CBO Chief Admits Health Care Reform Will Worsen Economy!

Here is the dialog between Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota and CBO Chief, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, as reported by ABCNews' Z. Bryan Wolf:

Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. 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.

Scotty Starnes: OUCH THAT HURT...and it slapped down another lie by Obama and the Donkey Party.

Lets continue...

Conrad: So the cost curve in your judgment is being bent, but it is being bent the wrong way. Is that correct?

Elmendorf: The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths. But it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates. So most health experts that we talk with focus particularly on what is happening over the next 10 or 20 years, still a pretty long time period for projections, but focus on the next 10 or 20 years and look at whether efforts are being made that are bringing costs down or pushing costs up over that period.

As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgment, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care. It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package. Legislation was only released as you know two days ago. But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.

Scotty Starnes: You mean Obama and the Donkey Party have been warned about this before and even after know that this bill would not work, they continued to push this junk bill without regard for the CBO reports or the outrage from the Elephants, Donkey and Taxpayers? How dare they?

Lets continue...

Conrad: And what about the Finance Committee package, as it stands?

Elmendorf: I can't speak to that Mr. Chairman. We have been working with the Finance Committee and the staff for a number of months on proposals that they have been addressing. But our consultations with them have been confidential because they have not yet released the legislation, and I don't want to speak publicly about that.

Conrad: All right. In terms of those things that are public from other plans, what are the things that are missing that in your judgment prevent a bending of the cost curve in the right way?

Elmendorf: Bending the cost curve is difficult. As we said in our letter to you, there is a widespread consensus, and you quoted some of this, that a significant share of health spending is not contributing to health. But rooting out that spending without taking away spending that is beneficial to health is not straightforward.

Again, the way I think experts would put it - the money is out there, but it is not going to walk in the government's door by itself. And devising the legislative strategies and the regulatory changes that would generate these changes is not straight forward. But the directions that have widespread support among health analysts include changing the preferential tax treatment of health insurance. We have a subsidy for larger health insurance policies in our tax code, and that like other subsidies encourages more of that activity. Reducing that subsidy would reduce that. And on the other side, changing the way that Medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage a focus on cost effectiveness in health care and not encourage, as a fee for service system tends to, for the delivery of additional services because bills for that will be paid.

Lets continue...

Here we go again. Another day and another Congressional Budget Office statement on Obamacare. What was the statement? The proposed bill will worsen the economy.

Just what we need. Another bill sponsored by Obama and the Democrats that will affect the economy. I guess they aren't going to be happy until unemployment reaches 15 percent.

This has been a talking-points issue in many of the articles I have written. At a time when our economy is stinking up the atmosphere, why would they want to produce more burden upon the American taxpayers and the faltering economy? What is the real reason to rush this plan through.

Well, one reason is because the douche bag types, like Henry Waxman (D-California), want to get home before the August recess. You know, for someone who only works three days a week and doesn't read any bills, Waxman should be full of energy no matter what! Guess he is just worn out from all that "work" of trying to pass that huge energy tax bill he co-sponsored...but failed to read?

Who cares if it costs the American taxpayer trillions of dollars? Yes, trillions! The so-called public option that Obama refuses to take out is nothing but a huge government run program modeled after Medicare. Exactly, the same program that is in the hole, just like our economy, by $36 trillion dollars.

Besides the CBO putting up a roadblock on the so-called health care reform bill, blue dog Democrats are also concerned. Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind (D) who is the vice chairman of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, made claims that the bill just doesn't do enough to reward the "value of care given" rather than the "volume of care given" in the medical system.

Another sticky question that some Democrats are asking is about Medicare's reimbursement formula for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. They do not want the current formula of Medicare reimbursements to be the model of the so-called public option. The bill that was passed Tuesday uses Medicare pricing as a base-line.

What is the big deal about this you ask? Well, these Democrats have major complaints with this Medicare formula. They argue that it rewards medical providers who charge the most while penalizing those communities with the fewest doctors.

Why would anyone want government-run health insurance? Do you really want the government to ration or deny medical treatments while lowering the quality of care? How about having to wait weeks and months for the simplest procedures?

All of this is provided FREE OF CHARGE in a government-run system. Check out this link and listen to the debate going on over in Great Britain and Canada. http://vimeo.com/5542870 and http://vimeo.com/5542684

With everyone screaming slow down...Obama and the Donkey party keep their foot on the gas pedal. Someone needs to teach them how to pump that break on Obamacare. Let the economy recover and then readdress this debate.

What is the real issue for this rush?

Source: ABC News