Bachmann's health care repeal effort could add $230B to the deficit [UPDATE]

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for bachmanncomicart.jpg
A Congressional Budget Office analysis says the health care reform repeal backed by Minnesota Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Chip Cravaack would boost the federal deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years and leave 32 million more Americans uninsured.

Wait. Didn't they all just win elections after campaigning to reduce the deficit? Wasn't Bachmann just on Fox News with little hand charts, teasing Greta Van Susteren about a nonexistent presidential run so she could furrow her eyebrow over GDP and loan defaults?

Sure. And Republicans just approved a change in House rules that says that no bills can pass if they add to the deficit.

No matter though. House Speaker John Boehner said the nonpartisan CBO report is just "opinion." He's the one with the facts.

On top of that, the GOP moved the goal posts: They exempted the proposed health care repeal from meeting their deficit rules.

Update: Bachmann was on Sean Hannity's show last night, arguing with New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner about the cost of health care reform, and its repeal. She called the CBO's research "fake," but less than a minute later, she relied on CBO numbers to harangue Obama on the deficit.

Watch the exchange about 8 minutes into this clip:

Download and read the CBO report by clicking here.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
20 comments
TJCIII
TJCIII

I can only hope KARMA comes back at that stupid B!tCH 10 fold. What comes around goes around!!!!

Gary Crawford
Gary Crawford

Does anyone out there understand what it means to have the IRS as the fiscal enforcer? Have any of you ever been audited? You liberals will scream the loudest. (ref. old joke/ diff. between vitamin & whore moan) The gov't decides if you're paying enough for your health care. If you're not, in their un-biased opinion, they pass that penalty decision on to the IRS. Do you really think they'll say you're paying enough? The Fed's in desperate need of money to maintain current & future spending. If they decide you're not paying enough, that fine $$$ get's passed to the IRS, who in turn enforces collection. Under this bill they have the right to go into your savings & check bank accounts, retirement accts, stock and bond accounts to collect. I bet in the near future, they'll even offer you a re-fi on your house, from a bailed out bank, to help you raise the money to cover the penalty. A family making $40K could easily be looking at a $2500 fine. The IRS will treat that fine as a criminal offense. Think unobstructed view of your whole life. They must have that money to continue to build their impregnable fortress of benefits for themselves. Their retirement must never be in question or threatened in any way. And they're prepared to make sure it doesn't even come up in polite conversation.

JUST A MOM
JUST A MOM

Posted by Michael F. Cannon One could argue that exempting ObamaCare from the PAYGO requirement is appropriate given the defects in current budget rules.By law, the CBO must follow certain rules when doing cost estimates of legislation and projecting federal spending under current law. Under those rules, CBO projects ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. No question.But Congress often defeats those budget rules by passing legislation with “pay fors” (i.e., spending cuts) that make the budget look better, yet are highly unlikely to be sustained because they are politically implausible. A good example of this is the “sustainable growth rate” formula, where Congress promises to ratchet down the government price controls that Medicare uses to pay physicians in future years. Congress has consistently reneged when those cuts come due. The pretense of future cuts that Congress writes into law makes 10-year budget projections/deficits look better than actual, unwritten policy would suggest.This is a recognized problem. When the CBO believes that the law and actual policy are at variance, they actually do two types of cost projections: one based on the law as written and one based on the policy they think Congress is likely to adopt, based on past performance. They call the latter their “alternate fiscal scenario.”ObamaCare opponents submit that this law is one of those instances where law and policy are at variance. So even though ObamaCare will reduce the deficit under existing budget rules, the spending cuts (actually, reductions in future spending growth) in the law were never going to take effect anyway. The CBO, CMS, and even the IMF have all discredited the idea that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit, because they all question the sustainability of ObamaCare’s spending “cuts.” Exempting ObamaCare repeal from PAYGO rules is appropriate if those rules have failed to protect taxpayers.

Mbernhagen13
Mbernhagen13

$230 billion is substantially lower than $1+ trillion (which is simply the first 10 years) of letting the health care bill go into effect. So yeah, I'd say this would technically reduce the deficit by a good $800 billion or so.

Mel Jazz
Mel Jazz

A little bit of knowledge is certainly a dangerous thing. And then there's Michele Bachmann. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mickey thought that the unemployment extension would go to 99'ers - it didn't (see your as stupid as her) . She supported BP. And fancies her self as a Christ. If you support her - seriously you would have been hood-winked by Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. So seriously - how stupid are you?

Helm Matthews
Helm Matthews

It's the same with the GAO. If the numbers are in line with what Republicans want to hear then its "non partison information." If it doesn't jive it's "opinion." Someone remarked somewhere "Is Mr. Boehner unclear on the difference between opinion and estimate?" Precious.

G-Man
G-Man

When was the last time the CBO and Dems were right? I can't think if one time.

DudeBro
DudeBro

It's quite ambitious of you to call it Bachmann's health care repeal effort!

Yah_sure_youbetcha
Yah_sure_youbetcha

What does this have to do with the health care reform bill?

And frankly, if you're not paying your fair share in taxes, then you deserve to have that audit. Quit trying to weasel out of the responsibility that we all have to maintain the adequate functioning of our government, and to take care of the less fortunate among us.

TJCIII
TJCIII

Anyone who is against health care reform to me is just heartless and should just burn in their own mythical hell. When a country puts profits before humanity it fails and its rather ironic these same tards state "we are a christian nation" BULLPUCKY

Helm Matthews
Helm Matthews

When someone uses "Obamacare" in their treatise then their argument is discounted. First rule of debate: the first to go pejorative loses. By the way, most of the components of the new healthcare law were republican compromise proposals. Much of it is modeled after Mitt Romney's Mass. plan. The irony is just too rich.

Abc
Abc

about as stupid as y'all were to elect 'the chosen one'....Herr Obama.

Zorromcgee
Zorromcgee

the first 3 words of the last sentence seem to sum you up

Guset
Guset

Since MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC CBS, New York Times all freely use the term Obamacare that would imply that Helm’s entire reply is pejorative. Indicating that he is hoping or longing for the socialism the health care reform stands for.

Ron_C
Ron_C

So, you can't form a contraction, but you wish to judge another's intelligence.

Chris
Chris

You are an idiot.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...