“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.
But what of the staggering long-term deficits—running publicly held debt up to nearly three times the size of our gross domestic product by 2050, as decried by the Peterson Institute and others? There is one core reality of these fantastic projections. The great bulk of the deteriorating long-term projections come from out-of-control costs of health care. Hold health care costs down to sensible levels and there is no problem. Fail to solve soaring health care costs and there is no solution. We can neither tax enough nor cut enough spending to pay for the projected costs of health care.
Our Oil Addiction Is About to Make Life a Lot Nastier | Environment | AlterNet
... our civilization is likely to remain remarkably dependent on oil-fueled cars, trucks, ships, and planes for most transportation purposes, as well as on coal for electricity generation. Much of the existing infrastructure for producing and distributing our energy supply will also remain intact, even as many existing sources of oil, coal, and natural gas become exhausted, forcing us to rely on previously untouched, far more undesirable (and often far less accessible) sources of these fuels
always good to get that "fair and balanced" insight!
On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.
But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.
What's the purpose of the "conservative media?" Is there some? I always thought the media was LIBERAL.
House guidelines on the rules of debate say it is impermissible to refer to the president as a liar.
In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is "because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
This is the needed publicity that's going to create the indelible expectation in the public mind that there must be a po.
media's willingness to give Cheney a platform in the debate over torture shifted the discussion away from the central issue that torture is illegal under both U.S. and international law, and focused attention instead on torture's efficacy. The media allowed Cheney to push the discussion in this direction, in large part because Cheney assured that these secret documents would show that he was right. Now that it's clear they do not, will the media outlets that gave Cheney a platform continue to let him off the hook?
Follow up message
Dear Florindo Troncelliti:
Thank you very much for your communication about our decision regarding advertising on the Glenn Beck show.
Our position is simple and was not driven by taking sides in any political debate. We support free speech of all kinds, and vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans. But we expect the speech and the debate to be informed, inclusive and respectful, in keeping with our company’s core values and commitment to diversity. In our view, Mr. Beck crossed the line.
While advertising on the Fox network is part of our communication plan, we had not requested time on Glenn Beck’s show specifically. We have instructed our advertising agency to inform Fox to ensure Glenn Beck’s program is not part of our advertising plan.
We must continue to be true to our core values – accountability, respect, integrity, openness and teamwork.
Thank you again for your email.
Sincerely,
Pamela
CVS/pharmacy
Customer Relations
This looks a little more slick than the previous efforts, which exuded a reality documented on film veracity. I still want to see it as soon as it comes out.
a tsunami of rumors, myths, fear-mongering and misinformation about the proposals that surges around the Internet in nanoseconds. “I’m totally confused about what’s going on,” one reader wrote to the AARP Bulletin. “How do I know who to believe?”
Misinformation spreads at rapid speed
When asked if they support “having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all,” the responses in favor get even better for our side:
· 58% Approve (+ 8 points versus the sample asked specifically about “single-payer.”)
· 34% strongly approve (+ 10 points)
· 38% disapprove (- 6 points versus the respondents who disapproved of “single-payer.” When asked this way the approvers out-number the disapprovers by 20-points).
· Only 25% “strongly disapprove” (the “strongly approve” respondents outnumber the “strongly disapprove” respondents by 9 points).
I think this is huge. Not only does it suggest that all of the efforts to demonize single-payer are largely failing, but it further suggests that we will have strong majority support for single-payer healthcare if we can educate the roughly 8% of the population that would support it if they understood what it was. Even without that 8% we have a majority 50% to 44% support. With it our majority improves to 58% to 38%.”
The "Dakota Dunce" does his song and dance for the big insurance companies, live, on national TV! Why should Americans have the right to finance their own health care? That would mean cutting off profits from insurance companies that add ZERO value to health care.
Insurance companies pay to put princes like the 650,000 constituent senator in office, so they should get their corporate welfare!!
How dare people want to govern themselves!
Righteousness has the power of truth.
At least somebody has the righteousness to speak the truth without getting bullied off the stage.
On Capitol Hill, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to produce a bill that features a nonprofit co-op. The author of the idea, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, predicted Sunday that Mr. Obama would have no choice but to drop the public option.Kent Conrad: Campaign Finance/Money - Industries - Senator 2008 | OpenSecrets
“The fact of the matter is, there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” Mr. Conrad said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”
Uli Schmetzer, was one of those great foreign correspondents who reached the pinnacle of his profession as a scribe for Reuters and then the Chicago Tribune. Born in Germany, he moved to Australia where he plied his trade in the tabloid machine before traveling the world’s hot spots until that moment of epithany came to him as he realized that his desire was tell his readers what we was seeing and thinking about was being mutilated, censored and suppressed by the major news organizations he worked in the name of the “editorial process.” (You can read more about the book and some of his reporting on his website That’s http://www.uli-schmetzer.com/
He has now collected his greatest hits and stories in a masterful exercise of story telling called TIMES OF TERROR: Notebook of a Foreign Correspondent published by Tizuli, a publishing house down under. Uli not only recounts his adventures on the world’s battlefields—from Tienaman Square to Cambodia to Sarajevo to Chile but tell us what his readers were never allowed to read when the lede in his stories was buried or its message was distorted. “Soon you will rrealize news is diluted and distilled by political and corporate interests well before it reaches the consumer.,” he says.
Listen to this: “I would say that 60 to 70 percent of all controversial stories I wrote throught my 37-year career as a foreight correspondent were fiddled with, diluted, changed or cut to delete potentially contentyious texts or interpretations that did not fit the the preconceptions tht most editors and agencies had developed, thanks largely to government propaganda,” WOW!
This book has the advantage of being very well written. extraordinarily insightful and honest. One passage speaks to what’s happening now as public indignation is being marshaled and manipulated in the service of special interests and against their own interests.
“Thus system is constamtly searching for new scapegoats to serve as lightening rods for occasional public indignaion,” he writes, “It blames our economic recession on terrorism instead of on unscrupulous manipulators if funds or a war that costs trillions of taxpayers’ dollars. The system bails out greedy and crooked financial institutions but has no safety net for the 50 million workers globally expected to lose their jobs thanks to “mismanagement” of executives who still pocket fat bonuses for screwing up.”
Schemtzer does not just blame the media for its sins—he argues that media organizations mirror public attitudes, biases, and preferences because rhats what is required to get the public to watch, listen or read. Media consumers tend to seek out outlets they believe agree with then, or with which they are comfortable. I remember speaking to an executive at CNN about why the news network parroted the Bush Administration line after 911. I was told that they were very conscious of not getting ahead of the public even when they knew the government was lying for fear of losing viewers. It is this symbiotic dance that leads media decisionmakers to ratiojnalize what they do as giving the public what it wants.
There is a direct lineage from the Iraq War hysteria to the current madness surrounding the health-care fight. In both cases, the hysteria was stoked by leading Republicans and their right-wing media allies. Both involved disseminating farfetched, nightmare scenarios to a gullible (if not paranoid) segment of the population, which was then whipped into a frenzy that spilled over into intimidation and silencing voices of disagreement.
Yes, we'll get something for the time, effort, and money. But it will resemble 'nothing" more than it will resemble the systemic reform American needs.
A fat pay check can buy lots of big lies in American commercial media today.
It would be a shame if the American people allowed themselves to be badgered and bullied by hate-speakers like Beck, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh into doing the corporations' dirty work for them.
But that's what they're urging us to do: Fabricate irrational fears based on lies, magnify them, and then incite the American people to psycho-vigilante violence.
I just don't think we are going to let them do it to us. Maybe it's really up to the police to prevent shootings, muggings, disruptions of democratic meetings, intimidation of elected officials, etc. But, ultimately, if the people refuse to be incited by evil, evil cannot thrive.
Thanks, Media Matters. Without you we would be lost in a wilderness of hate speech and misinformation!
http://mediamatters.org/
Don't give up on sanity. We haven't destroyed our chances for equitable health care yet. HR3200 has not passed (or failed) yet.
Sen. Jim DeMint, 57, and his wife, Debbie, live in Greenville, S.C. They have four children. DeMint obtained an MBA from Clemson University in 1981, and then ran his Greenville marketing firm for 15 years, with hospitals among his clients.
Congressman Charles B. Rangel
163 West 125th Street, Suite #737
New York, NY 10027
August 7, 2009
Page 2
Florindo J. Troncelliti
255 W. 108th Street #7B1
New York, NY 10025-2925
email: flotron9@gmail.com
http://media-monitors.blogspot.com/
VIA FACSIMILE: (212) 663-4277
Congressman Charles B. Rangel
163 West 125th Street, Suite #737
New York, NY 10027
August 7, 2009
August Recess
Honorable Congressman Rangel:
Thank you for your robust and effective leadership in the 111th and in previous Congresses. We have come to rely on your voice as our leading spokesperson to the nation and as one of the country’s primary advocates for working Americans. Your shepherding Americas Affordable Health Choices Act through Ways and Means was a demonstration of legislative prowess unrivaled by any other effort in this legislative session.
As your supporters and constituents, we implore you to lead the district now in mobilizing support for REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM by organizing pro-health care rallies, events, press conferences, publicity actions, letter-writing, phone-banking, fundraisers, and other activities that will inform and engage the public and broaden the media discourse and public debate on this critical issue at this critical time.
Health Care For America Now (HCAN) is urging supporters of their Core Principles for Health Care Reform to contact our legislators and urge them to support affordable, quality health care for everyone in America.
As an apologist for these principles, we ask for your continued public visibility as well as your active leadership in mobilizing your constituents to overcome the resistance to reform in the media, the opposition party, and the lobbying industry.
Under your leadership, your constituents could be
Our affiliations with local and state Democratic leaders and organizations, and local and regional independent media, afford us the opportunity, under your leadership, to organize and help express the ardent hope of our community for real reform on a host of issues, beginning with Health Care.
Please have your staff contact Florindo J. Troncelliti at (646) 508-9647 to arrange for a meeting with us at your earliest convenience in order to pursue the goals set forth above.
Sincerely,
Florindo J. Troncelliti
Independent Producer
Manhattan Neighborhood Network
US_ACTIVE:\43124881\01\43124881_1.DOC\99910.9301 2
Elizabeth MacDonald of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting at 77 W. 66th Street on July 28, 2009. Why won't ABC News allow single payer advocates on the air for the health care debate?
5 facts about the anti-reform mobs
1. These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies who fear that health insurance reform could help Americans, but hurt their bottom line. A group run by the same folks who made the "Swiftboat" ads against John Kerry is compiling a list of congressional events in August to disrupt. An insurance company coalition has stationed employees in 30 states to track where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings.
2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. These crowds are being riled up by anti-reform lies being spread by industry front groups that invent smears to tarnish the President's plan and scare voters. But as the President has repeatedly said, health insurance reform will create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them, and there is no "government takeover" in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress.
3. Their actions are getting more extreme. Texas protesters brought signs displaying a tombstone for Rep. Lloyd Doggett and using the "SS" symbol to compare President Obama's policies to Nazism. Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil was hanged in effigy outside his district office. Rep. Tim Bishop of New York had to be escorted to his car by police after an angry few disrupted his town hall meeting -- and more examples like this come in every day. And they have gone beyond just trying to derail the President's health insurance reform plans, they are trying to "break" the President himself and ruin his Presidency.
4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. Protesters have routinely shouted down representatives trying to engage in constructive dialogue with voters, and done everything they can to intimidate and silence regular people who just want more information. One attack group has even published a manual instructing protesters to "stand up and shout" and try to "rattle" lawmakers to prevent them from talking peacefully with their constituents.
5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a statement applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to "a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."
a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.
Many of these governments have honed their Internet strategies beyond censorship and are employing more subtle (and harder to detect) ways of controlling dissent, often by planting their own messages on the Web and presenting them as independent opinion. Op-Ed Contributor - Propaganda.com
On Oct. 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued this statement: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
"Therefore I, as director of health for the state of Hawaii, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
"No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of Hawaii."
Even the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican who at the time was stumping for John McCain, said it was on the up-and-up.
There’s a huge price to be paid,” he added. “Bipartisanship is absolutely possible and it’s absolutely necessary, even when you have a Democratic president with huge majorities.
At a time when the Pentagon's annual cost overruns approach $300 billion a year -- dwarfing the entire defense budgets of most developed countries -- these "fiscal watchdogs" simply have nothing useful to say on the subject.
There's no mechanism in the current media configuration that would allow them [Democratic politicians] to convey the details of the plan in a positive way without getting overrun by negative process stories
The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live is deeply offensive to everything America stands for. It is no answer to say that health care resources are limited and will be rationed one way or another.
"The public wants help with their health care bills and supports health reform, but the hotter the debate and the longer it lasts, the more anxious the public will become," said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman.
Is there any reason YOU can think of that this clip is buried in the CSPAN archives and not going viral on COMMERCIAL media--where the general public might actually see it?
The Charlatans of Corporate Media get paid for misleading the unintelligent with falsehoods and partisan propaganda.
But the British media leapt on the theme of penny-pinching bureaucrats sentencing sick people to death. The issue was then picked up by the U.S. news media and by those lobbying against health care reform in the United States.
When the media feature someone like Bruce Hardy or Jack Rosser, we readily relate to individuals who are harmed by a government agency’s decision to limit the cost of health care. But we tend not to hear about — and thus don’t identify with — the particular individuals who die in emergency rooms because they have no health insurance.
1) There has been virtually no coverage of the views of those Americans who want more thoroughgoing reform than is currently on the table.
2) We hear very little about the $1.4 million dollars a day spent by lobbyists to water down or otherwise obstruct reform. As Ezra Klein notes, "At times, the efforts at influence peddling border on the comic: One June 10 meeting saw Max Baucus's aides sitting down with two of Max Baucus's former chiefs of staff, who were representing different groupings of health-care industry interests."
3) I can almost guarantee that no mainstream TV outlet will explore in detail the real economic dynamics that now dominate health care--despite the fact that "few markets are as concentrated, opaque and complex, and subject to rampant anticompetitive and deceptive conduct."
"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."
The CBO estimated the public plan offered by the bill would be roughly 10 percent less expensive than other plans in the insurance exchange...
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2009.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At your request, CBO has analyzed the effect on federal direct spending and revenues of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act as posted on the Web site of the Committee on Ways and Means on January 16, 2009. 1
[Footnote]
[Footnote 1: See http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/sbill.pdf. The HITECH Act is title IV.]
The HITECH Act would establish payment incentives in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to encourage providers to adopt health information technology (health IT). Health IT refers to information technology applications specifically designed for the practice of clinical medicine, including electronic health records (EHR), personal health records, health information exchange, computerized physician order entry, clinical decision support systems, and electronic prescribing. To meet the requirements set forth in the bill, providers would have to purchase a `qualifying electronic health record' system with a standard package of functionalities. Although adoption would be encouraged through payment incentives in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, all health care spending--both public and private--would be affected by the increased use of health IT. CBO expects that its adoption on a nationwide basis would reduce total spending on health care by diminishing the number of inappropriate tests and procedures, reducing paperwork and administrative overhead, and decreasing the number of adverse events resulting from medical errors.
The bill also would accelerate spending from the Medicare Improvement Fund, provide funding for some costs incurred by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in administering the payment-incentive provisions, and make other changes to the Medicare program.
As a result of the HITECH Act's effects on direct spending and revenues, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase on-budget deficits by a total of $17.1 billion over the 2009-2019 period; it would increase the unified budget deficit over the same period by an estimated $15.8 billion (see attached table). The effects on direct spending and revenues over the 2009-2013 and 2009-2018 periods are relevant for enforcing pay-as-you-go rules under the current budget resolution. CBO estimates that those effects would increase on-budget deficits by $15.5 billion over the 2009-2013 period and $19.8 billion over the 2009-2018 period.
This legislation also would authorize the appropriation of such sums as are necessary for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to develop a national infrastructure for health IT, as well as activities related to the promotion of IT adoption. The amount of such funding could vary greatly depending on what the Congress decides to appropriate for those purposes.
Direct spending
Bonus Payments and Penalties. The bill would establish a schedule of Medicare bonus payments, beginning in 2011, that would be paid to hospitals and physicians that adopt and use qualifying health IT. Beginning in 2016, Medicare would reduce payment rates to hospitals and physicians that are not using qualifying health IT. (Payment adjustments also would be applied to Medicare Advantage plans that operate hospitals or employ physicians.) Medicare's bonus payments and penalties would not affect the Part B premiums (which are set to cover one-quarter of that program's costs) or the benchmarks that are used in the calculation of payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans. CBO estimates that spending for the bonuses and payment reductions from the penalties would increase net Medicare spending by $17.7 billion over the 2011-2019 period.
The bill also would establish bonus payments (but not penalties) in the Medicaid program for providers that adopt and use qualifying health IT. The Medicaid bonus payments to providers would be paid entirely by the federal government; the federal government also would pay states 90 percent of certain administrative costs related to the bonus-payment program. CBO estimates that the direct effect on Medicaid spending from those provisions would be an increase of $12.4 billion over the 2011-2019 period. In combination, net Medicare and Medicaid spending for bonuses and penalties would total $30.0 billion over that period.
Under current law, CBO estimates that about 45 percent of hospitals and 65 percent of physicians will have adopted qualifying health IT in 2019. 2
[Footnote] CBO estimates the incentive mechanism would boost those adoption rates to about 70 percent for hospitals and about 90 percent for physicians.
[Footnote 2: In Budget Options, Volume 1: Health Care (December, 2008), CBO stated that, by 2019, about 40 percent of physicians will adopt health IT that conforms to interoperability standards for that year. The higher adoption rate mentioned above reflects a less-stringent standard to qualify for bonus payments or avoid penalties under the HITECH Act.]
Spending for Benefits. CBO anticipates that accelerating the adoption of health IT would result in reductions in health care spending. Those reductions would be realized by, among other things, reducing the number of inappropriate tests and procedures, reducing paperwork and administrative overhead, and decreasing the number of adverse events resulting from medical errors. Health IT could also improve the quality of care provided to patients by improving the information available to clinicians at the time of treatment, by encouraging the use of evidence-based medicine, and by helping physicians manage patients with complex, chronic conditions. The use of health IT could also increase some costs because improved adherence to treatment protocols could increase the amount of care provided. On net, CBO estimates that the accelerated adoption of health IT that would result from implementing the HITECH Act would reduce costs in the health care system by about 0.3 percent during the 2011-2019 period. 3
[Footnote]
[Footnote 3: CBO anticipates near universal adoption of health IT over the next quarter century even without legislative action. As a result, the 0.3 percent reduction in health care costs estimated to result in the near term from enactment of this bill would diminish in later years, when the use of health IT will be more pervasive in any event.]
Under Medicare's current payment rules, the only savings in Medicare's expenditures from the adoption of health IT would be from reducing the utilization of some types of services--for example, by reducing the probability of hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse medical events or reducing the utilization of unnecessary diagnostic services. Health IT also would help providers reduce their operating costs.
However, because Medicare's payment rates in the fee-for-service sector are not adjusted to reflect changes in such operating costs, those savings would not result in lower expenditures for the Medicare program. CBO estimates that the changes in utilization from accelerating the adoption of health IT would reduce Medicare spending by $4.4 billion over the 2011-2019 period.
By contrast, CBO expects that state Medicaid programs, plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, and private insurance plans would negotiate payment rates with providers that would enable those payers to realize most of the savings from reductions in providers' operating costs (in addition to realizing the savings from reducing the utilization of some types of services). CBO estimates that the resulting federal savings in Medicaid would total $7.3 billion over the 2011-2019 period.
Federal payments of FEHB premiums for retired federal employees are considered direct spending. (Most contributions for retired employees of the U.S. Postal Service are considered off-budget direct spending.) CBO estimates that enacting the HITECH Act would reduce on-budget direct spending for the FEHB program by $0.5 billion over the 2011-2019 period, and would reduce off budget direct spending for the FEHB program by an additional $0.2 billion. Thus, the total reduction in direct spending for the FEHB program would amount to $0.7 billion over the 2011-2019 period. 4
[Footnote]
[Footnote 4: CBO also estimates that enacting the HITECH Act would reduce the cost of health insurance for active federal workers by about $0.1 billion over the 2009-2014 period. Those costs are considered discretionary spending because the federal she of FEHB premiums for active workers is funded through appropriations to the agencies that employ those workers. Realizing the potential discretionary savings would require adjustments to the amounts appropriated to each agency.]
In total, CBO estimates that enacting the HITECH Act would reduce federal direct spending for benefits in the Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHB programs by about $12 billion over the 2011-2019 period.
Other Direct Spending. The HITECH Act would modify the timing of spending from the Medicare Improvement Fund, which the Secretary of Health and Human Services may use to make improvements in the fee-for-service program. The bill would accelerate that spending from 2016, 2017, and 2018 to 2014 and 2015; that change would not affect total Medicare spending over the 2009-2013 or 2009-2018 periods. The bill also would provide about $0.9 billion to pay for some of the administrative costs that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would incur in implementing the new payment-incentive provisions. It also would modify certain payment rates and rules for hospices and certain hospitals. CBO estimates those changes would cost $0.3 billion over the 2009-2019 period (with most of that spending in 2009).
Federal revenues
Because accelerating the use of health IT would lower health care costs for private payers, it would result in lower health insurance premiums in the private sector. As a result, private employers would pay less of their workers' compensation in the form of tax-advantaged health insurance premiums and more in the form of taxable wages and salaries. Therefore, federal tax revenues would increase. CBO estimates that on-budget revenues (from income taxes and the Hospital Insurance payroll tax--for Medicare Part A) would increase by $2.0 billion over the 2011-2019 period. Higher receipts from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget, would add another $1.1 billion, resulting in an estimated increase in total tax revenues of $3.1 billion over the 2011-2019 period.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we wi11 be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tom Bradley.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine,
Acting Director.
Attachment.
ESTIMATED EFFECT ON FEDERAL DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES OF THE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC AND CLINICAL HEALTH ACT OF 2009, AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON JANUARY 16, 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fiscal years; in billions of dollars--
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2009-2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (Outlays)
Bonus Payments and Penalties:
Medicare 0 0 2.7 4.6 5.0 4.0 2.5 0.9 -0.2 -0.9 -1.0 17.7
Medicaid 0 0 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 12.4
Subtotal 0 0 4.2 6.5 7.1 6.1 4.3 2.4 0.6 -0.4 -0.7 30.0
Changes in Spending for Benefits:
Medicare 0 0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -4.4
Medicaid 0 0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 -1.1 -7.3
FEHB (on-budget) 0 0 * * -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5
Subtotal, on-budget 0 0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -12.1
FEHB (off-budget) 0 0 * * * * * * * * * -0.2
Subtotal, Changes in Spending for Benefits 0 0 -0.5 -0.9 -1.3 -1.5 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -12.3
Medicare Improvement Fund 0 0 0 0 0 9.2 1.2 -6.3 -3.5 -0.7 0 0
Mandatory Administrative Funding:
Medicare 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 * * * * 0.5
Medicaid * * * * * * * * * * * 0.4
Subtotal 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9
Other Provisions 0.3 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
Total Changes in Direct Spending 0.4 0.1 3.8 5.7 5.9 13.9 4.1 -5.4 -4.4 -2.8 -2.4 18.9
CHANGES IN REVENUES
Income and HI Payroll Taxes (on-budget) 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.0
Social Security Payroll Taxes (off-budget) 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1
Total Revenue Changes 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.1
CHANGES IN FEDERAL DEFICITS FROM DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES 1
On-budget Changes 0.4 0.1 3.8 5.6 5.7 13.7 3.8 -5.6 -4.7 -3.1 -2.6 17.1
Total Changes 0.4 0.1 3.7 5.5 5.6 13.5 3.7 -5.7 -4.8 -3.2 -2.8 15.8
Memorandum:
Changes in Direct Spending, by Program:
Medicare 0.3 0.1 2.7 4.4 4.5 12.6 3.2 -5.9 -4.2 -2.1 -1.5 14.2
Medicaid * * 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.6 -0.1 -0.6 -0.8 5.4
FEHB (Total) 0 0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.7
Of course, our values as a nation, values we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. (emphasis added)
... in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. Romans 2:1.
This person is exactly what we need to fire up the popular pressure for real health care reform: a crusader.
How she ever got in to talk to these people is testament to her ardor and determination.
May the groundswell continue!
Here's a story never seen on American news broadcasting.
The health insurance industry and its allies are working hard right now to convince you that the creation of a public insurance option would put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. As the 2004 Wall Street Journal article makes it clear, however, EMIS was at its heart a system that put corporate bureaucrats between people and their doctors
Much has been written about Kurtz's (frequently undisclosed) conflicts of interest, his fondness for right-wingers like Michelle Malkin, and his tendency to give their critique of the media more credence than more substantive and factual critiques from progressives. I think it's clear that, whether or not Kurtz personally leans a bit to the right, his media criticism certainly does.
But that isn't why many of his readers and viewers find him so frustrating. What is really bothersome about Kurtz is that he so often gives the impression that he simply lacks the competence to critique the media. He frequently seems to overlook the obvious -- and when it is pointed out to him, it sails right over his head.
There are a lot of ways to defeat reform, not just by blocking it entirely, but by setting it up for failure. Those who think a public plan is a good idea no matter how badly designed are not thinking ahead.
The all too frequent commercial interruptions
served as an apt metaphor for how private commercial interests demand our attention and extract their profits while limiting our ability to discuss critical public policy issues.
. . . instead of covering this event as the enormous public service it should have been, ABC chose to exploit the occasion to sell us Hondas and pimp for their own after-show local coverage and commercials.
Sawyer's main contribution was to introduce her own uninformed biases/opinions in framing issues and introducing questioners. Gibson's primary role was to reveal his own misconceptions and then literally read talking points from a Republican letter -- an obvious ransom extracted after days of Republican whining about giving the President air time on a critical public issue.
Let's see what the commercial bandwagoneers have to say about this on the networks and cable channels, assuming the gag rule isn't in effect.
Did everyone hear her say, "strong Public Option?"
Think the iPhone is the free-flowing Internet in your pocket? Think again. AT&T, the sole wireless carrier for the iPhone, has decided to allow Major League Baseball to stream video live to the new iPhone, but is blocking other companies from doing the same.
The New York Times reports that Major League Baseball's live stream "will play regardless of whether an iPhone is connected to a WiFi network or a 3G network."
But you’ll strike out trying to do the same on 3G with the SlingPlayer Mobile iPhone application or other online video services.
Free Press has challenged the FCC to confirm that wireless networks must adhere to the agency’s Internet Policy Statement, which protects consumers against just this sort of discrimination. Given AT&T’s recent MLB play, the incoming FCC chair should put our challenge on deck.
"We are troubled that carriers like AT&T are playing gatekeeper to the next generation of wireless Internet applications,” Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott said. “No Internet service provider should be allowed to pick winners and losers online.”
AT&T has conceded that open Internet principles should govern wireless communications and that consumers expect unfettered mobile access. So why is AT&T deciding what online video its iPhone customers can and can’t watch?
here's somebody who manages to pull the relevant information together, summarize, AND get it out there into the ether!
Bravo, John Perry!
