Thursday, July 28, 2011
New numbers, no surprise: Affordable Care Act anything but affordable
posted at 9:50 am on July 28, 2011 by Tina Korbeprinter-friendly
We already knew this, but, today, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid released a 10-year forecast that confirms it: National health spending will grow at a rate faster than it would have if Obamacare had not passed. The Washington Times reports:
Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a 10-year forecast by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Thursday. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually. …
The federal government is projected to spend 20 percent more onMedicaid, while spending on private health insurance is expected to rise by 9.4 percent. …
“Simply put, this report states the obvious, that Americans have known for more than a year – the $2.6 trillion law only makes the fundamental problem of skyrocketing health care costs worse,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
The White House responded to the report in a blog post, spinning the report to emphasize, “National Health Expenditures Reach Historic Low.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy deParle writes:
But the report doesn’t tell the whole story.
The Affordable Care Act creates changes to the health care system that typically don’t show up on an accounting table. We know these new provisions will save money for the health care system, even if today’s report doesn’t credit these strategies with reducing costs.
The report comes just as the legal challenges to the ACA reach the Supreme Court. At the same time, ads from RepealItNow.com report the drive for congressional signatures on a petition for repeal continues to be successful. In the ads, a congenial Mike Huckabee says the coalition needs the signatures of just four senators to make repeal possible. (Maybe those same four senators could revive Republican hopes of Cut, Cap and Balance!) That’s a stretch, of course — the best strategy for repeal remains to capture the Senate and White House in 2012 (and as much as I don’t want to admit it, that’s the best strategy for Cut, Cap and Balance, too). But the point is, grassroots organizations continue to bring the heat, even as health care reform seems to have fallen off the radar in debt and deficit discussions and in national news media, in general. This new report only provides more fodder for their efforts.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean the report is good news. Rising health costs affect us all and, frankly, seem especially daunting in light of our present economic outlook. So, as someone who has accepted that entitlement programs won’t carry me through retirement or future health problems, I find it helpful to remember that the best approach to health care to keep personal costs down, at least, is to attend to the basics — you know, right diet, regular exercise and ample sleep. Easier said than done, of course, but still worth attempting.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Perry pulls into statistical tie with Romney in Gallup poll
posted at 12:05 pm on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
Of all the potential late entrants into the Republican nomination contest, the one who gives Mitt Romney the toughest fight is Rick Perry, according to the latest Gallup poll. If Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani all get into the race, Perry comes in just two points behind Romney and ahead of Palin and Giuliani, while Michele Bachmann falls to fifth place — well within the margin of error:
Mitt Romney is the leader for the GOP nomination among the current field of official candidates, supported by 27% of Republicans, compared with 18% for Michele Bachmann. However, Rick Perry would essentially tie Romney, with Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani close behind, in a scenario in which all three of these undecided candidates entered the race.
Gallup asked respondents to choose among all 11 current and potential candidates, and then asked for their second and third choices. The second and third choices are used to simulate preferences when certain combinations of unannounced candidates are excluded from the race. Three such scenarios include the eight announced candidates plus one of the unannounced candidates. Palin, Perry, and Giuliani finish in no worse than a statistical tie for second place when each is pitted against the eight firm candidates.
If only Perry gets in the race, he starts off five points behind Romney — and five points ahead of Bachmann, who loses four points in the transaction. Palin comes in at 15 if alone, one point behind Bachmann in a statistical tie for second place, while Giuliani gets 14%, three behind Bachmann for third place, without Palin or Perry. Romney holds 23% in each model.
The numbers between conservatives and moderates/liberals are also interesting. Gallup didn’t run separate models for that breakdown as they did with the overall numbers, but if all three jump into the race, Perry ties Romney for the lead with conservatives at 18%. His support drops off considerably with moderates/liberals, finishing tied for fifth place with Bachmann. Giuliani wins that demographic at 16%, two points ahead of Romney and Palin. Somewhat surprisingly, Palin only scores 11% among conservatives, a fourth-place finish behind Romney, Perry, and Bachmann.
Needless to say, the other candidates in the field barely change positions with or without the three late entrants. All of them had better hope for lightning to strike in Ames in a couple of weeks, at the debate and then at the straw poll. Without some sort of breakout performance, an entry of any of the three maybes will swamp out any hope of getting the kind of media attention that will build momentum in the fall
CBO: Reid bill a bigger reduction in spending … barely
posted at 11:25 am on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
The Washington Times reports today that the duel of spending reduction bills may be won by Harry Reid. The CBO scored Reid’s proposal better than John Boehner’s on actual reductions in spending, although neither takes a machete to the budget. In fact, the difference is almost indistinguishable:
The Congressional Budget Office said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would raise the government’s borrowing limit by $2.7 trillion, and cut $2.2 trillion from future spending, chiefly by limiting the amount of money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
The CBO analysis could give momentum to Mr. Reid’s plan, though the GOP says spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was going to drop anyway, and so shouldn’t be considered as future savings. …
The CBO said the Senate bill’s discretionary spending cuts would result in $840 billion in lower authorized spending, and $750 billion in actual lower outlays over the next decade. The Senate bill also capped spending on the two wars at $450 billion over the next decade, which would mean spending authority is $1.2 trillion lower, and actual outlays would be $1 trillion lower.
Reid’s advertising his proposal as authorizing $2.2 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion debt-ceiling increase, but most of those cuts would happen anyway. Reid counts dollars spent on the war at current rates as part of the savings when the drawdowns occur, savings that are already in place. Instead, his bill cuts in 10 years roughly half of the annual budget deficit, averaging $75 billion a year, which is roughly nineteen days of borrowing at current deficit rates.
That’s an improvement over Boehner’s bill, but not by much. Boehner would save $710 billion over the next decade, averaging $71 billion a year, which accounts for 17.3 days of borrowing at the current rate of deficit spending. That’s more of a distinction without a difference. Boehner’s bill would only authorize a $900 billion hike in the debt limit, however, which would force a new round of cuts before next year’s election. Unlike Reid’s proposal, Boehner assumes that the savings in war funding have already taken place.
Boehner promised to go back and rewrite the House bill to get more savings out of it. Given these figures, that shouldn’t be a terribly difficult task. However, at this point, it looks like the two chambers are close enough in figures and approaches to pass their bills and get a conference committee to deal with the differences, which is probably what will happen by the end of the week.
Euro Posts Weekly Gain After Two Weeks of Losses
EuroThis week was “a mixed blessing” for the euro. For the most part, the currency showed a good performance as worries about the debt crisis subsided, but by the end of the week concerns returned.
The summit of the European Union leaders caused optimism among Forex traders, who anticipated some cohesive plan for dealing with the sovereign-debt crisis. The summit ended, a plan was presented, but traders didn’t look very happy about the outcome. Surely, some market participants were pleased by the plan of the EU leaders, but most investors aren’t sure that suggested measures would help to deal with the problems in the longer run, not to mentions concerns about expected Greek default.
The shared 17-nation European currency also get boost from the US, where politicians aren’t able to reach agreement about measures to battle the US debt crisis, making the dollar less appealing than the euro. But the decline of the euro against some currencies on Friday made traders feel uncertain about the euro. Was that drop just a minor correction or a first step in a long way down? It’s hard to tell as currently the euro, along with the dollar, is one of the worst currencies to trade because of its unpredictability.
EUR/USD jumped from 1.4109 to 1.4356 and EUR/JPY advanced from 111.58 to 112.75 over this week. EUR/CHF, unlike the previous two currency pairs, hasn’t declined on Friday, rose from 1.415 to 1.768 during this week and posted a weekly high of 1.1891.
If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Euro, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.
Earlier News About the Euro:
Euro Drops as Optimism Caused by EU Summit Wanes (2011-07-22)
Euro Jumps as EU Leaders Make Plan to Help Greece (2011-07-21)
Is Agreement Among European Leaders Attainable? Perhaps (2011-07-19)
Bad Monday for Euro (2011-07-18)
Euro Recovers on US Trade Balance, Threatened By Ireland (2011-07-13)
Battleground states looking grim for Obama?
posted at 10:05 am on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
National polls put Barack Obama in the mid-40s and slightly underwater, which could indicate trouble for him in 2012 — if the Presidency was won on a national popular vote. (Ask Al Gore how that works out.) National Journal took a look at polling in battleground states and sees a much bigger problem than national polls indicate:
In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.
Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac pollconducted from July 12-18.
Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.
The news gets worse from there. In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA pollconducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.
Obama also trails Romney in New Hampshire, getting edged by two points. More worrisome for the White House is Obama’s standing in these states, and others like them. Regardless of who the nominee is, having re-elect numbers in the low 40s is a clear sign that the state is up for grabs. And it’s not just these states, either.
If Michigan is in play — and it almost certainly will be — then Pennsylvania and Wisconsin probably are as well, and Indiana may already be lost. That Rust Belt band played heavily into Obama’s victory in 2008. Hillary Clinton Democrats, primarily white working-class voters, turned out for Obama in 2008, but those are the voters Obama is losing fastest in this cycle. National Journal wonders whether Obama can hold Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, but they miss North Carolina, where Obama’s standing has already shown to be crumbling, too.
Most presidential re-election runs have some element of defense to hold territory won in the previous election, but that may be the only strategy Obama can put in play. Obama won the Electoral College handily in 2008, 365-173. By flipping Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Republicans edge Obama 295-243. Swapping Florida for North Carolina still produces a 281-257 win for Republicans. Winning Michigan and conceding Colorado makes it 288-250 Republicans.
You can bet that the Obama campaign is studying the map very, very carefully in order to see where they want to spend money, and it’s mostly going to go in that Rust Belt area. Republicans should plan accordingly. That could be the key to the entire election
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)