C-B-Oh No!

I just want to point out the most important line from Orszag’s letter that didn’t end up making it into this post.
The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade.
Seems pretty relevant to the discussion to me.

Obama: ignore the facts, attack the source.

Obama seems incapable of speaking truthfully on this subject. Forty percent of likely voters now strongly disapprove of his performance in office. That is an astonishing number.

Sgwhite, I too picked up on that key statement from the Orszag letter– for those of you who didn’t follow the link provided in the article above, Orszag says that the proposal was never intended to generate savings over the next decade, and that, after all, the council is not even intended to begin making recommendations until 2015 (!). BUT, Mr. Orszag, if you are touting the IMAC as a ‘game-changer’ that will help contain costs, then the fact that it is not intended to contain costs for a very long time is rather important, it seems to me.
Another fascinating tidbit from the OMB blog appeared in an early entry explaining the rationale for the IMAC and touting it, again, as a “game-changer” that will be able to help “bend the curve” on spending. Look beyond the trendy jargon and discover this interesting little fact– the council will be “independent” and able to recommend how much Medicare should reimburse hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers, SO LONG AS they do NOT recommend higher reimbursements, basically. Because Orszag writes, “The IMAC would issue recommendations as long as their implementation would not result in any increase in the aggregate level of net expenditures under the Medicare program; and either would improve the quality of medical care received by the program’s beneficiaries or improve Medicare’s efficiency.” In other words, recommend whatever you find appropriate, unless what you find appropriate is for Medicare to actually raise the level of net expenditures. So if, for example, the council found that transportation of patients in ambulances is not being reimbursed at a high enough level (to use an example from a comment by another poster here who runs an ambulance service), apparently the council would also have to find a way to recommend some other saving equal to or greater than the increased level of spending on ambulance service, or they can’t make the recommendation.

The CBO is right, but what Jake fails to mention in this post is that the cost problems of this bill are the result of watering it down for the Blue Dogs and other so-called “fiscal conservatives:.
The last time the CBO scored a single-payer bill, this is what they said:
“[Wellstone's bill] would raise national health expenditures above baseline by 4.8 percent in the first year after implementation. However, in subsequent years, improved cost containment and the slower growth in spending associated with the new system would reduce the gap between expenditures in the new system and the baseline. By year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline.”
First, the Democratic Party compromised by settling for the “public option” (aka “Medicare Plus”), then they compromised by watering it down, removing most of the cost saving features.
This is a mere shadow of what the people want, and more closesly represents what the swarm of lobbyists infesting Washington are after.

Complete government takeover of health care insurance is evil. There are no two ways about it.
Little by little, Mr. Obama is trying to take every free choice from the people that they have remaining to them.
Reform is fine; government control of the health system is not.
Government as an industry is not what this country was founded on.

The only way a government can save the taxpayers money is by shrinking. And with that said, we’re screwed.

“Such savings are welcome (and rare!), but it is also the case that (for good reason) CBO has restricted itself to qualitative, not quantitative, analyses of long-term effects from legislative proposals. In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.”
Working a little hard to gin up some conflict for a headline, aren’t you Jake?

Obama’s policies in a nutshell: the government, the government, the government, the government, etc.
Now he is stirring class warfare between small businesses and large businesses as well.
The Democratic Party is nothing more than the Socialist Workers Party USA.

“Mr. Obama is trying to take every free choice from the people that they have remaining to them.”
__________________________________
Sounds pretty paranoid.
Posted by: danita | Jul 26, 2009 12:38:05 PM
It’s not paranoia if it is really happening, and it is.
_________________________________
Just because you THINK it’s happening does not mean it IS happening. Sounds pretty paranoid to me.

THIS JUST IN…..
ELmendorf has been fired. The White House says he was exhibiting the same incoherent traits as fired IG Walpin. More details as the story unfolds.

“Yes! And he was born on the planet Zoron!”
Prove it!

But doesn’t the CBO realize that Obama is concerned about saddling our children with debt?
That’s why we HAVE to pass Obamacare.
The children.
His plan will save money. He said so at the news conference right before he called the police “stupidly”.
I think Obama forgot that he has already saddled children and their children with his great ideas.

Just what is the difference between “substantial savings” and a profit ? Can’t have anyone left making money (profiting) off this now can we ?

When considering the $2 billion in potential savings, it is important to note that the CBO scored legislation in which the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council would not make any recommendations until September 1, 2014. See my Medicare Update blog post at

jhw, I don’t think Jake was “Working a little hard to gin up some conflict for a headline…” The headlines I saw around the web were not as clever but similarly focused on the blow that the CBO dealt to the WH spin on the IMAC idea. It seems the consensus of the sites I have read, whether they thought it a good thing or a bad thing, that the WH was pushing back at the CBO letter and that there was frustration at the WH at yet another assessment from the CBO that makes their task of selling the reform as cost-effective or at least budget neutral more difficult. I don’t see Mr. Tapper’s clever headline, or the article beneath the headline, as particularly slanted.

“On the other hand, there is a small chance, in CBO’s judgment, that the council would propose and the President would approve significant changes to Medicare that would reap substantial savings.”
Right: the “council”. That way, they can kill off every un-rich person over 55, without anybody bothering CONGRESS.
Mobsters do SUCH great public policy.

Guess that little talk at the White House didn’t have quite the effect Obama was hoping for.
Obama must have forgotten the beer.
That solves everything.

Obama’s cool aid is not working; so next month he will hold BBQ meetings over the grill.. Ofcourse, as usual, all at the taxpayer’s cost.

Sounds like its time for the Obama Administration to go “sit in” on some more CBO meetings…
They’re still acting too non-partisan. I guess the threats need to be made more clear to force them to fall in line.
That or they’ll go the way of the IG’s.