The Way Forward: Repeal ObamaCare

[g5000]

If you have the intellectual capacity of a Post-It Note, and can only utter nonsensical catchphrases like "death panels" or "45 million uninsured Americans", and have the attention span like that of a goldfish, this topic is not for you.

I would like to discuss the legitimate reasons to oppose the PPACA (a.k.a. ACA, a.k.a. ObamaCare). For those who would like to read the official text of the law, go here: Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act


First, let's talk about the costs of ObamaCare. The claimed and the real.

The CBO projected ObamaCare would cost $940 billion over the first ten years. This cost would be offset by higher taxes on rich people, some new taxes on rich people and healthcare providers, and cuts to Medicare.

The CBO said ObamaCare would actually reduce federal deficits since it would generate more revenue than it would cost.

Remember that for later.

Obama personally promised he would not sign a law that would add a single dime to the federal deficits. I would like you note this was a promise to protect the federal deficits. This will be important later.


Now, let's look at one of the revenue raising provisions in ObamaCare: the Cadillac insurance tax. This was a 40 percent tax on any employer provided health insurance plan which exceeded $27,000 in value.

Cadillac insurance plans are a big labor union perk in many a contract negotiation. And so it should not surprise you to learn the Democratic Congress and Obama began granting waivers to this tax before the ink was even dry on the PPACA.

Labor's $60 Billion Payoff

Democrats seem impervious to embarrassment as they buy votes for ObamaCare, but their latest move makes even Nebraska's Ben Nelson look cheap: The 87% of Americans who don't belong to a union will now foot the bill for a $60 billion giveaway to those who do.

The Senate bill was financed in part by a 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance coverage. The White House backs this "Cadillac tax" as one of the few remaining cost-control tokens. But Big Labor abhors the tax because union benefits tend to be far more generous than average, and labor leaders and House Democrats have been throwing a political tantrum for weeks.

So emerging from their backrooms, Democrats have agreed to extend a special exemption from the Cadillac tax to any health plan that is part of a collective-bargaining agreement, plus state and local workers, many of whom are unionized. Everyone else with a higher-end plan will start to be taxed in 2013, but union members will get a free pass until 2018.

Another way the cost of ObamaCare was going to be offset was by making cuts to Medicare.

For anyone who has been even semi-conscious since the Clinton "balanced budgets", this ploy in ObamaCare should have roused the loudest of scoffing outbursts.

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, I refer you to the annual "doc fix" dog and pony show put on by Congress since the year 2000.

You see, Clinton's balanced budgets heavily depended on cuts to Medicare. Instead of paying a doctor $35 for an x-ray, say, Medicare would only pay him $30.

But these cuts never happened. Doctors will simply stop accepting Medicare patients if it costs more to treat them than they recoup in payments. Simple math.

So building in Medicare cuts into ObamaCare was the height of willful deception on the part of Obama and the Democrats.

And sure enough, when those cuts were supposed to take place, the inevitable happened: Government reverses plan to cut Medicare Advantage rate

The federal government has reversed a proposed cut that could have left millions who get their health insurance through the Medicare Advantage plan paying more for coverage.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced Monday the final Medicare Advantage rates for 2014.

CMS had initially proposed a 2.3% reduction in what the government pays the insurance companies that provide the plans -- a move that would have saved the government money but potentially would cost the public more.

However, CMS on Monday announced a 3.3% increase instead.

Did you catch that? Instead of a 2.3% decrease, there was a 3.3% increase!


ObamaCare is adding to our deficits, ladies and gentlemen.

Not only that, the CBO has had to revise the cost of ObamaCare upward.

Here is Obama stumping for ObamaCare in 2009:

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.)

Now I want you to go to this May 2013 CBO document: CBO's May 2013 Estimate of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage

Go Table 2 and look at the line which says "Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions". Look at the last column which provides the new projected ten year cost: $1.798 trillion. Literally double what Obama claimed it would cost.

More importantly, I want you to look at the line which says "NET OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS". This is how much ObamaCare will actually cost after subtracting the extra and new taxes and cuts to Medicare and so forth: $1.363 trillion.

$1.363 trillion added to the federal deficits. I told you earlier to remember the CBO initially claimed ObamaCare would reduce federal deficits.

Kind of makes your lungs explode laughing over Obama's promise, "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future", does it not?

More to come...

 

[g5000]

Let's talk about the health insurance mandate now.

The older you get, the more sick you get, the more you cost to take care of. Therefore, to offset older people, we need to force young people who are willfully uninsured to buy health insurance. That's the insurance mandate gambit.

Now, let's examine this little shell game for a moment.

First, it was claimed there were "45 million uninsured Americans" with the heavy implication they were all uninsured against their will.

If that is the case, why do we need to FORCE anyone to buy insurance? Hmmmm...


Second, how much money does a 22 year old make? Christ, these days a lot of them are still living with their parents!

Last year, the number of 18- to 30-year-olds living with their parents grew to 20.7 million, a 3.9 percent gain from 2010.

And that is why ObamaCare forces insurance companies to allow adults up to the age of 26 to be carried on their parents' insurance policies.


Now let's think about how much money a 22 year old is making: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0703.pdf

18 to 24 year old median income is $29,599.

ObamaCare subsidizes health insurance premiums for anyone earning up to 400% above the federal poverty level.

So what are the levels up to 400% FPL?

Federal Poverty Guidelines

Now let's do the math.

18 to 24 median income is $29,599.

That puts us around 250% FPL, which means our 18-24 year old will not have to pay more than about 8 percent of his income for health insurance.

I should mention here that this only applies if the insurance is bought through a health exchange established by ObamaCare. If you buy insurance through your employer, no subsidy for you!

What do you think the result of this will be? Hmmm...

More on the exchanges later.

So a median 18-24 year old will not have to pay more than $2382 a year for health insurance. Anything above that will be paid for by...the taxpayers.

The end result of the individual mandate is that it forces a cost on the US taxpayers to cover the health insurance subsidies for those young people who are in turn being forced to buy the insurance!



Next, let's take a look at the median income of all Americans. We find that figure to be $65,000 for a family of four.

Now take a look at that subsidy chart. A family of four which earns WELL ABOVE the national median income will receive a subsidy! They can earn up to $94,200 and get a federal subsidy.

Since everyone who earns the median income or more pays federal income taxes, how the ever loving hell does that math work?

Anyone?

 

[Greenbeard]

Labor's $60 Billion Payoff

The dangers of relying on a source from January 2010. This changed the following month, prior to passage.

President Barack Obama last month proposed raising the tax threshold on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans from $8,500 to $10,200 for individuals and from $23,000 to $27,500 for families. The tax’s 2013 effective date was also postponed to 2018 and would apply to all plans, including those negotiated by unions.

You took the time to link to the text of the legislation, but apparently not the time to consult it.

So building in Medicare cuts into ObamaCare was the height of willful deception on the part of Obama and the Democrats.

Ah yes, the "deception" of Medicare spending growth slowing.

Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows

Expenditures per Medicare beneficiary increased by only 0.4% in fiscal year 2012, substantially below the 3.4% increase in per capita GDP (Exhibit 1).1 The very slow growth in Medicare spending in fiscal year 2012 follows slow growth in 2010 and 2011. In 2010, spending grew at only 1.8% per beneficiary, and in 2011 at 3.6 %. Over the three year period from 2010-2012, Medicare spending per beneficiary grew an average of 1.9% annually, or more than 1 percentage point more slowly than the average annual growth of 3.2% in per capita GDP (that is, at GDP-1.3). . .

The slow growth in spending per beneficiary from 2010 to 2012 combined with the projections of spending growth at GDP+0 for 2012-2022 is unprecedented in the history of the Medicare program. If sustained, the slower growth would improve Medicare’s ability to meet its commitments to seniors and persons with disabilities in future generations.

CBO | How Have CBO's Projections of Spending for Medicare and Medicaid Changed Since the August 2012 Baseline?

The Recent Changes in CBO’s Baseline Reflect Trends That Have Developed Over the Past Few Years

In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.

In response to that slowdown, over the past several years CBO has made a series of downward adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. For example, from the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, technical revisions—mostly reflecting the slower growth in the programs’ spending in recent years—have lowered CBO’s estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion—by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.

The Changing Politics of Medicare & Medicaid Finance - Health Stew - Boston.com

Remember that the Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama in March 2010. That law deliberately triggered about $449 billion in Medicare saving and reductions between 2010 and 2019. In August, 2010 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put out Medicare spending projections for that 10-year period documenting the near half trillion in savings triggered by the ACA. Between August 2010 and February 2013, the CBO redid its estimates. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities now finds, based on the newer CBO analysis, that Medicare spending will, in fact, drop by an additional $511 billion more than estimated in the 2010 calculation.

Remember that the total net federal cost of the ACA between 2010 and 2019 was about $950 billion. The rest of the $500B price tag was paid primarily with tax increases on wealthier Americans and on drug, device and insurance companies. Turns out, surprisingly, that the Medicare deceleration alone would have been sufficient to finance the total ten-year cost of the ACA.

