My Photo

Other writers' blogs worth reading

« The Post Gets the Story Wrong | Main | Nominated for an Edgar Award... »


Randy Johnson

The GOP has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good rant. Buzzwords work much better to get the fringe, the woefully uninformed(I try not to use ignorant as some don't realize that's not a criticism) on their side.


And Jeff Look at all the numbers in the Poll.
We are still split almost 50-50
The poll finds that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Just after the November congressional elections, opposition stood at 47 percent and support was 38 percent.
Strong opposition is at 30 percent
The rest of the poll read for yourself at the link.
The big costs of this plan are in the future. i will do my own math and get back to you.


CBO quotes

As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the
2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion, plus or minus the
effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include
in the forthcoming estimate. That figure consists of the following two
• About $130 billion, representing the net reduction in deficits over
the 2012–2019 period expected to result from the health care
provisions of the enacted legislation (as estimated by CBO and JCT
last March),3 plus
• About $15 billion, representing the reduction brought about by the
Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 in the estimated cost
of subsidies to be provided through the insurance exchanges through
I have to take them at the word. I am reading more of their reports. I am not an economist so I hope that we have smart people making this forecasts and estimates.

Jeff Mariotte

There have been more polls in the past few days, with varying results. The key element seems to be what question is asked. If the question is, "do you like the new law?" then the results are pretty split. The trouble with that is that it doesn't take into account those who don't like it because it's not enough reform--they count with those who are opposed to the law. But they wouldn't want to repeal it, because that's starting at scratch and that seems like a terrible idea. So if the question is "do you want to repeal?" then the numbers are much more out of balance. Not that many people are still pushing for repeal (except the Republicans in the House). Instead of pushing through a quick vote, it would have been helpful if they'd held some committee meetings on exactly what's wrong with the bill and how to fix the parts that still need fine tuning (which are many).

But the bill isn't going to be repealed, and it shouldn't be. For one thing, it requires insurance companies that offer health coverage to also include mental health coverage in that, so if a family has medical insurance they have psychiatric coverage. Jared Loughner, at 22, would be eligible to be covered under his parents' policy now (if they have one), and he could get mental health care, and he couldn't be denied due to a preexisting condition. Who knows what might have happened if this had been law 2 years ago?

The House Democrats on the energy and commerce committee have put together an interactive map showing what people stand to lose if the law is repealed, on a district by district basis. In my district, these are the stats:

Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 129,000 to 325,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 39,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 447,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 13,400 small businesses and 176,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 14,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 135,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 15,100 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 3,300 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 35,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $38 million annually.

That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Other people's mileage may of course vary.

The comments to this entry are closed.