Paul Ryan Exposes ObamaCare Accounting Gimmicks

The video speaks for itself. Paul Ryan exposes the accounting fraud used to make the Senate Bill "deficit neutral".


Your rating: None


Geez, its going to be 6 months more before a WH Press Conf.

After breaking Bush's record for the longest time between a Whitehouse Press Conference, today's Summit may add on more time before President Obama is willing to face TV cameras and answer Questions from any Inquiring minds in an Open forum ?

Reading the Healthcare Bill to Obama, who obviously has not read it, was an equivalent of watching a president get waterboarded, while he constantly interrupted his torturers with shouts of NO, NO, NO, STOP !
His Jobs "Summit" 2 days ago had "zero" effect, and now this drubbing at the hands of the Party of "KNOW".
The polls from NPR to CNN to Rasmussen are all showing the same numbers, Americans do not want this HC monstrosity to be law, and by bigger numbers than any Democrat wants to see.


Obama did a masterful job yesterday, again no teleprompter, (I notice wingnuts have stopped using this stupid pet trick since the President beat their brains out in Baltimore), of showing idiots like Ryan and Alexander they simply have to come better prepared for a fight with the President.

Ryan in this clip is dissecting the CBO score, indeed he offers "his friends" at the CBO an olive branch at the beginning of his rant.

The TRUTH is the CBO scored the bill as actually REDUCING the deficit over ten years.  Period.  Ryan can go on and on for the cameras as to how it was all smoke and mirrors, but the GOP itself long ago agreed to use the CBO scores as the referee and umpire.

Ryan can yell and whine in the stands all he wants about balls and strikes, but the only call that counts is going to come from the CBO, and they called it for Obama.

Obama accomplished every goal he set out to achieve:

1.  He showed himself to be in intelligent, articulate command of facts, figures, and policy in HCR.

2.  He showed the GOP as bad actors, calling them out time after time on cheap stunts like Cantor's dropping of the stack of paper when he was beginning his statement, McCain's campaign stump speech, and Alexander's distortion of fact.

3.  He showed the Nation a Democratic party full of ideas and energy and desire to move ahead, and the GOP as bad-faith obstructionists willing to play politics and distort discussions to block progress and fight to the death for the lobbyists of the Health Cartel.

4.  He prepared the way for Americans to accept Reconciliation as a last resort after having shown the GOP as intractable and out of touch.

" MIssion Accomplished".


Where's the wingnut rants now??

" He's got no resume for this job!!"

" He' has no experience as an Executive!!"

" He is nothing without a teleprompter!!"

" He's a fraud!!"

Obama showed you, once again, he can be your worst nightmare, and he will continue to beat your brains out in front of the cameras at every turn.

The GOP trained, hand-picked their team, brought in expert ringers from Pharma, HMO's and Insurers, practiced, threw everything AND the kitchen sink at Obama, (notably, idiots and out-of-control freaks like Bachmann, Hebsarling, King, and others were left home), argued bitterly until they got their way over venue, over tables, seating, lighting, cameras, ANYTHING to gain even a shade of an advantage, and still lost, weakly.

At the end, the President read them the Reconciliation riot act, like a class that had been unprepared and had not done their homework, and told them flat out:  Final exam is going to happen with, or without you, and the American people will issue grades in November.

And the GOP slunk off to the aftermath, schooled by Obama once again.  Better luck next time, K?

The out-of-touch Party that had people like Sen Barrasso, (R-WY), making foolish statements like a $40,000 annual income family SHOULD only have bare-bones catastrophic coverage because then they would be better shoppers, was shown in its full regalia yesterday, and the bright TV lights were not kind to the ugly age-spots and wrinkles of today's GOP.

Fuzzy Math

Republicans are always happy to hold up CBO scores when it suits them, but when it contradicts their dogma, of course the CBO can't be trusted.  Ryan reminds me of a Karl Rove quote assuming a huge GOP back in 2006 when he said: "You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to THE math."  Maybe Ryan and Rove went to the same wingnut fuzzy math school?


Right Wing Math is a required course at


And here's the Philosophy requisite, Karl Rovian Epistemology:


We are waiting on the Rebuttal of Paul Ryan's points...Hello ?

All Quiet on the Rebuttal front ?   Lets List the Ryan points made in the Summit, that go un-addressed by the Dazzeling "O". provides the List, from Ryan

.....Here is the "Exposure" list..

"This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

• "The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."

• "The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

• "The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."

• "The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

• "The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."

• "Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy."



You, just like Obama and Becerra, couldn't refute one single thing Paul Ryan said.

Everyone knows it.  All they could say was what Paul Ryan acknowledged: The CBO can only score what's put in front of them.

And what was put in front of them was smoke and mirrors.

The Senate Bill relies on future cuts in spending to get even close to deficit neutrality and you know it, Obama knows it, the CBO knows it, and now anyone who has watched that video knows it.


Obama mostly hears Obama, and Jim D is in an Echo chamber

I notice you're not quoting any "Sources" that back up your Claims of the "O" being "intelligent, articulate command of facts, figures, and policy in HCR" ?

The Media says: 

“Republicans Brought Their ‘A Team,’” “Have Been Very Effective,” “The Folks In The White House Just Must Be Kicking Themselves Right Now”

David Gergen on the summit: Republicans had their best day in years

By the end of the televised event, Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes - nine minutes more than the 110 minutes consumed by 17 Republicans.  It must have been a Lecture series, not a Bipartisan "Summit".