Don't Look Now, but Our Medicare Spending Projections Are Plummeting - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Here's the story I wish more people would talk about: Our incredible shrinking Medicare projections. Since August, CBO has now revised down its projections of mandatory health care spending by nearly $500 billion, as Michael Linden pointed out. Since the 2010 CBO report, projected Medicare spending between 2013 and 2020 has fallen by just over $1 trillion ... or 16%.

Medicare spending growth is turning out to be lower than the ACA's authors expected, not higher.

Not only that, the CBO has had to revise the cost of ObamaCare upward.

From the CBO blog, literally eight days ago: CBO | CBO's Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

The Estimated Budgetary Impact of the ACA’s Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little on a Year-by-Year Basis Since March 2010

When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for that report, Cass.

 

[g5000]

About those health insurance exchanges now.

ObamaCare dictates every state to establish a health insurance exchange through which insurance will be sold to the masses. If a state "opts out" of establishing an exchange, a federal exchange will be established for the citizens of that state from which to buy their health insurance.

Couple problems here.

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government. Yet Democrats played dumb in 2009, asking, "What government takeover?"


Second, can you imagine the corruption which will be involved in an insurance company getting listed on an exchange which is administered/overseen by government bureaucrats and politicians? Can you imagine the cash changing hands to get listed, or to prevent a competitor from being listed?

I can.

Also, imagine all the hoops of Political Correction a private company will have to jump through to get listed. "Please provide us with the number of transgender employees in your company." "You cannot be listed on the exchange unless you provide free abortions for crack whores."

"What government takeover?"

 

[Oddball]

^^^
Racist!

 

[g5000]

Now let's talk about the costs to the states.

Currently, the federal government provides matching dollars to state administered Medicaid programs. Under ObamaCare, that amount is substantially increased, but then tapers over time.

Every drug dealer is familiar with this tactic. Offer a potential customer free crack for a little while, and you've got a customer for life.

It is nearly impossible for even the reddest of states to resist such political pressure. It isn't as if the masses are unaware of the Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare. Sure, a state can "opt out", but it would be political suicide at the next election.

So the Medicaid rolls will be substantially expanded, and paid for by all of us federal taxpayers.

By 2019, though, the federal checks will shrink, which means the states will have to start picking up more and more of the tab over time.

Can your state afford millions of more new Medicaid enrollees? What do you think is going to happen to your state budget? What do you think will happen to your state taxes after 2019?

Remember Obama said he would not add one dime to the FEDERAL deficits?

Yeah...

 

[Oddball]

^^^
Racist!Racist!Racist!

 

[Greenbeard]

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government.

ObamaCare has to be repealed because shopping for insurance in the new marketplaces is too attractive an option?

Second, can you imagine the corruption which will be involved in an insurance company getting listed on an exchange which is administered/overseen by government bureaucrats and politicians? Can you imagine the cash changing hands to get listed, or to prevent a competitor from being listed?

You seem to be relying pretty heavily on your imagination to populate this thread.

Currently, the federal government provides matching dollars to state administered Medicaid programs. Under ObamaCare, that amount is substantially increased, but then tapers over time.

...tapers to 90% FMAP in perpetuity. The feds never pay less than 90 cents on the dollar for the medical costs of the expansion population--substantially higher than the match rate for traditional Medicaid ever was.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Way Forward: Repeal ObamaCare

Repeal away.

Provided you immediately replace the ACA with something that ensures all Americans have health insurance coverage.

Don’t just come with a complaint, come with a solution as well.

 

[dblack]

Now let's talk about the costs to the states....

in my view, all of the drawbacks pale in comparison to the loss of essential freedom inflicted on us by PPACA. Giving up control of our personal health care decisions to government (and its corporate sponsors) is sheer insanity.

 

[dblack]

The Way Forward: Repeal ObamaCare

Repeal away.

Provided you immediately replace the ACA with something that ensures all Americans have health insurance coverage.

Don’t just come with a complaint, come with a solution as well.

Health insurance is the problem, not the solution.

 

[g5000]

It is a mistake to assume someone who wants to repeal ObamaCare wants the "status quo" to remain.


Think of all the various insurance policies you buy. Health, auto, home, life. In only one of those marketplaces do we find the government as an active participant, in a big way.

Health insurance.

I can buy auto, home, and life insurance from any company in the US which sells such policies. And I can choose which options I want or don't want. That means I get a lot of choices in prices and coverages.

And if I lose my job, I don't automatically lose my auto, home, or life insurance.

Yet I cannot buy health insurance from any company in the US which sells such policies. Most insurance companies are hemmed into geographical regions. And most Americans who have insurance are hostage to their employer plans. Employer-sponsored health insurance is a huge driver of ever-rising healthcare costs. It's an artifact of a labor union boondoggle.

Even worse, the federal government which participates in this market gets to write the rules for all the other players! Duhhhhh...you think they might tilt the field heavily in their favor?!?


So screw the status quo. And screw ObamaCare. To think a person who opposes ObamaCare is in favor of the status quo is to make a fallacy of the excluded middle.


We need to make buying health insurance identical to the way we buy auto, home, and life insurance.

And we need to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who set the current eligibility ages, we need to be working longer than they did.

When Social Security was established, less than 6 percent of the population was over 65. When Medicare was established, 9 percent of the US population was over 65.

Today, 13 percent of Americans are over 65. That's more than the entire population of Canada. We have literally more than doubled our Social Security entitlement load, and are rapidly approaching the doubling of the Medicaid load.

 

[g5000]

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government.

ObamaCare has to be repealed because shopping for insurance in the new marketplaces is too attractive an option?

See my previous post.

Second, can you imagine the corruption which will be involved in an insurance company getting listed on an exchange which is administered/overseen by government bureaucrats and politicians? Can you imagine the cash changing hands to get listed, or to prevent a competitor from being listed?

You seem to be relying pretty heavily on your imagination to populate this thread.

Do you want to go on record stating there is not a lot of campaign finance connected to government controlled regulations, taxes, and so forth? You think government run healthcare exchanges will be exempt from this somehow? Via magical unicorn dust, perhaps?

Currently, the federal government provides matching dollars to state administered Medicaid programs. Under ObamaCare, that amount is substantially increased, but then tapers over time.

...tapers to 90% FMAP in perpetuity. The feds never pay less than 90 cents on the dollar for the medical costs of the expansion population--substantially higher than the match rate for traditional Medicaid ever was.

With $1.3 trillion, and counting, being added to the federal debt by ObamaCare, how long do you think that will last?

That federal subsidy will be a fat, juicy target for the budget cutting ax. I am willing to wager it will return to current levels before 2020. And the states will be left holding the bag for tens of millions of new Medicaid enrollees who will riot in the streets if a politician even thinks about disenrolling them.

 

[Dot Com]

the repubs have put up no viable alternative since Nixon was in office. Don't even think about mentioning Lyin' Ryan's budget w/ a voucher plan.

They should have done something when they had the chance. They willfully ignored the larger & larger portion of GDP devoured by ever-increasing wealth spent on healthcare. Now they're upset that the opposing party did something about it? Is that about right?

All other G8 countries have some form of universal HC including Isreal and some have better outcomes.

 

[Greenbeard]

The weaknesses of the anti-ACA arguments on full display.

Misinformation (union exemptions that don't exist in the actual legislation, a completely backwards understanding of what's happened to Medicare spending in the last three years, entirely mythical rises in the CBO projections) and wild speculation (the 2020 repeal vote that eliminates the law's Medicaid funding, active purchasing in exchanges someday run amok) anchor the most riveting conclusions for why it has to go.

I can't wait to hear about the death panels.

 

[dblack]

The weaknesses of the anti-ACA arguments on full display.

Misinformation (union exemptions that don't exist in the actual legislation, a completely backwards understanding of what's happened to Medicare spending in the last three years, entirely mythical rises in the CBO projections) and wild speculation (the 2020 repeal vote that eliminates the law's Medicaid funding, active purchasing in exchanges someday run amok) anchor the most riveting conclusions for why it has to go.

I can't wait to hear about the death panels.

Hey Greenbeard! How's that shilling coming?

Whore's need love too.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you have the intellectual capacity of a Post-It Note, and can only utter nonsensical catchphrases like "death panels" or "45 million uninsured Americans", and have the attention span like that of a goldfish, this topic is not for you.

I would like to discuss the legitimate reasons to oppose the PPACA (a.k.a. ACA, a.k.a. ObamaCare). For those who would like to read the official text of the law, go here: Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act


First, let's talk about the costs of ObamaCare. The claimed and the real.

The CBO projected ObamaCare would cost $940 billion over the first ten years. This cost would be offset by higher taxes on rich people, some new taxes on rich people and healthcare providers, and cuts to Medicare.

The CBO said ObamaCare would actually reduce federal deficits since it would generate more revenue than it would cost.

Remember that for later.

Obama personally promised he would not sign a law that would add a single dime to the federal deficits. I would like you note this was a promise to protect the federal deficits. This will be important later.


Now, let's look at one of the revenue raising provisions in ObamaCare: the Cadillac insurance tax. This was a 40 percent tax on any employer provided health insurance plan which exceeded $27,000 in value.

Cadillac insurance plans are a big labor union perk in many a contract negotiation. And so it should not surprise you to learn the Democratic Congress and Obama began granting waivers to this tax before the ink was even dry on the PPACA.

Labor's $60 Billion Payoff

Democrats seem impervious to embarrassment as they buy votes for ObamaCare, but their latest move makes even Nebraska's Ben Nelson look cheap: The 87% of Americans who don't belong to a union will now foot the bill for a $60 billion giveaway to those who do.

The Senate bill was financed in part by a 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance coverage. The White House backs this "Cadillac tax" as one of the few remaining cost-control tokens. But Big Labor abhors the tax because union benefits tend to be far more generous than average, and labor leaders and House Democrats have been throwing a political tantrum for weeks.

So emerging from their backrooms, Democrats have agreed to extend a special exemption from the Cadillac tax to any health plan that is part of a collective-bargaining agreement, plus state and local workers, many of whom are unionized. Everyone else with a higher-end plan will start to be taxed in 2013, but union members will get a free pass until 2018.

Another way the cost of ObamaCare was going to be offset was by making cuts to Medicare.

For anyone who has been even semi-conscious since the Clinton "balanced budgets", this ploy in ObamaCare should have roused the loudest of scoffing outbursts.

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, I refer you to the annual "doc fix" dog and pony show put on by Congress since the year 2000.

You see, Clinton's balanced budgets heavily depended on cuts to Medicare. Instead of paying a doctor $35 for an x-ray, say, Medicare would only pay him $30.

But these cuts never happened. Doctors will simply stop accepting Medicare patients if it costs more to treat them than they recoup in payments. Simple math.

So building in Medicare cuts into ObamaCare was the height of willful deception on the part of Obama and the Democrats.

And sure enough, when those cuts were supposed to take place, the inevitable happened: Government reverses plan to cut Medicare Advantage rate

The federal government has reversed a proposed cut that could have left millions who get their health insurance through the Medicare Advantage plan paying more for coverage.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced Monday the final Medicare Advantage rates for 2014.

CMS had initially proposed a 2.3% reduction in what the government pays the insurance companies that provide the plans -- a move that would have saved the government money but potentially would cost the public more.

However, CMS on Monday announced a 3.3% increase instead.

Did you catch that? Instead of a 2.3% decrease, there was a 3.3% increase!


ObamaCare is adding to our deficits, ladies and gentlemen.

Not only that, the CBO has had to revise the cost of ObamaCare upward.

Here is Obama stumping for ObamaCare in 2009:

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.)

Now I want you to go to this May 2013 CBO document: CBO's May 2013 Estimate of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage

Go Table 2 and look at the line which says "Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions". Look at the last column which provides the new projected ten year cost: $1.798 trillion. Literally double what Obama claimed it would cost.

More importantly, I want you to look at the line which says "NET OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS". This is how much ObamaCare will actually cost after subtracting the extra and new taxes and cuts to Medicare and so forth: $1.363 trillion.

$1.363 trillion added to the federal deficits. I told you earlier to remember the CBO initially claimed ObamaCare would reduce federal deficits.

Kind of makes your lungs explode laughing over Obama's promise, "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future", does it not?

More to come...

thank you......

 

[Dot Com]

"Repeal Obamacare"? Thats what Ryan & co. want(ed)

Jim Pethokoukis on Paul Ryan: A smart six-point critique.

The plan repeals Obamacare, which is highly unlikely. Better to have shown how the ACA can be fixed.

If you're going to be the party of tax cuts, then you have to have a tax-cut plan that cuts most people's taxes. Ryan's plan is going to lead to tax increases for a broad swathe of middle-class Americans and do absolutely nothing for low-wage workers.

 

[g5000]

The weaknesses of the anti-ACA arguments on full display.

Misinformation (union exemptions that don't exist in the actual legislation, a completely backwards understanding of what's happened to Medicare spending in the last three years, entirely mythical rises in the CBO projections) and wild speculation (the 2020 repeal vote that eliminates the law's Medicaid funding, active purchasing in exchanges someday run amok) anchor the most riveting conclusions for why it has to go.

I can't wait to hear about the death panels.

I posted the links, fool, to the CBO projections. Nothing mythical about it. I also posted the evidence of the union tax waivers. This boondoggle has been widely reported.

Try harder.