Morgen on July 2, 2009
The big headline on healthcare today is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the latest bill coming out of the Senate Health Committee (Kennedy/Dodd) at a net budgetary cost of slightly over $600 billion. Which is well under the $1 trillion estimate from the CBO on an earlier version of this bill just a couple of weeks ago. And even more incredible, the CBO estimates that this updated bill would ultimately result in coverage for 97% of Americans, whereas the earlier version had left tens of millions of uninsured.
Wow – near universal coverage, and for less money. Sounds like a real breakthrough for the Administration and the Senate Democrats crafting this legislation.
Not so fast.
While some of the improvement in the CBO score is based on substantive changes such as the inclusion of the controversial public plan option and an employer “pay or play” mandate, there is a much simpler (and duplicitous) explanation for why the touted cost is so much lower:
The CBO estimate does not include the cost of a significant expansion of Medicaid that is envisioned under this bill.
That’s right – it’s not included. Why? For the simple reason that since Medicaid is an existing entitlement program, any revisions centered around cost expansion must be dealt with by the Senate Finance Committee (remember, this is the Health Committee bill).
And how significant might these additional costs be? If, as expected, the Finance Committee expands Medicaid eligibility up to 150% of the poverty level, this would cover around 20 million more Americans at an estimated gross cost of $1 trillion over 10 years. And importantly, the only way they will come close to achieving 97% coverage is by doing this.
Add this up and the actual cost estimate of this reform package is at least $1.6 trillion. Now remember that the Administration is claiming that they have found a way to reduce Medicare/Medicaid costs by $600 billion over 10 years. Putting aside the political viability of Congress actually going through with all of these cuts, even factoring in these “savings” the net cost of the bill will still be at least $1 trillion.
So at best we are right back to a bill with a net price tag of $1 trillion or more, albeit one that ostensibly provides for more universal coverage.
But providing universal coverage has never been the chief obstacle. The obstacle is the cost, or more precisely how the costs will be actually be paid for. And don’t forget that the Administration is actually selling this $1.6 trillion boondoggle as the means to REDUCE the overall growth in healthcare spending! (I’ll believe those Medicare cuts when I see them).
The real point here is don’t be fooled when you see the media echo the Administration’s talking points on this so-called “breakthrough”. With their headlines touting near universal coverage at a cost of only $600 billion. These reports are erroneous. It’s just one more link in the deceitful chain of false premises – and false promises – that this Administration and their willing accomplices in the media are foisting upon us in order to ram this bill through.
Update: Just to illustrate my point, the White House released a statement today touting the CBO’s score of the Senate Health bill:
The Congressional Budget Office has now issued a more complete review of this bill, concluding that it will cost less and cover more Americans than originally estimated.
This is an outright lie as I documented above. Press Secretary Gibbs was asked about the missing Medicaid costs in the press briefing today and admitted that the White House and Senate Democrats had indeed blatantly misrepresented the facts on this. Nah, just kidding. He gave the weaselly type of answer you would expect from him:
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
Comments (0)
John on July 2, 2009
If you’ve read the reviews, you know that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen got panned by critics, even as moviegoers flock to theaters to see it. Yahoo Movies roundup shows critics giving it a C-. Users on the other hand gave it a B+. Over at Rotten Tomatoes — which is one of the places I always check for movie reviews — the “Top Critics” gave it 18%. Meanwhile the RT Community (regular users) gave it 68%, a huge difference!
Last night I saw the film at my local multiplex and, having seen it, I now understand why the critics hated it. It’s sorta, kinda conservative.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a big, brash piece of Summer film making. Subtlety is not on the menu here. This is a pure Michael Bay. Everything on screen must explode sooner or later, usually sooner. But underneath all that there is something resembling a moral and here’s what it is… (Note: mild spoilers ahead. Won’t ruin your enjoyment, but will give away some plot points.)
The evil Decepticons (the bad robots) discover that the secret to gaining power will come from using a giant machine to destroy earth’s sun. But the key to the machine has been lost and only Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has the clues to find it. So the Decepticons — in a plot device stolen from The Dark Knight — tear up a few cities around the world and then put Sam’s picture on every TV screen on the planet. They demand that he be turned over immediately or else.
All the regular people in the movie — the soldiers, the good robots, Sam’s parents — think this is a terrible idea. But in a key scene, the President’s representative (Obama’s name is mentioned in another scene) tells one of the soldiers that all options are on the table, meaning they may hand Sam over if they can find him. The soldier responds with something like “don’t you get it, you can’t negotiate with the Decepticons.” But the representative is unmoved.
As in Dark Knight, the connection to our current situation vis a vis terrorism is immediate. Though they may not have had it in mind during production, the connection to the situation in Iran came immediately to mind. Are we really going to negotiate with people who beat down their own citizens with clubs. Apparently we are.
The movie takes a dim view of this. Movie reviewers, who are as reliably liberal as reporters in general, no doubt noticed it and didn’t like it. But as with The Dark Knight, moviegoers don’t seem to see the problem.
Unlike Dark Knight which was a clear and fairly deep allegory to our current situation and George Bush in particular, Transformers is really just a popcorn movie. Still, I think it would be getting much better reviews if President Obama turned out to be the hero rather than the foolish guy rushing off to an undisclosed location when things get ugly, as he does in this film.
Oh, and the critics are wrong. It’s a fun film. A bit long, but still enjoyable Summer fare.
Update: From the NY Times review:
Mr. Bay is an auteur. His signature adorns every image in his movies, as conspicuously as that of Lars von Trier, and every single one is inscribed with a specific worldview and moral sensibility. Mr. Bay’s subject — overwhelming violent conquest — is as blatant and consistent as his cluttered mise-en-scène…
[T]here’s nothing to the reference to President Obama being whisked out of danger instead of standing tall like Optimus Prime and the rest of the robotic heroes. But that’s the perverse genius of Michael Bay. Despite the tediousness of his stories and inanity of his visual ideas, he always manages to keep you laughing and shaking your head in disbelief at the outlandishness of his cinematic spectacles, with their orange explosions, armament fetishism and even their noxious stereotypes. The man just wears you out and wears you down, so much so that it’s easy to pretend that you’re not ingesting 2 hours and 30 minutes of warmongering along with all that dumb fun.
Here’s the opening line from the Washington Post review:
With its fascist sensibility, assortment of smutty asides, illiterate gold-tooth-wearing homie robots and the hero’s brainless mother, much of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is simply despicable. So complaining about one’s physical discomfort seems petty. But given the relentless din, the Leni Riefenstahl-inspired music and the headache-inducing visuals, OSHA should probably be investigating the conditions under which human beings made this thing. Or the conditions under which they watch it.
Category: Movies |
Comments (19)
John on July 2, 2009
Oops…The Washington Post was caught offering access to senior White House staff for money. In this particular case it was on the issue of health reform:
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”
[...]
“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders.”
I wonder if the Post got the idea from the Atlantic, which has been hosting invitation only press salons for some time. Of course the Atlantic wasn’t asking people to underwrite their soirees. On the other hand, the Post’s willingness to offer access to anyone who can pay is sort of refreshing compared to the elitism of the Atlantic’s version.
Perhaps Obama can combine the Post’s concept with his own stage managed “townhall” events. He could sell every question for $10K and raise a bundle.
Category: MSM & Bias |
Comments (0)