Inland Valley Democratic Club: Forums / General Discussion / Wow, now Krugman shows that we can afford the public option!

Forums

Inland Valley Democratic Club :: Forums :: Club Related :: General Discussion		<< Previous thread \| Next thread >>
Wow, now Krugman shows that we can afford the public option!


Moderators: Webmaster

Author

Post

Larry Hernandez

Fri Jul 03 2009, 03:01PM

Registered Member #6

Joined: Mon Jun 29 2009, 02:44AM
Posts: 21

To: Inland Valley Democrats
From: Larry Hernandez, Upland Democrat

Paul Krugman has given us Christmas in July with his recent reports.

According to Krugman, thanks to the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers that came out yesterday we have largely demolished the main legitimate argument against health care reform that includes universal alternative public coverage. That argument is that it would cost so much that it would raise overall taxes. It turns out that it would not.

This is BIG news. It completely changes the tone from last week. To reiterate the recent situation, last week, the CBO released a bastardized report that intentionally left out factoring in the impact of alternative public coverage in terms of cost savings through competition, and in terms of vastly improved access. This was done by request of opponents who wanted AMMO to scare the public. They got it.

That first report put the price tag of the various non-public coverage proposals being floated by various DINOs (Democrats-in-name-only) well over $1 trillion dollars in a ten year period, and said that it would leave millions uncovered.

(notice I have used the terms: "covered"/"coverage"/ "uncovered," another Lakoofian change. As Lakoof reminds us, always remember, Private Insurance Companies exist to DENY coverage whenever they can get away with it. And they damn well do. When one is insured, one is not fully covered. So using the term "insured" is not the same as saying "covered." Think of it this way: I am not at present "insured" but I am far better covered than most. Why, because I am part of two public coverage plans in effect. Use "covered' whenever possible so we can reframe the argument to one that focuses on availability rather than keeping the rich richer.)

According to Krugman, the new CBO numbers that factor in alternative public coverage put the ten year price tag at $611.4 billion and the coverage at 97%. Krugman would like to achieve 100% coverage, and better fund the system at slightly more than $1 trillion in the same ten year period. Either way, we can have what we need, and it would be Revenue Neutral. Meaning it reshuffle taxes and spending, but not add any new gross taxes or spending.

And Krugman reminds us that the Bush tax cuts that favored the richest of the rich have cost the US government about $1.8 trillion dollars over the same number of years. Yikes! And the un-necessary Bush Iraq War has already cost us all well over a trillion too.

The Tea-Baggers fully supported these measures, albeit now they feverishly attempt to rewrite that history, and they dare complain about spending designed to prevent a new Great Depression.

We need to hit those SOBs hard who have been deluging the Daily Bulletin with lots of garbage about health-reform. We have the ammo to win the argument, but they have the feet on the ground willing to write letters and make calls, and they have the $$$$$$$$$$ to keep Congress and the public on the side of the Health Care Denial Industry.

Come on Democrats, get writing and phoning and whatever it takes. We can Win!

And we can reframe the basic argument about the role of government to one that will have Ronnie Reagan spinning in his grave for decades, and turn San Bernadino County blue in reality.

Terry

Sat Jul 18 2009, 05:24PM

Registered Member #15

Joined: Tue Jul 14 2009, 04:27PM
Posts: 3

One thing that is not factored in and will save Billions is if we have universal healthcare there would be no need for Workman's Comp.

Peace out
Terry


Jump: Back to top