creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
16 Feb 2012
Will Catholic Bishops and the Religious Right Save Obama?

What is most striking about the showdown over contraceptive freedom is not the political victory that … Read More.

11 Feb 2012
White Nationalists Share Spotlight With GOP at CPAC

If the Conservative Political Action Conference can be expected to accomplish anything more than angry bellowing,… Read More.

2 Feb 2012
The High Cost of Romney's Scorching Victory

Mitt Romney's convincing victory in the Florida primary erased his earlier defeats and perhaps any serious … Read More.

Testing Next Year's Lies Today

Share Comment

Within hours after the House of Representatives approved health care reform by a narrow margin, Republicans predicted retribution at the polls next fall. They promised to make every Democrat regret that historic vote as the first step toward the reversal of power in Washington. And as the current debate has proved, they aren't going to let honesty become an obstacle.

For a preview of coming attractions, simply turn on the Fox News Channel or any right-wing radio talker, where the falsehoods of the 2010 midterm campaign are being field-tested today.

You can watch Dick Morris blather about the "death panels" that will terminate your mother and father while illegal immigrants are provided lavish care, and about how you will be put in jail for failing to purchase health insurance. You can hear Karl Rove complain that we will "beggar ourselves" by adding more than $1.4 trillion to the federal debt. You can listen to Frank Luntz claim that voters disdain reform because of "the cost to the deficit."

These gentlemen have little expertise in health or economics, but much experience in distracting, misinforming and sometimes frightening the public. Aside from talking on television, that is their job. How little do they know — and how much do they simply fabricate?

It is safe to assume that Morris knows very well there are no death panels in any of the health reform bills; that those bills expressly forbid coverage of illegal immigrants; and that none of them includes any provision to incarcerate citizens who lack insurance coverage. It is also reasonable to assume, based solely on the fiscal record of the Bush administration in which he served, that Rove never worries about budget deficits, government waste or gross corruption unless Democrats are in charge.

As for Luntz, he specializes in political prophecies that are self-fulfilling. When he says voters are infuriated by the cost of health care reform, for instance, that merely indicates he is trying to make them feel that way. He will succeed — all three will succeed — only by drawing attention away from actual facts and figures.

So perhaps voters ought to listen instead to the Congressional Budget Office, which by contrast has earned a reputation for candor, accuracy and nonpartisan truthfulness.

After painstaking analysis, the CBO estimated that the House health care reform bill, known as the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would reduce the federal deficit by about $109 billion during the first 10 years after it takes effect. To repeat: The bill passed by the House Democrats on the evening of Saturday, Nov. 7, "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

The CBO experts also costed out the Senate Finance Committee bill and found that it would cut federal deficits by more than $80 billion during that first decade.

Those reassuring conclusions derive from other basic facts about reform that tend to be ignored or concealed. Reform will reduce wasteful spending by hundreds of billions of dollars annually and will depend for financing on excise taxes imposed on the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.

Much of the misinformation about the costs of reform comes from the belief — fostered by conservatives — that the government-run health plan known as the "public option" would impose a huge burden on the federal budget. So says Joseph Lieberman, the independent senator from Connecticut who has threatened to filibuster the bill.

Section 322 of the Affordable Health Care for America Act says clearly and concisely that people insured under the public option will pay premium rates "at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option." In short, the public option will involve no new federal expenditure.

Any bill that reaches the president's desk will leave much to be desired, especially with respect to cost containment, preventive care and new systems of compensation to encourage improved results. But it should be judged according to real merits and defects — not the delusions and distortions that now dominate the debate.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I read your article Let The Lies Begin In Health Care War. It appears either you or the editors of The Wall Street Journal are misinformed. The WSJ in the editorial section clearly disclosed and discussed the health care commission and their JOB 1 is to reduce health care costs. It discussed how it is compared to Washington State and their Medicare program.

I am under Medicare. This year over 100 drugs were eliminated and my Advantage program increased the premium by 31% for 2009 suggesting legislation of two years ago has required a 4% reduction annually in Medicare Advantage Programs (Regents Blue Cross of Oregon).

The savings to the budget you discussed is again reported by the WSJ to allow tax increases to begin in 2013 and benefits to begin in 2016. It appears to me we are talking about 10 years of taxation and 7 years of benefits from the new health bill. And the 2016 is beginning of the phase in of benefits that will take until 2019 to be fully implemented.

Once again, the news media reports conflict with each other as do the politicians within the same parties!

I supported the campaign promise of the administration to be transparent; as a voter and citizen I can't even attempt to read the various bills. It must be a matter of national security!

Jim Grigg
Gresham, Or
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jim Grigg
Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Feb 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 17 Feb 2012

17 Jun 2011 Washington's Deeper Immorality

27 May 2010 What Rand Really Believes

10 Dec 2009 Fair and Balanced (and Phony) Science