So, the CBO has finally admitted what we Conservatives have known for many, many years. Nationalized health care will be more expensive, not less expensive as promised by the leftist Dems.
From David Clarke and Edward Epstein of CQ Politics:
| The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration ... |
But, for a Democrat-controlled Congress that has engaged in more out-of-control spending than their Republican predecessors, why is this an issue?
Read on:
| The Democrats and President Obama have cited two goals in their overhaul proposals — expanding coverage to the estimated 47 million Americans who currently lack it and bringing down long-term costs because the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending threatens to swamp the federal budget in coming years. Under questioning from Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D., Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that the congressional proposals released so far do not meet that second test. “In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs,” he said |
Welcome back to Planet Earth, Democrats.
Does anyone here think that drafting these bills behind closed door (thereby directly breaking the Dem promise of openness and transparancy) was a good idea?
You can access the complete article on-line here:
CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
David Clarke and Edward Epstein
CQ Politics
July 16, 2009
1 comment:
As a small business owner and former supporter of several of Virginia's elected Republicans, I would like to offer a few reasons why a National Heath Service should have the full support of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
1. Currently, there is widespread job discrimination, especially against Americans over forty, because businesses do not to want to risk higher insurance bills for the older workers. Even employed, older workers, know that they are the most likely targets for lay-offs and firings.
2. Business owners often elect to hire part-time workers as a way of avoiding the cost of benefits, including health insurance. This hurts the quality of service for customers and the quality of life for the workers.
3. There are numerous other benefits to having a National Health Service, but I will be brief. Business owners will no longer have to spend the time and effort to manage employee health benefits, freeing American enterprise to do what it does best; produce.
The chief criticism of a National Health Service is always that Canada or Britain's programs have deficiencies. Why on earth would the United States NHS have to suffer any of the failings of those in much smaller countries? As Americans, we have regularly set the world standard of excellence in our national pursuits. Our military is the best on the planet, our space program is without peer, so why should we not expect our National Health Service to be a model of excellence for the rest of the world to follow?
As for the complaint that we would have rationed health care under a national system, most Americans would prefer an accountable federal system to the rationing that goes on by our dubious insurance providers who manipulate the current system for their own profit.
When we look at all that we have created through our national and locally run programs, everything from military, to roads, to sanitation or fire protection, America has done exceptionally well with our national and local government programs. There is no logical basis to presume that the creation of a National Health Service would be anything short of our usual level of excellence.
Post a Comment