Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
I never felt so guilty and happy at the same time as when Sebelius took the job in D.C.
When she left Kansas, the I.Q. of the state went up 10 points.
I just felt guilty for allowing her to further pollute D.C.
And she has done a fine job (of polluting)....
As an example:
Kathleen Sebelius Thinks You
Sebelius argues first that:
In the decade before the law was passed, national health expenditures increased about 7 percent a year. But in the past two years, those increases have dropped to less than 4 percent per year, saving Americans more than $220 billion.
It takes real chutzpah for the Obama administration to make this argument. As the administrations own actuaries and experts have pointed out, the slower growth of health spending has been very largely a product of the weak economy of the Obama years, and has essentially nothing to do with Obamacare. In fact, the very HHS document that the online version of Sebeliuss op-ed links readers to in that very paragraph quoted above says the low rate of estimated growth in overall health spending in 2011 largely reflects the lingering effects of the recent recession and modest recovery. Modest indeed.
Whats more, that very same document (prepared by the National Health Expenditures team at HHS, whose members work for Sebelius) also says In 2014, national health spending is projected to rise to 7.4 percent, or 2.1 percentage-points faster than in the absence of reform. In other words, even the administration expects that Obamacare will cause health-spending to accelerate significantly, not to slow. Sebeliuss argument plainly implies the opposite.
When she left Kansas, the I.Q. of the state went up 10 points.
I just felt guilty for allowing her to further pollute D.C.
And she has done a fine job (of polluting)....
As an example:
Kathleen Sebelius Thinks You
Sebelius argues first that:
In the decade before the law was passed, national health expenditures increased about 7 percent a year. But in the past two years, those increases have dropped to less than 4 percent per year, saving Americans more than $220 billion.
It takes real chutzpah for the Obama administration to make this argument. As the administrations own actuaries and experts have pointed out, the slower growth of health spending has been very largely a product of the weak economy of the Obama years, and has essentially nothing to do with Obamacare. In fact, the very HHS document that the online version of Sebeliuss op-ed links readers to in that very paragraph quoted above says the low rate of estimated growth in overall health spending in 2011 largely reflects the lingering effects of the recent recession and modest recovery. Modest indeed.
Whats more, that very same document (prepared by the National Health Expenditures team at HHS, whose members work for Sebelius) also says In 2014, national health spending is projected to rise to 7.4 percent, or 2.1 percentage-points faster than in the absence of reform. In other words, even the administration expects that Obamacare will cause health-spending to accelerate significantly, not to slow. Sebeliuss argument plainly implies the opposite.
