It hard to believe this woman can get these lies out of her mouth as fast as she does.
Batshit: The Senate Works with 60 votes and what the President is proposing is a Nuclear Option... the Senate has to break their own tules in order to pass the bill.
No, the Senate does NOT work with 60 Votes, it completely FAILS with a 60 Vote Cloture Requirement. And the "Nuke-Lear" Option was the attempt by Republicans to Kill the Filibuster for Judicial Nominees in 2005, not the attempt to simply HAVE A VOTE on Health Care.
But then again with Alan Grayson on the case, the lie was slapped down with ease.
Grayson: My esteemed colleague from Minnesota is entirely wrong. There's nothing in the Senate Rules that prevents Reconciliation, it's been used 22 times overall and 14 times by Republicans. If it's good enough to provide tax cuts for the rich twice under Bush, it's good enough to provide Health Care for all Americans.
BOOYAA! That one's gonna sting in the morning.
As Rachel pointed out last night the $Trillion Bush Tax cuts which were passed via Reconciliation had a far greater impact on the deficit than health care will. Also we're not talking about passing the entire bill through the Senate - that's already happened with 60 Votes - the President was simply talking about passing an Amendment to the Senate Bill to make it good enough to get through the House. Exactly what can and can't be in that Amendment is where the debate lies, not in whether or not they can have an Amendment passed through Reconciliation.
King: What's wrong with the President's Plan?
Batcrap: #1 it's a job killer. #2 it's a government takeover of 18% of the economy, it'll be massive tax increase, plus it'll cut $500 Billion out of Medicare for vulnerable seniors.
#1 is Wrong, #2 is Wrong - Wrong again on #3 and WRONG! on #4.
1) According to the Business Week and the Rand Corp Rising Health Care Costs are the JOB KILLER, not Reform.
In a first-of-its-kind study, the non-profit Rand Corp linked the rapid growth in U.S. health care costs to job losses and lower output. The study, published online by the journal Health Services Research, gives weight to President Barack Obama’s dire warnings about the impact of rising costs if Congress does not enact health care reform.
2) As was pointed out by Anthony Weiner to Fox & Fiends in August, the companies that currently offer health insurance to their employees - which represents 83% of the public health insurance market - won't be able to enter the Exchange System for the first 5 Years of the program. They have to keep going as they ARE. The Government will only have an impact on the remaining 17% who are either uninsured or underinsured, even though they're working and not eligible for Medicaid.
The Government will only control the insurance plans involved in the exchange, by requiring minimum standards, prohibiting the excuse of pre-existing conditions to deny care and unreasonable claim denials. 17% is not a TAKE OVER
3) Yes, there are some tax increases to cover subsidies that will be paid for those people who still can't afford to buy the insurance offered on the Exchange, but they're not "MASSIVE" as was shown by Rachel and her chart.
4) The $500 Billion from Medicare is an estimate of Savings that will be achieved by improving quality and removing "waste, fraud and abuse." An idea that Republicans used to really like when Ronald Reagan used to talk about it. The Bills specifically prohibit the rationing of care or lowering of quality in order to achieve these savings goals, and it's not guaranteed they'll even GET those savings. If they don't the President has pledged to cut other programs in the budget to ensure this bill remains deficit neutral.
But y'know what's a little truth in the midst of all that?
King: Alan why are you for it?
Grayson: Yet again that's simply not the case. We spend 17% (NOT 18%! ed.) of our income (GDP) on Health Care, no one else in the entire world spends more than 11%, and yet we're 50 in the world on life expectancy - the japanese livemore than 5 yera longer than we do. We're 46th in infant mortality below Cuba. How can we spend so much and get so little?
I'm not sure where Grayson's getting his numbers - I have the World Health Organization Ranking the U.S. as 37th in health care, the CDC Ranking us as 30th in Infant Mortality and the UN Human Development Index ranks us at 13th in Life Expectancy - even so - Everyone says We're Number One! in costs.
Bachmann then goes on to claim that the President's plan won't "save most Americans" any money. Grayson counters that the CBO report says it will provide Health Care to 80% of those Americans who currently don't have it, and that the Harvard Study indicates that 122 Americans Die Every Day because they don't have access to Health Care. Who cares about Dead Americans when we got bills to pay?
The CBO Report Also says this...
| Differences in Average Premiums Relative to Current Law due to: | Individual | Small Group | Large Group |
| Difference in Amount of Insurance Coverage | +27 to +30 | 0 to +3 | Negligible |
| Difference in Price of a Given Amount of Insurance - Coverage for a Given Group of Enrollees | - 7 to - 10 | - 1 to - 4 | Negligible |
| Difference in Types of People with Insurance Coverage | - 7 to - 10 | - 1 to +2 | 0 to - 3 |
| Total Difference Before Accounting for Subsidies | +10 to +13 | +1 to - 2 | 0 to - 3 |
| Effect of Subsidies in Nongroup and Small Group Markets - Share of People Receiving Subsidiesd | 57 | 12 | n.a. |
| For People Receiving Subsidies, Difference in Average - Premiums Paid After Accounting for Subsidies | - 56 to - 59 | - 8 to - 11 | n.a. |
83% of people in the small or large insurance groups won't see any significant change in their Health Care (because the Government doesn't "Take Over" that care) - but the remaining 17% are likely to see their costs decrease by an average of 56% once subsidies are accounted for.
That's a heckava savings.
After this Bachmann goes completely off the rails arguing that the President is making some kind of back door deal with a member of Congress in exchange for a Judgeship for that member's brother... and I love what Grayson says in return.
Bachmann: We need an Investigation! (Like the one she wanted to see if members of Congress are "Anti-American?")
Grayson: My esteemed colleague has just used a Weapon of Mass Distraction to change the subject from Health Care.
Frankly, if the President is getting seriously down to brass tacks and twisting arms in congress in order to get this deal done - i say GOOD, that's what he should be doing. That's always been how things get done in Congress. It's absolutely what Tom "The Hammer" Delay used to do when he was House Majority Leader using threats to push through the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which wasn't Paid for. It's not "Corruption" - it's Politics.
Overall, a nice job by Grayson.
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment