Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obama at a town hall today :
"Here's my promise. ...[snip] We will not sign ... I will not sign a health care bill that is not deficit- neutral, that is not paid for. I will not sign a bill that does not have all the reforms that we need to lower health care inflation over the long term ." [E.A.]
Really? This is a pretty hyperbolic veto threat . If Congress sends him a bill that dramatically expands health coverage, includes a public option and is deficit-neutral over a decade ... he'll still refuse to sign if because it does not also have "all" the reforms necessary to "bend the curve" after the CBO's 10-year window? All of 'em! Does anybody believe this? ... Did he plan this enhanced threat in advance or is he just winging it? ... Maybe Barone is right . ... 11:54 P.M.
A Nation Torn! Who's confused? The New York Times, baffled by its health care poll :
Over all, the poll portrays a nation torn by conflicting impulses and confusion .
In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system. [E.A.]
Why does this show confusion? It shows realism. Their health care costs are going up--either way! At least they're "concerned" about that happening in each case. Is that an illogical pair of answers? I'm troubled by at the 23-25% of people who weren't concerned. ... The Times apparently expected voters to respond like partisan pundits and skew their answers to benefit one side or the other in the reform debate--as if they have to believe that one side or the other has a solution that will keep health care costs steady. They don't have to believe this, and they are almost certainly right not to. ... 11:46 P.M.
Room 8 's Larry Littlefield crunches numbers and concludes that, after recent rejiggerings, New York City public schools can no longer claim that they're underfunded . ... Too bad, Littlefield says, that the increase will mainly be going not for higher wages to recruit better teachers or for smaller classes, but to pay benefits--and not to teachers who are teaching, but to those already retired. ... *** Spoiler!***: Unions are implicated. ... 1:59 A.M.