I remember being in Rome more than ten years ago and developing a nice camaraderie with the hotel clerk. As we talked about our respective countries, he told me that he was beside himself, to the point of endangering his health, about what he perceived to be the casual corruption and mendacity of his government. I found it hard to relate, even though I opposed the U.S. Administration of the time. I couldn’t imagine becoming so distraught about my own government that it could potentially affect my health.
I am still not that distraught, but I increasingly understand his feelings when I read how casually Speaker Pelosi’s office pretends that her increasingly bloated version of Obamacare is economically prudent. From the story:
The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan. While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.
Even that is understating what the actual cost would be. These things always do. But Pelosi’s office shamefully pretends that the proposal is economically prudent:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred repeatedly to the bill’s net cost of $894 billion over a decade for coverage. Asked about the higher estimate, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the measure not only insures 36 million more Americans, it provides critical health insurance reform in a way that is fiscally sound. “It will not add one dime to the deficit. In fact, the CBO said last week that it will reduce the deficit both in the first 10 years and in the second 10 years,” Daly said.
Right. Politicians like Nancy Pelosi make it easy to relate to my intensely frustrated Italian friend from those many years ago.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:15 pm
I’d trade Pelosi for whatever was giving the hotel clerk in Rome ulcers, apoplexy, or whatever else it was giving him — whatever was giving it to him — any day. If we had more people here like him Pelosi would be confining her “mother of (however many she says it is) voice” to her offspring, no matter how many doors that wouldn’t have been open to anyone else were open to her getting into politics, where she does NOT belong. She is a particular kind of Democrat female; we have a whole slew of them here, and this city is falling to hell in a handcart. Not even going, falling.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:36 pm
Indeed! Want a startling look at what Democrat leaders are preparing under nationalized health care? Here is a look at new federal bureaucracies that will be created under the Pelosi plan that will be voted on this week:
http://tinyurl.com/yj3yns9
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:37 pm
By the way, just what are Pelosi’s qualifications re health care policy? Or Obama’s or any one else’s on this juggernaut?
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:16 pm
In any event I’m just glad I didn’t have to listen to the “mother of (however many she says it is) voice” as a kid of hers. God help them, they’re stuck with her. Why is the country?
November 5th, 2009 | 3:19 pm
What did you expect from Pelosi? She is that hard to pin down that her public disclosure on land she owns in California is valued at somewhere between 5 & 25 million dollars. If that is how her measuring stick of disclosure operates with Obama care the total package could be worth between 1.3 trillion & 30 trillion dollars.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:29 am
Are Pelosi’s dancing numbers any more mendacious than Sarah Palin’s “death panels” or the claim by some that “health care rationing” is somehow unique to “Obamacare?”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact