******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Thank God The CBO Works On Saturdays

The Congressional Budget Office once again has poked a massive hole in the Democratic health care "reform" bubble, in a report issued today.

One of the key elements of the Democratic proposals is to hand over the power to make cost cuts to an unelected, unimpeachable council similar to MedPAC. By empowering such an insular entity to make decisions over which health care procedures and medicines are cost-effective, we will have surrendered enormous freedom over personal health care. If a procedure or medication is not approved by this entity, it will not be economically viable for the provider to bring it to market, so it will not be available even if you were willing to pay out of pocket.

Putting aside our freedom, the CBO has come out with an analysis (appearing in full below) which shows that handing over health care decisions to an entity such as MedPAC will not save any substantial sums over the next decade, even as the cost of health care "reform" escalates. As related at The Politico:

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

What a pathetic joke the Democratic legislative effort has become. Loss of freedom and no meaningful cost savings. The opposite of "you get what you pay for."

As Rahm Emanuel and Henry Waxman push to have a vote next week, it is clear that neither the Congress nor the White House has any clue as to the consequences of what they are proposing (if they even have read it). All the more reason we need to see the bill, debate it, and let our representatives know how we feel before they vote.

So give double thanks this weekend. First, for the CBO not giving in to political pressure. And second, for the fact that the CBO works on Saturdays.

UPDATE: Read 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform:
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

CBO 07-25-IMAC

Related Posts:
Unaccountable Commission May Run Healthcare
Deception and Tyranny Key To Health Care Reform

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. Wow. This is really important. I will post this tomorrow morning.

  2. Reading is Fundamental

    Vote out your Congressman and Senator if he or she votes YES but doesn't read.

  3. Vote out your Congressman and Senator if he or she votes YES. Reading it or not!

  4. If you read the CBO analysis, it's a probabilistic analysis based at least partially on the politics. The legislation creates the panel, but it's up to the President and Congress to approve the recommendations. The CBO believes that there's a very high percentage chance that the panel will make recommendations for cuts but political pressure will prevent anything from happening. They concede a low percentage chance for cuts and rationing occuring.

    My take is that if cuts were possible, Congress and the President would pass them now. Since they're passing the buck instead, future politicians will also pass the buck and no cuts would happen.

  5. There's no such thing as a responsible committee.

  6. Below - I have attached a quote I ran across on FB. How do you convince these people? Aside from pointing out that much of what they use as an example is a SMALL, LOCAL govt service, they are clueless! They obviously will not read an informative article with bullet points, much less the actual bill! Soon, they will start the meme that the CBO is run by a bunch of conservatives...

    "If I trust the government to put out a fire, protect me from criminals, defend me from countries, provide me with water, streets, electricity, why the hell would I think they are incompetent at providing me with healthcare?
    Why should I believe private companies can do better? Do you think you have the best possible world when it comes to cable? telephone?
    We are the only developed country to not have universal care, we pay double for it... and we are ranked behind Costa Rica.
    Don't be scared by the lobbying of those that profit from the status quo."

  7. lacegrl130, the fundamental issue isn’t whether or not the government can be “competent” to “provide” healthcare. The fundamental issue is: What justifies the notion that some individuals are entitled to free (or reduced-cost) goods and services to be provided by confiscating the fruits of other individuals’ labor? What justifies the notion that some are entitled to exist at the expense of the labor of others?

    The short answer is: NOTHING. No amount of involuntary servitude -- in any form -- is justified, no matter what goods or services it may provide, and no matter how cheap it may make those goods and services.

    We fought a huge civil war in the 19th century to finally settle that point. But the welfare-staters, the leftists, the socialists and the fascists haven’t given up on it. No, they are not proposing to enslave the blacks -- they are only proposing to enslave the producers. And no, they aren’t proposing TOTAL slavery, only another increment of partial enslavement, to be inevitably followed by another and another….

  8. Michael - I was quoting someone else- I totally agree with you

  9. I'm still trying to figure out how that cryptic little clause in the Preamble, "to promote the general welfare," has now morphed into "treat every boo-boo and sore throat on the government's dime."

    Thanks for posting this. It'll be an excellent resource link.