Comments on: Tell me again: Why is health reform controversial?

By: Don Huizenga

Don Huizenga — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:15:15 +0000

Please tell me how it reduces the deficit? Is it because the government will begin collecting taxes without having to pay out benefits for 3 years? Yeah, that could do it. But how else did you think obama would pay for his stimulus's? He NEEDS health care to pass in order to keep spending the way he is. When the benefit costs come in 3 years, those will be shuffled into new taxes, yet to be seen. Its all a shell game.

BTW…under this plan, MY choice to have major medical coverage, instead of regular coverage, will be taken from me. My premiums will go up.

To say that the government does ANYTHING that saves money is a complete farce. Show me one example where government saves anyone any money? Oh, and please dont confuse saving money with "making something cheaper for one person by requiring more taxes from another to pay for it."

Go.

By: _JP

_JP — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:30:29 +0000

Health reform is controversial because some question if this is the federal government's job.

By: Sean2

Sean2 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:15 +0000

No. CBO Said all premiums go up. Then, it added that through subsidies, those well below the poverty line, and a small percentage of people already with health insurance would see a net decrease. In aggregate, the net is a premium increase, and the majority of Americans would see their premiums increase.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:34:05 +0000

You know what else would decrease the deficit? Increasing taxes by $5,500 per family today. Doesn't mean I've created some brilliant program. Just means I've passed a major tax increase.

Same with health reform. The only reason the long term, assumption-laden, CBO estimates show a deficit reduction in 10 years is because of the new revenue sources. It has nothing to do with saving any money on our healthcare system.

Oh, and decreasing insurance costs for 80% of Americans while cranking up taxes for 20% to cover it doesn't make it any different — your still not saving a penny in the system.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:09:34 +0000

I don't actually believe you guys believe this. You had me going for a while but I call bs. I know you're only doing it to help, i.e. to get greater access to health care but you shouldn't have to lie about the numbers to make the case for it. But if you want to continue with the charade, please provide an example of another entitlement program that has been able to:

1. Reduce the deficit
2. Drastically expand availability
3. Does not compete with private resources

and

4. Drives other costs down.

By: Alec

Alec — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:16:49 +0000

CBO said it would reduce some and increase others. Way to pick and choose your truth Sean2. And MIT profs are hacks?

By: Ed Kohler

Ed Kohler — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:15:53 +0000

This isn't about logic but reason vs. fear created by those with a financial interest in the status quo.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:47:46 +0000

How?

Show me that thishealth reform saves America money. That is different than being deficit neutral.

By: Sean2

Sean2 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:25:01 +0000

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-repo...

CBO: Senate bill would increase individual insurance premiums

Jeff, I know you want to pass a radical left wing agenda, but citing left wing hacks who are blatantly wrong and passing it off as fact is dishonest.

By: lojasmo

lojasmo — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:13:06 +0000

Society as a whole does, millionaires (arguably) don't, though CBO estimates show that they actually will.