CBO (very quietly): Austerity Has Harmed Economy

From the we-could-have-told-you-this-would-happen department, via Brian Beutler of TPM:

Here’s the buried lede from the Congressional Budget Office, which on Tuesday released its Budget and Economic Outlook for the coming decade: D.C.’s deficit obsession has been quite effective at cutting deficits at the expense of the still-struggling economy.

“[E]conomic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent,” according to CBO’s projections. “That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur-including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects.”

...

In other words, the Rethugs are winning and America's economy is being sent straight to hell by austerity measures never really intended to benefit the real economy... except for the very rich.

Aside: I'd write more, but I have a lot else on my mind as I enter the real physical therapy period before my prosthesis is complete, which precedes a probably even more intense period of rehab after I receive the prosthesis in about a month. If I post even less than before, please don't give up on me. (Oh, and the big bills are starting to arrive... just remember, "we have the greatest health care system in the world... some conditions may apply... mumble mumble you pay out the wazoo... you are screwed... U!S!A! U!S!A! ..." [/snark])

Rachel Maddow Discovers: Myth Rmoney Is Absolutely, Totally, Completely LYING About His Position On Contraception, With The Help Of (Among Others) Sitting Republican Senators

I missed this segment five days ago when it broke. I was foolish to put it aside, briefly so I thought, when it happened. Rachel Maddow was appropriately diligent about the matter, and found the truth: Rmoney is lying about his position on the Blunt Amendment, and hence about women's access to contraception through their employer-provided health insurance. Despite repeated disclaimers by Rmoney and other Rmoney surrogates (including, e.g., Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)), Rmoney would, in fact, allow employers to prevent women from obtaining contraception through their employer-provided health insurance. Contrary to what he and his surrogates have said, he believes it is, indeed, the business of employers... religious institutions or otherwise... to make that decision for a woman.

Please view Ms. Maddow's segment. And, as GeeDubya Bush once said, you "won't get fooled again." I know many women for whom this is a go/no-go issue, so it is very important to know that Myth is LYING about it. Please watch Maddow's segment, and be enlightened if you aren't already.

Lying, motherfucking bastard. Scheming, selfish, deceiving bastard! Lying-straight-in-your-face BASTARD!

CPPP: If Rick Perry Accepted Texas Participation In ACA, Texas Uninsured Count Would Be Cut In Half

According to a new report, Choices and Challenges, issued by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (press release [.pdf], full report [.pdf]), thanks to "Gov. Goodhair" Perry's rejection back in July, along with other Republican governors, of his state's full participation in all parts of the Affordable Care Act, we are losing an opportunity to cut Texas's uninsured rate in half.

In other words, half of the people in Texas who have no medical insurance now would be able to obtain insurance, if Gov. Perry would relent on his heartless commitment to... well, to whom, exactly? His refusal is even bad for the state's health care industry! ThinkProgress put it this way back in July:

...

Perry’s announcement is an especially harmful move because Texas will benefit more from the Affordable Care Act than any other state. Texas was recently ranked worst in the country for health care delivery by the federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, scoring “weak” or “very weak” in nine of 12 categories. Perry’s office discounted the study as overly broad, and has argued that Texans’ real problem is personal health choices, not lack of health insurance.

More than 25 percent of Texans – 6,234,900 people – are uninsured, the highest rate in the nation. ...

...

Between Perry's dismissal of people's need for medical insurance (reminiscent of the CEO of Whole Paycheck a few years ago) and Mitt Rmoney's remarks about the 47% who are dependent on the government, this seems to be "National Republican Blame‑the‑Victim Week." They really are proper bastards, aren't they?

So WTF are Perry and three other Republican governors thinking? Matthew DeLuca at The Daily Beast attempts to answer that question:

...

Perry may not like the idea of expanding Medicaid,  ... Some studies show that without the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured Texans could climb all the way to one third of the population.

Health care is one of the state’s biggest industries, and hospitals in Texas are likely to push hard in the coming months to get the Lone Star State to take Obamacare into its warm embrace. ...

...

Let me insert a note: a quick glance does not show any change in Perry's position since July (ThinkProgress Aug. 27, Dallas Morning News Sep. 17). Resuming DeLuca:

...

The Affordable Care Act is supposed to go into full effect in 2014, but Perry says he will not implement the expansion of Medicaid or creation of a state health-care exchange prescribed by the law. ...

“To expand this program is like adding a thousand people to the Titanic,” Perry said Monday on Fox News. “You don’t expand a program that is not working already.”

...

Could we please arrange for a deck chair for Gov. Perry? His disinclination to implement federal law (even if he is legally entitled... can I say "entitled" about a Republican?) reminds me of the Tea Party, or worse. Say, could we arrange for the TP to make up the rest of the "thousand people"?

Rmoney On Pre-Existing Conditions

I tell you, that man really knows how to charm a voter. Here's Sahil Kapur of TPM:

...

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” the Republican nominee said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “One is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage.”

His campaign later told TPM he wasn’t signaling a shift in policy and was instead referring to his existing stance in favor of protections on preexisting conditions only for those with continuous insurance coverage — not for first-time or returning buyers.

...

Such a deal! Sing it, Billie; it's the Republican anthem, only they sing it without irony...

Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own

Krugman On Rmoney/Ryan's 'Vouchercare'

Krugman at the NYT:

...

But back to the big lie. The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem.

Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs.

Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it “will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.” Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies.

Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs.

...

George Carlin said it very well: "The invisible hand of Adam Smith seems to offer an extended middle finger to an awful lot of people." I wonder if the late lamented Mr. Carlin ever met Mitt Rmoney or Paul Ryan.

ObamaCare: A 'Death Panel' For Private Insurance?

Rick Ungar of Forbes explains why he thinks the answer is "yes":

...

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

...

That clause, says Ungar, ultimately makes offering private insurance unprofitable. Given how the biggest thieves in the modern business world operate, I have my doubts. But the article is worth reading.

(H/T ellroon.)