Thursday, October 22, 2009
We've got a live one, from Lee's semi-regular email newsletter.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the health care bill that recently passed the Senate Finance Committee will cost $829 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Only in Washington, DC is something that costs $829 billion considered to be “deficit neutral.”
And only in Washington DC can an elected representative be either completely clueless or willfully obtuse. It's "deficit neutral" because it doesn't add to the national debt--the reforms it implements saves the government alone MORE than $829 billion over the next 10 years. Kind of like when you invest in insulation for your home, and your heating bill goes down.
That's what "deficit neutral" means, and it's the entire reason that the CBO exists. Professional accountants look at the legislation, the costs incurred, and most importantly the money saved as a result. If it breaks even with the costs--or even better, saves more money than was spent--then it's "deficit neutral," meaning it does not add to the budget deficit.
There are several meaningful reforms that can be done now that will have an immediate positive impact on both the accessibility and cost of healthcare, and that have the support of many Democrats, Republicans, and the American public.
One of these reforms is Medical Malpractice reform, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says will save approximately $11 billion per year.
(Crickets)
Um, we as a country spent $2,260 billion dollars on healthcare in 2007. That makes your $11 billion dollar "savings" a reduction in cost of less than one half of one percent. In other words, the average American could expect to save a whopping $3 dollars a month off malpractice reform. Or hey, that's $12 a month for a family of four. Our problem is really solved now.
Seriously, I did the math on that using a calculator, Google, and two minutes of my time. You can't come up with anything better than that?
2 comments:
Very well put, Adama. I think I'll write the good Congressman a letter - although to date I have not received a single written response to any letter I have written to Mr Lee since January, even after I spoke to one of his top aides at that time who said that "quick turn-around" would be the standard Lee would follow in responding to constituent concerns.
Maybe that promise was only in relation to "potholes". I guess issue messages are not as deserving.
I'm particularly ticked at his recent plea for constituent input about the economy (he's on some Republican "Working Group"). In the web posting Adama references Lee describes all of the responses he got as if they were all the same, essentially supporting the position he already held. Why bother asking? He could have acknowledged that he received a variety of viewpoints, but he didn't. At that January Open House Lee said that as a minority representative he hoped that his ideas would at least be heard at the table, but it appears that he has no such illusions about his own constituents.
Hmmm, Reynolds used to take 9 months to answer letters, and the Lee aide who promised the quick turn-around also worked for Reynolds. We're now in the 11th month.
To be fair, I did get a phone call from a top aide, sometime around June in reference to my January hand-delivered letter about torture, only after making several calls, sending several e-reminders and emphasizing my job title, but not a single letter in eleven months. I think I miss the Reynolds era!
In June, twelve of us, all from the 26th district, visited Lee's congressional office in Washington. That meant twelve of us took the time to make the long drive down and back. Lee's Chief of staff never so much as asked for any of our names and contact information for any constituent follow up. I'll bet if we were from Excellus he would have taken down our names. Shows where Lee's allegiance is.
Post a Comment