[dude1394]

About right...Of course if it were not for the "brawls" no one would be asking any questions and this cluster would be sailing through unread and uncommented on. If the dems would fix medicare and show us how it's done I think we might be onboard.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ing/?uniontrib

Union-Tribune Editorial

Lost in the shouting

Obama's claims for health overhaul must be substantiated

2:00 a.m. August 17, 2009
It didn't take long for the debate over President Barack Obama's push to overhaul the U.S. health care system to degenerate into a depressing brawl.



Critics of the proposal focus on non-existent “death panels,” as if Obama's main goal is to systematically kill off unhealthy, unworthy Americans. Supporters says opposition is driven by racial animus, as if there isn't a history in U.S. politics of public resistance to big changes in medical care. Both sides, ridiculously enough, accuse each other of actions with Nazi overtones.



We wish the debate would get back to the basics – specifically, two key claims routinely made by the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.



The first claim is that a health overhaul actually would save vast amounts of money in the long run. In June, the Congressional Budget Office shredded this assertion with a study showing that the two main proposals before the Senate would add $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.



This led Obama and other Democratic leaders to float a series of trial ballons on what taxes might be raised to cover this gap. When each met a hostile reception from rank-and-file lawmakers, what did the president, Pelosi and Reid do? They went back to their old claims that a health overhaul would save money.



The president said so in comments last week at a New Hampshire town hall. Pelosi and Reid made the assertion in a USA Today column.



The trio need to be pressed on what they know that the CBO doesn't. They also need to explain why just a month ago they implicitly acknowledged there were no cost savings by seeking tax hikes to finance the overhaul.



The second claim is that a health overhaul would not affect individuals who are satisfied with their existing insurance plans.



Really? The day the overhaul took effect, businesses that now provide health insurance at an average cost of 12 percent to 14 percent of payroll would have the option of dropping their coverage and paying a fee equal to 8 percent of their payroll to the federal government, which would provide the benefit.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have to know that this would give businesses a huge incentive to drop coverage, thus affecting millions of Americans who are happy with their existing plans.



The private coverage that did survive this federal assault wouldn't be home-free yet, however. After a grace period of a few years, all health insurance would have to meet federal standards. By every indication, these standards would greatly expand what health plans have to cover, leading to a big increase in the cost of premiums.



This issue and the cost question are what the debate should focus on – not the sideshows. Democrats need to back their claims.