AnnotatedOpinions.com

. . . The simple fact is that insuring tens of millions must initially raise health-care spending. How else could the previously uninsured enjoy an increase in health-care services? It is, however, fair to ask whether the bills under consideration pay for those added costs and promise credibly to slow the long-term growth of health-care spending.

The Congressional Budget Office has answered the first question: The House-passed bill and the one before the Senate would offset the spending necessary to extend coverage with other spending cuts and tax increases. These bills would reduce the deficit slightly over the first 10 years and more later. . .

Samuelson disparages the budget cuts because Congress has not always enforced promised spending reductions. Congress has, however, repeatedly stuck with promised cuts in health-care spending — in 1990 and 1993 as part of budget deals that helped balance the budget in that decade, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Most of these cuts, like those proposed in the health-care bills, were gradual. . .

In his column this week, Samuelson cited a Center for American Progress study and seemed to accept its estimates. But according to that study, the bills under consideration would shave more than $1 trillion from national health-care spending and use half that money to extend coverage. Yet Samuelson says that isn’t good enough. . .

[AO: These are only a few of the issue Aaron addresses. Follow the link below for the full story. ] 

Three issues central to the outcome [of the Afghan war] should enter the public debate as his strategy is launched.

The first is America’s place in the world in the 21st century. Officials from Moscow to Beijing, from Iran’s revolutionaries to Somalia’s pirates, will scrutinize this last-ditch U.S. effort — and weigh their actions, reactions and interactions with the United States on how Obama’s effort fares.   

Failure by the world’s mightiest military power, backed by the largest military alliance, to uproot the Taliban — a force without an air force, armored corps, long-range artillery, satellite intelligence or powerful foreign backer — would vividly illustrate the limits of U.S. power. The consequences could dwarf those of the defeat in Vietnam, even if the loss of life was smaller. . . .

U.S. standing in the Islamic world is also at stake. The historic rule of thumb is that winners have influence; losers don’t. Winners get to set standards. Their ideas get more attention. Their leaders gain greater authority.  

And the outcome of the U.S. confrontation with various branches of al-Qaeda and the Taliban is pivotal to the future of the Islamic world. Almost a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Muslim world is at a crossroads. Polls show key Muslim societies are increasingly rejecting  extremism. . .  

Finally, U.S. interests in the wider region are also at stake, notably on two fronts.   

Obama’s strategy will deeply affect India, the world’s largest democracy. Long-standing tensions between Pakistan and India have taken the world closer to the brink of nuclear war than any conflict has since World War II. . .

Just as worrisome are the stakes with Iran, which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become for Iran what Iraq once was: a surrogate battlefield with the United States. . .

[AO: We encourage you to read the full article by following the link below. ]

. . . I’m not a huge fan of the House measure, but I was glad to see it straggle across the finish line, if only to keep the process going. And, by the end of the long debate, I was cheering for it even more because of the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents. . . .

The falsehood-peddling began at the top, with Minority Leader John Boehner:

“If you’re a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage.”

Not true. The CBO hasn’t said anything of the sort. Boehner’s office acknowledges that he misspoke: He meant to cite a study from the Medicare actuary estimating that projected enrollment would be down by 64 percent — if the cuts took effect. Choosing not to enroll in Medicare Advantage is different from “losing” it.

But Boehner wasn’t alone.

Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: “The bill raises taxes for just about everyone.”

Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of  households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

[AO: These are only a few of the “misinformation” she highlights and addresses. Follow the link below for the rest. ]

[AO: Here are excerpts from an op-ed by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bookman takes us back to 1961 Reagan to illustrate how ridiculous some of the arguments against Healthcare reform really are. ]

Judging from conservative rhetoric, the debate over health-care reform is in truth a fight over the future of American democracy and capitalism. Stopping the health-care bill is being described as an essential step toward restoring America to its rightful owners and rightful course. . . .

In a recording back in 1961, Reagan patiently explained, step by step, how the then-controversial proposal to create Medicare would lead to an America in which freedom was a distant memory. In post-Medicare America, government would dictate to its citizens where they would be allowed to live, what they would be allowed to study and what career they could pursue.

It’s a great case study in how elusive the line between reality and fantasy can be, particularly in the hands of a master illusionist.

Reagan begins by noting that under Medicare, the federal government would pay doctors for the care they provide. From that single data point, he weaves a portrait of America that none of us would recognize. . . .

Today, almost half a century later, we know how things turned out. Medicare did become law, as Reagan feared, but the rest of his horror story never came to pass. Government is not dictating where we can live or what we can study or what career we can enter. We remain a free people, in many ways far more free than we were in 1961.