Friday, July 24, 2009
Kraut puts the hammer on pinko fantasies
President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn — surprise! — that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats’ health-care plans, says the CBO, increase costs in the range of $1 trillion plus. I mean, duhhh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The Democratic proposals in Congress are worse still. Because they do increase costs, revenue neutrality means countervailing tax increases. It’s not just that it is crazily anti-stimulatory to saddle a deeply depressed economy with an income-tax surcharge that falls squarely on small business and the investor class. It’s that health-care reform ends up diverting for its own purposes a source of revenue that might otherwise be used to close the yawning structural budget deficit that is such a threat to the economy and to the dollar.
These blindingly obvious contradictions are why the Democratic health plans are collapsing under their own weight.
Not with Pepe, no siree. He has never seen -- and will never see -- an internal contradiction in any pinko scheme, no matter how blindingly obvious it is. Textbook definition of what ideological means.
Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.
Pinko shyster hog heaven.
Toescucker chimes in: More and more, they [the voters] are asking the very simple question that Obama cannot answer: How is he going to cover 50 million new people without more doctors?
Ah, c'mon, that's not something Pepe would worry about. Pinkos don't need to agonize about such trite details. Doctors simply grow in trees. And money, too.
Taranto puts in his 2 cents: Mickey Kaus has been arguing for some time that the Obama administration has made an enormous error in putting such stress on “cost cutting,” because inevitably that means providing less, not more, medical care--not exactly a winning political message. But in an era of already exploding deficits, “government health care for everyone, no matter the cost” doesn’t seem a winning message either.
Further, we suspect we’re not alone in thinking that if Congress passes the kind of legislation Obama is pushing, the result will be less health care and higher costs.
Oh, duhhh... It's like saying 2+2=4. Unless you're Pepe, in which case 2+2=5.
Post a Comment