DOWNLOADS: (957)

PLAYS: (2376)

Embed

Glenn Beck continued his eliminationist attacks on progressives yesterday with a novel and absurd comparison:

Beck: History will equate this as, as big as the New Deal or Pearl Harbor. And if you think that's overstating the importance, remember we are talking about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

As he was talking, the screen behind him showed the bombs falling on ships at Pearl Harbor and smoke billowing up in their aftermath.

Of course, Beck has also compared HCR to the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, providing health-care insurance for millions of uninsured Americans is just like horrific and violent attacks that leave thousands of Americans dead.

The point, of course, is that the "progressives" pushing health-care reform are the "enemy within" intent on destroying America.

The rest of the rant was dedicated to exploring this in detail. He dismissed the CBO report that the health-care reform bill would result in a $130 billion deficit reduction in its first ten years by sniffing: "Well, that's a party in my pants!" -- because, according to Beck, it's just a "transition" to making health care a right, "just like FDR" intended. This notion is now being promoted, he said, by Cass Sunstein, who he pronounced "the most evil man, the most dangerous man in America."

You see, it's not deficit reduction that matters -- it's the loss freeeeedom! that HCR represents. HCR, according to Beck, is "slavery" and "oppression":

Beck: I promise you America -- oppression is one promise our government will keep.

Because, of course, decent health care is just so oppressive. Not to mention that it's like bombing thousands of Americans to death.

Obviously, there's no one left among the brass at Fox capable of keeping some kind of rational perspective in their broadcasts at all.

DOWNLOADS: (1235)

PLAYS: (1361)

Embed

MarketWatch:

A health-care overhaul proposed by Senate Democrats will cost $849 billion over 10 years, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, and slash the deficit by $127 billion over the next decade.

The price tag is just under President Barack Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years.

The estimates, from the Congressional Budget Office, also showed that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million people, said the Journal, citing a senior Senate leadership aide.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been anxiously awaiting the CBO's price tag for the bill before moving to debate on the Senate floor. The first procedural vote could come later this week on the bill. Obama wants to sign a health-care reform bill before the end of the year.

Like a bill that passed the House on Nov. 7, the Senate's bill aims to cover most Americans, bar insurers from denying coverage to sick people, set up insurance "exchanges" where people can shop for coverage and fine those who don't get insurance. It also sets up a government-run insurance plan, expected to enroll about 6 million people.

But Reid faces a number of hurdles in getting a bill through the Senate, including concerns about the measure's cost. Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are among two of Reid's fellow Democrats who have openly worried about the cost of health-care reform.

Per what I've been told from Senate leadership offices, the Senate health care bill will:

• cut the budget deficit by $127 billion over 10 years
• cut the budget deficit by $650 billion in the second decade
• extend guaranteed coverage to more than 9% of Americans -- including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured

Reid will probably file cloture on the motion to proceed tomorrow. The CBO's report should go up on the Senate Democrats site shortly.

DOWNLOADS: (1343)

PLAYS: (3911)

Embed

Paul Krugman joined the round table discussion on ABC's THIS WEEK and highlighted the misleading CBO report on the costs of health care and he singled out Doug Elmendorf as the culprit..

Krugman: I think I should say something about that CBO thing which really surprised a lot fo people because...

George: it was important and interesting timing...

Krugman: And also because most of the health care economists I talked to think that MedPac reform, that having these judges would actually be quite important especially in the long run so they were really kind of surprised. There's a kind of sense that the CBO faced with a, no one can put a hard number on this, but CBO sort of said that if we can't put a hard number on it we're going to say it's zero and that seems to be wrong. There's every reason to think that what Medicare is willing to pay for can save a lot of money and this was a kind of destructive comment by Doug Elmendorf of the CBO.

Ywa, think? How can the CBO give an effective cost analysis without the entire bill being presented to them? And suddenly the CBO is the judge and jury on whether we get health care reform passed and gives detractors a vehicle to complain. The media sure seems to be rooting for an Obama failure on health care reform, but what's their stake in it outside of loving the prospect of running with that story? I actually saw a segment on CNN which discussed the ramification of having no health care and how it affects Americans. There's too little of that and too much of imaginary numbers.

All the Sunday shows and anti-health care reform members of Congress have jumped on Doug Elmendorf's testimony, but ignored another CBO report. I wonder why?

Digby:

Not that it matters, since the showboating Senators had to have a dramatic hearing with the CBO chief before the committees were finished and the resultant headlines have been disseminated as if they came down from Mt Sinai, but this was released last night by the From the House Energy, Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees:

For Immediate Release:

July 17, 2009

CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill

Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.

"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."

The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.

Naturally, the inviolate Chuck Todd 30,000 feet rule of reporting is in effect and the Politico headlines reads this way: CBO deals another blow to House health plan...read on

And Jonathan Cohn makes a great point that I hope Congress reads:

One last point: Do remember that even if reform ends up without game-changing cost control, it may create political conditions that make future cost control more likely. That seems to be happening in Massachusetts, which enacted sweeping coverage expansions a few years ago. Remember, too, even if reform did nothing but guarantee everybody access to care, without bending the curve, it'd still be a pretty big accomplishment.

We're trying to have real change here and all the press and republicans are doing is whipping up the money-fear thingy. But spending billions on two disgraceful wars is just OK. Forget about the balancing act---if it costs a little more, then go for it--full throttle.