Comments on: Fisking Peter Orszag On Health Care http://www.californiaconservative.org/health-care/fisking-peter-orszag-on-health-care/ Speaking Out For The Silent Majority (TM) Fri, 25 May 2012 09:33:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Carlos http://www.californiaconservative.org/health-care/fisking-peter-orszag-on-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-2489147 Carlos Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:12:22 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=7897#comment-2489147 Interesting arguments. Take them one at a time. First, when was the last time the OMB accurately projected costs of a social program? Last year? Ten years ago? Never? I can't say never, but that's the one I would tend to. Traditionally they have been prone to multiple tens of times off in their projections and I see no reason to believe that it would be different this time. They have not changed their accounting ways to correct assumptions that make their projections so wildly inaccurate. That, and add in the fact that they're using ten years of taxing to make a maximum of 6 years of outlay "deficit neutral", and one comes up with a "deficit neutral" budget that is at least 40% deficit. Second, if the rules of the game are changed midstream, it is easy to "control costs", which is what the OMB and Congress are trying to do with Medicare/Medicade. Sure, there is sloppy accounting that costs taxpayers (whose fault is that, Mr. Orzag?), but the "reforms" they propose are nothing more than denying seniors what has been promised them. Hardly "change" we can believe in. There is nothing in any of the bills that would institute real cost savings while maintaining level of service. And finally, related to the second point, remaining on the road we are on will result in busting the federal treasury, but again, there is nothing in any of the bills that effectively eliminate the geneses of cost increases. They don't control poor performance, they don't eliminate regulations preventing portability, they don't control over-billing, and they certainly don't control the sacred cow of litigation expense. Sorry, Mr. Orzag, the arguments you make seem to be in defense of Democrat ideology, and just don't seem to make any sense other than to paint your opponents as bad guys because your side just can't come up with real reasons for your radical changes. I think I'll pass on this one, thank you very much. If in the future you jackasses can come up with something that makes a lick of sense for the reasons you state, let us know. In the meantime, you may wish to seriously look any any of several Republican proposals and do a cost analysis on them. You may be pleasantly surprised. Interesting arguments. Take them one at a time.

First, when was the last time the OMB accurately projected costs of a social program? Last year? Ten years ago? Never? I can’t say never, but that’s the one I would tend to. Traditionally they have been prone to multiple tens of times off in their projections and I see no reason to believe that it would be different this time. They have not changed their accounting ways to correct assumptions that make their projections so wildly inaccurate. That, and add in the fact that they’re using ten years of taxing to make a maximum of 6 years of outlay “deficit neutral”, and one comes up with a “deficit neutral” budget that is at least 40% deficit.

Second, if the rules of the game are changed midstream, it is easy to “control costs”, which is what the OMB and Congress are trying to do with Medicare/Medicade. Sure, there is sloppy accounting that costs taxpayers (whose fault is that, Mr. Orzag?), but the “reforms” they propose are nothing more than denying seniors what has been promised them. Hardly “change” we can believe in. There is nothing in any of the bills that would institute real cost savings while maintaining level of service.

And finally, related to the second point, remaining on the road we are on will result in busting the federal treasury, but again, there is nothing in any of the bills that effectively eliminate the geneses of cost increases. They don’t control poor performance, they don’t eliminate regulations preventing portability, they don’t control over-billing, and they certainly don’t control the sacred cow of litigation expense.

Sorry, Mr. Orzag, the arguments you make seem to be in defense of Democrat ideology, and just don’t seem to make any sense other than to paint your opponents as bad guys because your side just can’t come up with real reasons for your radical changes. I think I’ll pass on this one, thank you very much. If in the future you jackasses can come up with something that makes a lick of sense for the reasons you state, let us know.

In the meantime, you may wish to seriously look any any of several Republican proposals and do a cost analysis on them. You may be pleasantly surprised.

]]>