I don't hear much policy coming out of Washington these days. Everything seems to be intended to make life easier for Kitty Litter and the other airheaded news readers on Cable.

Maybe we are too stupid to govern ourselves.

What makes you think they're trying to govern?

It's an absurd way to try to govern.

And this differs from normal how?

Dems make things so complicated. They should just follow the GOP lead on this. Take the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, for example. When it looked like this bill was going to cost too much, the GOP just sent someone over to CMS to strongarm the actuary. Presto! The bill cost less overnight.

I'm starting to believe the system is irrevocably broken, and it's primarily because of the Senate, a legislative body that is entirely without merit to begin with.

I propose we abolish the Senate.

The other reason it's BS is because these are estimates. No one has any idea 10 years out what projected savings will materialize or what other factors (population growth, economy) will increase costs. They could have a bill that projects at 1.000 trillion and it could end up costing 1.050 trillion- oh noes! (And forget about inflation- 1 trillion over 10 years is less than 1 trillion of current dollars.)

A few days ago, Ezra Klein had a post that said something to the effect that the House proposal, in which anybody would be able to purchase health insurance in the proposed exchange at any time, would cost up to $3 trillion--all of which would be paid for by premiums and savings. The plan would pay for itself and is far superior for all Americans, but its doomed by it's size--not because of the American people, but because of Senate Dems and the likes of Grassley.

Frustrating.

Why don't we pay these people what they are worth? Some nice round number like $0. Doesn't get any rounder than that.

Don't forget....actually governing is less important than getting reelected.

It's an absurd way to try to govern.

"Consider a Congressman, then consider an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain, 1872

Plus ca change...

"Specter (a Republican at the time)

Was that when the swing seat he was riding happened to be on the right side of the limb?

It's an absurd way to try to govern.

Perhaps they should follow The Palin Example and quit for the good of the country. After all, it's about Country First.

Grassley said during an appearance on Bloomberg News. "I think it has to be there or under to be explainable to the people."

Republican to English translation:

When we attack Dems on the issue, we want to be able to use that scary "t" word so are dittohead base more easily and reflexively understands the horror of it all.

Krugman: "Add in the cost of this expansion [i.e. the H.E.L.P. proposal], and we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion...it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade...much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits."

Benen is correct. Arbitrary numbers are ridiculous. Health care reform would be an investment, not an expense. There's a big difference.

I think that the messy looking $1.2T is preferable to the neat round $33T that we're already projected to pay for health care in the future? Zero fetishists shouldn't be indulged.

Doesn't the HELP committee already have a bill for under a trillion? I thought it was only scored at around 600 billion, with a public option.
It's become clear that the Finance Committee, chaired by health insurance industry buddy Baucus, will do everything in its power to avoid passing real reform. They could just take the HELP proposal and go with that--but Baucus is a complete phoney who claims to have been studying reform for years, yet still can't come up with a plan because everything has to be okayed by his big donors and Republicans who clearly don't want reform.

TPM has a rundown of the former Baucus staffers who lobby for the "healthcare" industry--

Roger Blauwet, Baucus' tax counsel, who now lobbies for Merck, Wyeth, and other pharmaceutical interests

Jeff Forbes, Baucus' former chief of staff, who represents the interests of several pharmaceutical companies

Scott Olsen, a one-time Baucus policy adviser, has been a lobbyist for Amgen since 2004.

Melissa Wier, Baucus' former chief trade counsel, who lobbies for Assurant and Ace Limited insurance companies

A bipartisan bill means that the Republicans will agree to oppose it.

Snyder is right - I would just phrase it this way: the fect that Max Baucus is fighting tooth and nail for Insurance companies is NOT arbitrary. More like quid pro quo.

Of course, that's a figure that is for 10 years- & a lot of people won't think of it that way. You would never heard the bill for the Department of defense put that way. The Democrats need to start talking dollars per year, if they want to build public support.

We ought to know by now they aren't going to vote for it no matter the cost.

Well, Ben Nelson might.

*sigh*

And it's not like it will really cost a trillion dollars. It's a trillion dollars less than we already spend, dammit.

"...You would never heard(sic) the bill for the Department of Defense put that way." Eric @ 2:28 PM.
The Department of Defense has to operate on a year-by-year budget; supposed to make the military dependent on the civilians.

what i don't get is that the iraq war is at $1 trillion and counting. congress authorized that much for a six year period. you don't hear about whether we can afford that or not. yet, it's somehow an astronomical and unrealistic budget to secure the health of a nation. go figure...

Most of the mainstream media seems to be stressing the cost of the package, not the contents. I'd like to see what's in the package. Has Sen. Baucus a summary available?