7 Responses to “Obama Stumps For Healthcare In Pennsylvania”

1. Mike Says:
   March 8th, 2010 at 11:39 pm

   “Explain to me why we shouldn’t be doing ALL of these ideas”

   You’d have a point if this speech were given by an independent observer whose goal was not to sell the bill, but to give the public an objective view of the bill.

2. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Obama Stumps For Healthcare In … | PA Blog Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 2:27 am

   [...] Pennsylvania Superdelegate · Obama Gains Big In Pennsylvania . Our Sponsors …Continued here: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Obama Stumps For Healthcare In … google_ad_client = "pub-5543098022683318"; /* 468×60, created 2/2/10 */ google_ad_slot = [...]

3. Chris Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 8:25 am

   Mike, there’s such mistrust these days that even if it were an independent observer you’d feel the same way if that person didn’t agree with whatever you already thought.

4. Paul Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 8:37 am

   We are so far in debt that reforming health care probably won’t matter. Our future is bleak if you do the math!

5. michael mcEachran Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am

   Mike – there is an independent observer who’s reported that the plan saves us billions of dollars, and helps millions of people – it’s called the Congresional Budget Office, but the Repubs have a very convenient response – “We don’t believe in science when it doesn’t suit us”.

   Which brings me to the one thing for which I would critisize the Obama team most: They grossly underestimated the American public’s willingness, in fact, desire to be lied to.

6. Mike Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 1:46 pm

   Chris,

   If by “you” you mean “people in general”, then I agree. People tend not to listen to arguments they disagree with, even if they are reasonable arguments. I try to resist that tendency (at least I’m aware of it, which is a start), but yeah I’m only human.

   Regardless, the premise of the question “why shouldn’t we do this” is still that we agree that “this” is being accurately and completely described, both in content and effect, both intended and unintended. That could only be a premise we can all agree on if the “this” is being described by an independent source (and also one who is knowledgable and trusted, of course, not that I don’t think Obama is knowledgable). Now, it’s true that people have biased, and some may not be convinced even if they can’t answer the question “why shouldn’t we do this” when “this” is accurately described. But it still would be a good question.

   michael,

   The CBO is not, and is not intended to be, the arbitrator of every angle of debate on the bill. It is the arbitrator of one specific angle. Therefore, it’s analysis is specific to that angle, and must follow specific rules that restrain it from being the arbitrator of the entire debate. I don’t know how better to explain it than to quote directly from the CBO’s report:

   http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

   The bill would put into effect (or leave in effect) a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time. It would leave in place the 21 percent reduction in the payment rates for physicians currently scheduled for 2010. At the same time, the bill includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades, despite a growing number of Medicare beneficiaries as the baby-boom generation retires.

   The long-term budgetary impact of H.R. 3962 could be quite different if those provisions generating savings were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.

7. Mike Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 8:36 pm

   This is the quote I was searching for, from the analysis of the senate bill (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf) After a section worded similarly as the above, the report uses even more clear language:

   Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

   To further clarify my point about the CBO, they are entrusted to answer the question “How does the hypothetical scenario where the bill is passed, and nothing else changes, compare to the hypothetical scenario where the bill is NOT passed, and nothing else changes, with respect to the deficit.” That is an important question, but clearly limited in scope.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Mason/Dixon: Race Tight In Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arizona
• Hillary Adds Pennsylvania Superdelegate
• Obama Gains Big In Pennsylvania