How Obamacare will really be paid for.

[rushmc 23]

From Heritage. Source links below

Quote

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over half [2] of President Barack Obama’s new $940 billion health care entitlement is paid for by price-fixing Medicare cuts. Never mind that the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that these cuts would cause “roughly 20 percent” [3]of Medicare providers to go bankrupt in Obamacare’s first ten years. The CBO has to believe these cuts will happen because they are required, by law, to believe everything Congress tells them. The American people are not. So the American people ought to know that instead of cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates by 21% as required by law on April 1, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services froze payments [4] at current levels until Congress could come back after Easter recess and rescind those cuts. Again. As they have done every year but one since the cuts were first enacted in 1997.

This doc fix is big enough that, if it had been included as a cost of Obamacare, it would have sent the President’s bill into the red all by itself. But the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts used to fund the rest of Obamacare are a much bigger problem. Even if we assume they all go as planned, President Obama’s budget [5] would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010; and would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020. Add on the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that, given Congress’ track record, the American people would be naive to think will ever happen, and the federal government is looking at a pile of new debt.

The left’s solution to this problem has been simmering for some time now. Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) floated the idea to The Washington Post [6] last May. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Charlie Rose [7] it was “on the table” in October. And yesterday White House adviser Paul Volcker told [8] the New York Historical Society it should be considered. The “it” here is a Value Added Tax (VAT), which is a fancy way of saying national sales tax.

A VAT can be (and has been) structured in many different ways. But the real world results are always the same: higher taxes, more government spending, lower growth, fewer jobs and more special interest power.

Higher Taxes: Don’t believe for a second that a VAT will help offset other taxes. International evidence clearly shows that a VAT is likely to increase the aggregate burden of govern­ment. Europeans used to only have a slightly higher tax burden than the United States. But beginning in the late 1960s, European countries began to implement VATs. Since then, the overall tax burden in Europe has climbed rapidly. And once a VAT is in place, the evidence [9] shows that the tax rate rises over time.

Higher Government Spending: Not surprisingly, with more revenues, European governments turn around and spend much more than the United States does. According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, government spending grew 45 percent faster in VAT nations than in non-VAT countries.

Slower Growth: According to the academic literature [10], there is a strong negative relationship between govern­ment spending and economic performance. In other words, more government spending means less economic growth and fewer jobs. Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations [11].

More Power to Washington: There is one economy that would greatly benefit from a VAT: Washington, DC. No VAT could ever be levied evenly on all goods and services. Due to political considerations, a VAT in addition to current taxes would likely exempt politically sensitive items like food, clothing, health care and housing. Industries would lobby heavily for exemptions from the VAT for the economic benefits described above. This would give Congress an even larger role in picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Success would depend less on ingenuity and hard work and more on the ability to gain political favor.

Our nation faces a financial crisis. But low revenues are not the problem. Spending is. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains: [12]

Real federal spending remained steady at $21,000 per household throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000 per household. Now, President Obama has a proposed a budget that would permanently spend a staggering $32,000 per household annually – and that’s before all the baby boomers retire and add another $10,000 per household in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare costs to the bottom line.

So the problem is not declining revenues, but rather a spending spree unlike any in American history. If Washington insists on spending $32,000 per household, it will have to tax $32,000 per household – an unaffordable and unfair tax burden regardless what kind of tax collects it.

Rather than tax America into permanent economic stagnation, President Obama and Congress must rein in runaway federal spending. Simply bringing real federal spending back to the $21,000 per household average that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s would balance the budget by 2012 without raising a single tax on anyone. Even returning spending to the pre-recession level of 20 percent of GDP would eliminate two-thirds of the projected 2019 budget deficit without raising taxes.

Quick Hits:

According to the Treasury Department, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers plan to raise taxes [13] on upper income Americans by $41 billion next year and $969 billion over the next decade.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Tuesday that the Obama administration plans to use tax payer money to fund a “help desk” [14] designed to educate “Americans about the benefits for them in” Obamacare.
The pension plans of Obama administration-owned General Motors and United Auto Workers-owned Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion [15] and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability.
The White House hinted yesterday it might cancel next month’s meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai [16] and declined to call Karzai a U.S. ally.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FCC overstepped its authority [17] in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from managing Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/07/morning-bell-how-the-left-really-plans-to-pay-for-obamacare/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/cash-register.jpg

[2] over half: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf#page=6

[3] “roughly 20 percent” : http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2010-01-08.pdf

[4] froze payments: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-29/doctors-get-reprieve-from-21-decline-in-payments-from-medicare.html

[5] President Obama’s budget: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obama-Budget-Raises-Taxes-and-Doubles-the-National-Debt

[6] The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html

[7] Charlie Rose: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61783-pelosi-says-new-tax-is-on-the-table?page=2#comments

[8] told: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406

[9] the evidence: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/13/34674429.xls

[10] the academic literature: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/03/The-Impact-of-Government-Spending-on-Economic-Growth

[11] Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/11/Why-Government-Spending-Does-Not-Stimulate-Economic-Growth

[12] explains:: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/27/reject-the-value-added-tax-rein-in-spending-instead/

[13] raise taxes: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-06-Obama-tax_N.htm\

[14] use tax payer money to fund a “help desk”: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35465.html

[15] underfunded by a total of $17 billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07cars.html?ref=todayspaper

[16] Afghan President Hamid Karzai: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040602175.html

[17] the FCC overstepped its authority: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-04-06-net-neutrality_N.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

Through Obama's Kenyan connections?
By thugs stealing all the money from Turtlespeed's business and shutting it down?
Via the Bill Ayers Terrorism Fund?
By killing children with Down syndrome and useless grandparents with dementia?
By the ill-gotten funding Tony Rezko got at age 12?
By taxing on all that is decent and wholesome?
Hitler? Mussolini? (Not sure what that has to do with paying for medical care but it's sorta required in any Obama thread)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Through Obama's Kenyan connections?
By thugs stealing all the money from Turtlespeed's business and shutting it down?
Via the Bill Ayers Terrorism Fund?
By killing children with Down syndrome and useless grandparents with dementia?
By the ill-gotten funding Tony Rezko got at age 12?
By taxing on all that is decent and wholesome?
Hitler? Mussolini? (Not sure what that has to do with paying for medical care but it's sorta required in any Obama thread)

I would say somthing but then you would claim you was attacked

Now

back to the subjiect

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Remster 30]

Quote

I would say somthing but then you would claim you was attacked

Now

back to the subjiect

if you need work, the nice people at the Tea Party need a marketing man.

Remster

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I would say somthing but then you would claim you was attacked

Now

back to the subjiect

if you need work, the nice people at the Tea Party need a marketing man.

Gotta great job
Just transfered back home

Work for a utility company

Run that air conditioning
I need a raise to pay for Obamacare

You know
the free Obama care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Gee I thought all of it will be raised by taxing all the video's of all the good ole boy VALUES VOTERS getting BUTT STUFFED ON VIDEO that are available at the local porn stores.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Gee I thought all of it will be raised by taxing all the video's of all the good ole boy VALUES VOTERS getting BUTT STUFFED ON VIDEO that are available at the local porn stores.

I know I know
You can stop now

It is only about the votes

I get it already

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Gotta great job
>Just transfered back home

But wait. Turtle said his company was closing because of Obamacare. You got a great job? How can that be if Obamacare is destroying America's economy?

It's so hard to keep straight all the reasons Obama will destroy America. It's almost impossible to know what to live in terror of.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Gotta great job
>Just transfered back home

But wait. Turtle said his company was closing because of Obamacare. You got a great job? How can that be if Obamacare is destroying America's economy?

It's so hard to keep straight all the reasons Obama will destroy America. It's almost impossible to know what to live in terror of.

I know it is hard for you to keep up

but

I dont want you to feel attacked so

what ever you say billvon
what ever you say

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>I dont want you to feel attacked so . . .

It's OK. I'm not a Republican, so I don't feel like a victim.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I dont want you to feel attacked so . . .

It's OK. I'm not a Republican, so I don't feel like a victim.

Hmm

that is not what you claimed yesterday????

I guess it just depends on if you need to be to make your point huh

or

is that you attempt to have someone STFU?

Kind of sad really

If you really do not feel attacked then you were less than honest yesterday

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I do find it interesting that you try and distract from the OP

Truth really sucks when you are on the left

Cause it usually exposes you/them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Glad you think I am cute
Although it is a little scary
But mad?

There was a day but not any more

But you got to get the topic track changed again dont you?

You poor victim you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

When the topic is on the mark and agianst thier agenda that is what he and kallend do

I suppose I should let it go but............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[futuredivot 0]

All these cute quips but not one honestly considered answer. Do you actually have a counterpoint?

Not baiting-you tend to make good points that allow me to see from a different side of things.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

Same shit you pull when the rare occurrence of you actually stating happens.

Look at the links

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Through Obama's Kenyan connections?
By thugs stealing all the money from Turtlespeed's business and shutting it down?
Via the Bill Ayers Terrorism Fund?
By killing children with Down syndrome and useless grandparents with dementia?
By the ill-gotten funding Tony Rezko got at age 12?
By taxing on all that is decent and wholesome?
Hitler? Mussolini? (Not sure what that has to do with paying for medical care but it's sorta required in any Obama thread)

Wow Bill . . . you are making more sense than usual - perhaps Sybil understands your post.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

Same shit you pull when the rare occurrence of you actually stating happens.

Look at the links

And still - no reply to this that disputes the article. There does seem to be a lot of stammering and sidestepping though. Imagine that.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

Same shit you pull when the rare occurrence of you actually stating happens.

Look at the links

And still - no reply to this that disputes the article. There does seem to be a lot of stammering and sidestepping though. Imagine that.

Same reason the folks on the right don't bother disputing articles cut and pasted from the Huffington Post. The source is biased, its opinions are biased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

Same shit you pull when the rare occurrence of you actually stating happens.

Look at the links

And still - no reply to this that disputes the article. There does seem to be a lot of stammering and sidestepping though. Imagine that.

Same reason the folks on the right don't bother disputing articles cut and pasted from the Huffington Post. The source is biased, its opinions are biased.

Too well researched for you to dispute

I expect the same from you with the follow up

Dispute a couple of points sir

Show where they are telling less than the truth sir

Well?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>that is not what you claimed yesterday?

I think it's cute when you get so mad you start doing the multiple-replies thing. "Dang, you know what I SHOULD have said to that guy . . . "

Any of you care to actually dispute the article? Or are you too busy attacking the poster.

I am used to it

The article is well researched and footnoted

It is? Many of its cites seem to be to other Heritage stuff. Effectively saying "it is so because previously we said it was so."

Same shit you pull when the rare occurrence of you actually stating happens.

Look at the links

And still - no reply to this that disputes the article. There does seem to be a lot of stammering and sidestepping though. Imagine that.

Same reason the folks on the right don't bother disputing articles cut and pasted from the Huffington Post. The source is biased, its opinions are biased.

Too well researched for you to dispute

I expect the same from you with the follow up

Dispute a couple of points sir

Show where they are telling less than the truth sir

Well?

You'll wait as long as dreamdancer waits for you to dispute stuff he's quoted from commondreams and alternet.

You guys dismiss his posts on account of the sources he uses, but expect your biased sources to be taken seriously.

Sauce for the goose IS sauce for the gander

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.