicare. We can show you how the government's not doing it efficiently, we can do it at a lower cost. Guess what, it's not at a lower cost. We are subsidizing private health insurance companies to provide the Medicare benefits that we can provide at a lower cost. That has to change. That subsidy has to end. That is the kind of savings that can come back into the system to help small businesses provide health insurance and help those with lower incomes pay their premiums in America.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (62)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (212)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Who better for Bill O'Reilly to get a "fair and balanced" opinion from following President Obama's speech to Congress than serial liar Karl Rove? Media Matters has the run down on this one.

Rove advances "glaring misstatements" and "distortions" in criticizing Obama speech:

Purporting to examine President Obama's health care speech, Karl Rove claimed that while discussing "the so-called lies and misstatements about his proposal," Obama "made a series of very glaring misstatements or distortions." In fact, it was Rove who was advancing falsehoods and distortions.

[.....]

Rove distorts "what people were concerned about" regarding "panels to kill off senior citizens".

[.....]

Contradicting CBO, Rove suggests "most companies" will "dump the coverage" under House bill.

[.....]

Rove distorts Obama statement to claim he is "not shooting straight" on deficit.

Continue reading...


TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1094)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3872)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

(h/t Heather)
Orrin Hatch was whining about bipartisanship on Face The Nation Sunday. Are you ready for another David Broder article criticizing the Democrats for not including the teabaggers? Rangel slaps little Orrin for lying about the parameters of the House bill. It's of course the House of Lords that is mucking up the works. The House has delivered a bill the the CBO likes.

HATCH: But it’s become so political. The House bill’s a total partisan bill. The health committee in the Senate, the Senate bill, is a total partisan bill. And our only hope, maybe, is to have Senator Baucus be able to put something together on the Finance Committee in the Senate.

RANGEL: We’ve been dealing with this bill for -- for over six months. And we’ve had hours of hearings. And the fact that it’s not bipartisan is not because we Democrats don’t want to have a bipartisan bill. We don’t have any Republican answers. It’s easy to say what you don’t like about this bill. But it would be far more constructive if we had something to work on. So I’m depending on my friend Orrin Hatch to... (LAUGHTER) ... at least in the Senate, to try to see, is there a Republican bill in the Senate? There certainly isn’t in the House. And it’s just wrong to say that this is a tax on small businesses. We exempt small business from a lot of the penalties. We give tax credits so that they’re able to hire and get people health care in small businesses. This is a tax on less than 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the United States of America. And so to say that this is a penalty on small business just isn’t so. Sure, we wish we had more time.

Hatch is lying again since Sen. Grassley has said he's been working with Baucus on a bill. Maybe he should confer with his own party in the Senate instead of going on TV and crying about being left out. He's a Senator, for the love of God. Maybe he could write another song for us?

Continue reading »


Mike's Blog Roundup

Obsidian Wings: Farewell, Hilzoy

skippy the bush kangaroo: The same Republicans who scoffed at the CBO during the Bush administration's crazed spending and tax cutting, now revere the office's prognostications

AverageBro: Mr. "I Been Had" is back

A Tiny Revolution: Interview with Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for CIGNA who finally listened to his conscience, left behind the blood money, and started talking about the evil he was doing as a shill for the health care denial industry.

Bitch Ph.D.: PUMAS are all about the white ladies

Danger Room: Company denies its Robots feed on the dead