White House takes on NYTimes over healthcare costs story

[babylonsister]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67223-white-house-takes-on-nytimes-over-healthcare-costs-story


White House takes on NYTimes over healthcare costs story
By Michael O'Brien - 11/10/09 04:03 PM ET


A senior White House official took on the New York Times on Tuesday over a story the paper ran warning of the fiscal impact of health reform.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag called out the paper's news story on the White House blog, emphasizing that President Barack Obama is committed to signing a health bill that is deficit-neutral.

"Every two weeks or so, there seems to be a story ringing the alarm bells over the fiscal dimension of health reform," Orszag wrote in his blog post. "As I've said time and again, the President is committed to signing a health reform bill that is deficit neutral in the first decade – and deficit reducing thereafter."

The Times story cited concerns by analysts and some Democrats over the health bills in the House and Senate over whether they would truly bring down health costs while having a deficit-neutral impact.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that both bills would bring in net savings over time, through their respective taxes and fees, as well as the cuts to Medicare contained in both bills.

Republicans pointed Tuesday afternoon to what they said was a disconnect between White House claims on the impact of the bills and the assessments of a number of other independent groups, including the Brookings Institution and Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS).

Orszag said both the House and Senate bills met Obama's test on impacting the deficit, and argued that the legislation would set up the U.S. health system for future success.

"As we go through the rest of the process, the administration will remain focused on ensuring that reform is fiscally responsible and helps to build the health care system of the future," the OMB director wrote.

[Cha]

1. Great.."a senior WH official" who is credited.

Thank you Obama Admin for taking on these mediawhore stories.

They pop up like freakin' wildfire and we have to put them out before the suckers go crazy.

[jeanpalmer]

6. Orzag:

"...the administration will remain focused on ensuring that reform...helps to build the health care system of the future...."

Senator Warner: "I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade....Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."

So how can this reform which builds on the current system "build the health care system of the future" if "our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade"?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/print/

Meanwhile, "The nation’s top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget.
The financing would be on top of the $130 billion that Congress authorized for the wars just last month....Adm. Mike Mullen...did not say how much additional money would be needed, but one figure in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside defense budget analysts is $50 billion."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/05military.html

I think Obama's priorities are screwed up. Spending $180 billion on war, stealing $400 billion from Medicare to fund "health care reform," while increasing funding for an insurance based health care system that is not sustainable.

[Cha]

8. You're quoting the Wash Times? And, the NY Times?

Forgive if I don't pay attention to mediawhore aritcles and concentrate on what the WH is actually doing.

[ThomCat]

2. Republicans are citing the Brookings Institute?

Since when are they compatible? I thought the Brookings Institute ran more towards the left.

The idea of cutting Medicare as a way of making this budget neutral is scary as hell. They seriously plan to cut medicare? And force people where? They are already committed to minimizing the people on the Public option. So are the elderly and disabled on Medicare going to be pushed on commercial insurance plans?

The insurance industry still says they don't want the people that end up on Medicare. Despite the new rule that they can't deny people for pre-existing conditions, they have refused to say that they won't cancel policies or deny procedures. The protections that will be in place if the insurance companies choose to stonewall and cancel/deny look toothless.

Is our party seriously going to risk the well-being of the most vulnerable by trusting that the insurance companies will play nice and give up canceling/denying service just because this bill asks them to? How often have we seen that toothless regulations get ignored. (Wall street, anyone?)

If there is a profit to be made by ignoring regulations, expect those regulations to be 'acidentally' violated, forgotten or ignored repeatedly. Do we expect regulators to do anything other than look the other way?

Seriously, this scared the hell out of me that people are willing to trust insurance companies so thoroughly to adhere to purely symbolic restrictions against profitable abuse.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Kick! Orzag coming up on Big Ed's show! NT

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. NY Times should be made to eat their own words

[Vattel]

5. Is Obama or the NYT correct? I wish I knew.

[Cha]

7. President Obama is right.

[Vattel]

9. I'll hope you are right.