Hokum

[bomelia]

“The reason this needs to get done is not only to meet the moral imperative of expanding coverage,” Orszag said in a video interview with POLITICO. “If we don’t put in place the infrastructure that these bills provide in order to help reduce costs over the long term, there’s nothing else on the budget that’s going to matter because, ultimately, health care costs will overwhelm the federal budget.”

What more can they do? Just two things. Raise taxes and cut costs. We know how taxes are raised (on the rich of course). But cut costs? Congress? What Orszag means by "infrastructure" is a plan for rationing.

The Federal government got into the business of providing health care to people as an entightlement, made promises, expanded coverage (vote buying) and now with the boomers sliding into retirement they are figuring out that the promises cannot be kept. The only thing left is to control the cost and availability of the promised benefits. I like how the "moral imperative" is brought up. There is NO moral imperative under our constitution. NONE. But, the common welfare clause is used by folks who do not understand the constitution to create that smooshy feeling that makes liberals go gaga over the bill. Fine. They too will have their services reduced.

BTW, the only folks that will not be affected by this plan will be governement workers who will have awesome plans. (paid for by you and me)

Mike

[Jamo]

There is absolutely no need to start a totally new thread every time a thought occurs about the phuked up health plan, and variations thereto.

Thank you.