Democrats Admit Deception
by HellFire
 Democrats Admit Deception
May 23, 2011 | 1023 views | 0 0 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Former director of the (Congressional Budget Office) CBO in the mid- to late ’90s, who says that “some politicians are using accounting gimmicks to hide the cost” of the House bill. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
A nonpartisan budget watchdog group agrees with her.

The clearest example: House Democrats took out a provision to cancel a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to physicians and put it in a separate bill. That’s a $210 billion measure over 10 years that passed the House Nov. 19. The nonpartisan CRFB’s Mac Guineas calls the budgeting maneuver “absolutely absurd,” and at least one lawmaker admitted the separation was done to lower the health care bill’s apparent cost. “The reason it was separated, I would have to admit, was purely political,” Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California said

This is the part where doctors agree to accept less money, another obammie democratic lie.
The so-called “doctor fix” alone would have negated the Cob’s projected net deficit reduction, instead adding about $100 billion to the deficit over 10 years, if it had remained in the health care bill.
CRFB also took issue with the CLASS Act, a long-term insurance program for living assistance services, which is part of both chambers’ bills. It’s set up to bring in revenue through premiums over five years before participants become vested and start qualifying for benefits. “Using that money as an offset is a complete gimmick,” MacGuineas says, adding that the program would probably be under funded in the future.

The O’Neill ad goes on to claim that “many seniors on Medicare will pay the price” for these “accounting gimmicks.” We asked the Employment Policies Institute how that would happen and got conflicting information. The group criticizes the House bill for proposed savings that it believes won’t materialize (part of the “gimmicks”), but also says seniors would suffer if such savings actually did occur.

EPI also referred us to a report, which was released after the ad began airing, by the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report did find that certain proposed cuts in the bill could lead to some health care providers “end[ing] their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)” as the providers found it difficult to make a profit. But the report also questioned, as O’Neill did, whether the bill’s cuts to Medicare could hold up over time. Scaling them back, of course, “would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings than shown here for these provisions.”

Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet