Cantor: Health Care Plan Savings Dubious
(CBS)
"The claims that we're saving $81 billion by spending $829 billion, you know, you can say that if you want to go ahead and really rob Peter to pay Paul. And that's exactly what's going on here," Cantor, the House Minority Whip, told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Thursday.
On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary estimate on the cost of the proposal, projecting budget savings of $81 billion over the next decade. It also said "continued reductions in federal budget deficits" were probable in the years beyond. The plan would cover 94 percent of legal, nonelderly Americans within 10 years and would be paid for through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
"The way that they are expanding coverage is by taxing employers, is by taxing those of us who have insurance, and, frankly, to the tune of $500 billion," Cantor claimed. "And they're adding on top of that $400 billion worth of cuts to Medicare, which that will mean seniors will have less opportunity, less benefit, less ability to choose the kind of health care that they want."
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
Health Care Reform Progress Report
Health Care Inches Ahead in the House
Throughout the firestorm of conservative criticism of his health care agenda, President Obama has insisted the only thing he would eliminate from Medicare is wasteful spending, not quality of care.
Mr. Obama's late-summer media blitz appears to have softened public resistance to reform. A recent AP poll – 40 percent in favor, 40 percent opposed – on health care, a sharp drop from the 49 percent opposition a month earlier.
Resistance among seniors is down as well – just 43 percent opposed compared with 59 percent a month ago.
But Cantor said one key element of more liberal proposals – the public option – has been "resoundingly rejected by the American people." The Senate Finance Committees proposal doesn't contain a provision for a public option, but would subsidize health care for low-income Americans. (watch the latest news on health care reform and the interview with Cantor at left)
That plan is just one of several in Congress, so lawmakers will have to merge the varying proposals – some of which still contain a public option provision – into one bill. That process will likely change the overall cost and deficit projections.
Cantor said he would meet with House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer to "look at the things that we can agree upon."
But he insisted that Republicans would "reject the notion of the government takeover" of health care.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 462 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics? 47 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 219 Comments
"...no idea of how economic cycles work."
---------------------------------
The problem with YOU and all the other conservitard ideologists in this case, is that we are no longer in typical domestic economic cycles, since the global economy dictates much of it now, and there are entirely too many variables and too many emerging economies.
Proof is how we have fallen on exports, and now Germany is #1 and China is #2. We've been spending far too much treasure on WARmongering, and if anyone thinks that there is much waste and abuse in the health care expenditures, they should look at the "defense" budget!
"Average of 5.6% is good, considering the natural rate of unemployment is ~5%."
----------------------------
Come now......you're trying to tell us that "ronnie the rat" raygun, coming to the white house with the unemployment rate at 7% and seeing it rise to the 10+% rate for the next 2 & 1/2 years, and finally when he's leaving the white house it is about the post-WWII AVERAGE of 5.6% (the lowest during his 8 years of misery)-- that we should regard him as an economic guru?
You've got to be kidding me!
Then on top of that.....poppy bush didn't do our economy much better, since it took Clinton's fiscal responsiblity to usher in the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, while 22 million private-sector jobs were created and the unemployment rate DECLINED during the entire 8 years to 3.9% -- not to mention his passing of welfare reform!
@pubsrtoast
Inflation was the highest ever of any President post WW2 under Carter. And Real Income gains for Carter were behind Nixon and Reagan. Your point? Unemployment rose under Reagan initially because Carter raised IRs to a crippling level and overtaxed. When Reagan lowered IR and cut taxes, the economy turned around.
You KEEP harping on the inflation rate during Carter's term, while conveniently ignoring the 1979 OPEC oil crisis that caused it.
Carter couldn't do anything about it, and Reagan never had to deal with anything like it.
Cry all you want about Carter. He was five times the president that Reagan the traitor was.
Reagan fixed our economy and that's a fact. If Obama can do the same I'll be the first to thank and congratulate him.
AGAIN -- creating a perpetual recession, causing unemployment to soar, causing inflation to soar, all while doubling the deficit and launching the war on the middle class, did NOT help our economy.
Skew the numbers all you want, it doesn't change the facts. I was there - I saw it - I remember it.
@hungry
Unions back and pay Congressmen. Congressmen advocate for unions. Unions are like their own special PAC.
ROFLMAO!!!!
Dude, I've worked in union environments since 1994 - teamsters and state government.
NEVER ONCE has ANYONE more powerful than a company VP been involved.
NEVER.
I'd rather not get into Clinton's overexpansion of our economy. I'm by no means bashing a 4% unemployment rate, but when record numbers of people are getting welfare checks and people are being hired for absolutely no reason and investing in stocks that appear overnight (.com era) of course unemployment is going to be low. I do give him credit on the budget surpluses though. Even if he had to gut our defense spending to do it.
Why would you repeat the Fox News fabricated lie that Clinton "gutted our military"? That military was plenty good enough for Bush to start two wars with, so it must not have been that bad, now was it? Just because he didn't frivolously throw money away on unnecessary spending, doesn't mean that he "gutted" the military.
I'm dying to know: What in the world do you mean "people are being hired for no reason"?!?!
And how can unemployment be at 30 year lows, (at the time), but according to you "record numbers of people were on welfare"?
If they're not looking for work (ie, satisfied with welfare) they aren't considered unemployed. Do you know how the unemployment rate is calculated?
People being hired for no reason = Gov't pork projects.
"People being hired for no reason = Gov't pork projects."
-----------------------------------
Nah.....even though the republican'ts have been shown to be the kings of PORK with the 2006 peak, both parties are guilty, and pork projects still spur the economy in each district -- hardly "no reason" as you stated!
Creating jobs in America through earmarks still creates jobs here in America, and puts money into the economy through consumer spending -- much better than the bushevik tax cuts for the wealthy that just created jobs in 3rd world countries!
@hungry
Ever try firing someone protected by the union? Lawsuits abound. Gov't will defend the union too.
Yep. I did it myself, as a supervisor, on three or four occasions.
There weren't any lawsuits. The union reps came in, we explained our position, they argued on the employees behalf, and we made our point.
Only 2 other times did we offer a "settlement package", and allowed the employee to resign with a signed confidentiality agreement, and a tidy little sum of money.
You've got this idea that unions are infallible, monoliths that control all aspects of a business. That simply IS NOT the case.
PS - governments DO NOT control unions. If that was the case, most government employees wouldn't BELONG to unions - don't you agree?
Unions back and pay Congressmen. Congressmen advocate for unions. Unions are like their own special PAC.
@hungry
How so? Hiring illegals? We shouldn't be hiring them I have been sayign that ALL MORNING.
Hiring illegals, ending the pension system for the crap shoot known as "401k's", offshoring, gutting benefit packages, etc, etc.
You think like MortarMan, with your belief in capitalism, all while ignoring it's results.
I am against hiring illegals. The pension system is more reliable than 401ks, but the returns aren't as great. It all depends on what cycle the market is in. If the market was going up at 10% per year you'd be praising 401ks, not pensions which result in lower payout.
Offshoring, as I comment on earlier, is not as a big a deal as Dems make it out to be.
Gutting benefit packages is something that needs to be fixed too.
@hungry
When unions are backed by the Gov't, they have A LOT of persuasion over companies.
Since when is the UAW "backed by the government"?!?!
It sure as hell wasn't under Bush Jr's watch!!
He followed the anti-employee / anti-union practices of Reagan!!!
Ever try firing someone protected by the union? Lawsuits abound. Gov't will defend the union too.
Ok let me get this straight.
Reagan enters office in January 1981, and in 1982 (1 year later) it shoots up to 10.8%. You blame Reagan for that, fine.
Obama enters office in January 2009, and in 2010 (1 year later) unemployment headed to 10%+. Are you going to blame Obama for that?
Laughable!!!
The economy was holding steady when Carter left office: the unemployment rate was 7.5% when he took office, and was 7.62% for ALL of 1981. It went to 8% EIGHT months after he left, 9% FOURTEEN months after he left, and 10% TWENTY months after he left.
You simply cannot deny that Obama walked in and the economy was in a free fall.
There is NO COMPARISON to what Reagan walked into and subsequently trashed, and the trash that Obama walked into.
Unemployment was 7.5% when Carter left, inflation and IRs were at all time highs. It all comes back to lag, which you can't see to understand. December 1982 it hit its high at 10.8%, you want to blame that on Reagan? Fine. When unemployment hits 10%+ next summer, I expect you to be blaming Obama. When Bush left office unemployment was at 7.5%. It will peak at about the same time frame (next summer/winter) as the Carter/Reagan cycle. The scenario isn't a whole lot different, but you keep thinking it is. Not every boom/bust occurs in the same timeframe; if you want to think that it does though be my guest.
"December 1982 it hit its high at 10.8%, you want to blame that on Reagan?"
------------------------------------------
Well, YES!
Only a republican't putting party first and country last would not want to blame "ronnie the rat" raygun for an unemployment rate of increasing from 7% to 10.8% during his first TWO YEARS!
My point is that the unemployment rate was STILL over 10% after a FULL TWO and a HALF years of raygunomics, and only improved to almost the post-WWII AVERAGE of 5.6% after 8 miserable years! That's terrible!