HEALTH CARE IS DEAD, "O" killed it with a Summit and his own personal incompetence, with Bozo's Pelosi and Reid assisting.



First, I WATCHED a lot of the summit, 1speed (in reverse). 

Unlike yourself and your FOXNation wingnut friends,  I don't need to check with Rush, Hannity. or Glenn Beck to understand and interpret what I'm looking at.

But you want nationwide, mainstream sources (NOT Murdoch-owned propaganda tools like Fixed Noise or the Wall Street Journal or Hot Air)?  Here you go:


Here's USA Today

Obama dominated the meeting at Blair House, the presidential guest residence across from the White House. He challenged Republicans to defend their step-by-step approach to health care or come around to Democrats' comprehensive measure.

Here's John Heilemann in NY Magazine:

So what did we learn from the seven-plus hours of speechifying that constituted the much-ballyhooed health-care summit? First, that Barack Obama was the smartest guy in the room—and occasionally can’t help showing that he knows it. Second, that congressional Democratic leaders suffer immeasurably by comparison to the president. (Harry, Nancy, I’m looking at you.) Third, that the representatives of neither party were remotely interested in putting aside their tired talking points long enough to have an actual, ahem, conversation. Fourth, that John McCain remains as fabulously, irrepressibly cranky as ever. And finally, that congressional Republicans are capable of putting a calm and non-crazy face on their steadfast intransigence.

Read more: Can Democrats Take the Obamacare Plunge? -- New York Magazine   

Here;s the Washington Post


Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health-care reform

By Dana Milbank

Friday, February 26, 2010



Republicans had been hesitant to accept President Obama's invitation to participate in Thursday's White House health-care summit. Their hesitance turned out to be justified.



And you are using GERGEN as a trusted source??  The guy is a has-been that never was, and has become an embarrassing punching bag for O'Really and Hannity.  He hasn't said anything credible in like twenty years.


Curses!!  1speed, Foiled again by Jim Dandy to the Rescue!!


The Daily Beast says...........about the HC Summit

I know this is your favorite site......

"Was he trying to make the Republicans look bad—retrograde ogres who would leave uninsured babies to die in their cribs? If so, he didn’t succeed at all. On the contrary, they came out of it looking rather alert and grownup."


Yes, I like Tina Brown's Daily Beast

Great legs, and that Brit accent and her intelligence make her really hot.

I know a couple of the staff at the NYC office there, and they are also tres smart, tres chic, tres quick, and wayyy too hot for Right-wing nerd-bombs!

As to your quote, is that a blog entry, a commenter, who wrote it, wtf 1speed? Cite sources, properly!!

Eric Cantor looked grown up?  He looked to me like one of Gingrich's staffers being given a chance at the big boys'  table. 

He's slimy, too, makes me think of a Scoutmaster I would not leave alone with my son for more than a few minutes.

Consider yourself in the 22 percentile, a new low

This is really Jim Dandy.......................

President Obama's approval numbers in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll have been quite volatile the last few weeks but today reached a new basement level -- with only 22% expressing strong approval, and 41% strong disapproval. The 19% margin favoring strong disapproval is the 2nd widest registered since Obama took office, and the 22% strong approval number is a new low. Right after the State of the Union address, the strong approval/strong disapproval level was 35% to 39%. Overall approval/disapproval is now 45%-54%

The release of CNN/Opinion Research's February poll showing president Obama's approval rating at only 49% means that the president is now polling below 50% in 8 out of the 10 national polls released in February.

But if what you say is True, this will take a BIG Summit "Bounce".......

And another picture of your favorite from the Summit.



How about your 2nd Favorite and what they are saying ?

The folks you love at CNN, below, and your NY Mag quote agrees with Gergen, so I put it below,  with Gergen's quote...............

CNN’s WOLF BLITZER: “It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

• BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10) • BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.”  (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

• GERGEN:He doesn’t have a strong Democratic team behind him.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)  

 And Your NY MAG: Second, that congressional Democratic leaders suffer immeasurably by comparison to the president. (Harry, Nancy, I’m looking at you.)



"A Revelation"

Ryan's objection to the CBO score are not new, and not undiscussed; the bill is problematic for all the reasons Ryan describes... but no one, really, on the right, has offered much in the way of good answers on health care, a reality that was demonstrated over and over at the Summit. Hate on the existing bills... but what Republicans needed was a coherent alternative. That didn't materialize and the slew of "Chinese menu" options (some tort breform! some small business association health plans!) do not a solution make. And a number of speakers - notably Boehner, Barton and Barrasso - probably undermined the GOP's case by being one-note, elitist and high handed about the real problems poorer people face. Do I think Democrats can pass the Senate bill, or even Senate+ reconciliation? Not clear; but I think the main goal of the summit - which was to push Republicans to lay out their ideas - didn't result in Republican ideas looking any better. And that, really, is why Democrats saying doing their not great something is better than nothing will probably stick.

Hey, Reveal this on Google

Google :  Republican health care amendments rejected

You lefties need to watch more News channel other than PBS or MSNBC or CNN.  You're starting to look "Manipulated" and "uninformed" in your conversations.

And, here you are...

I realize this is long, but if you really want to see where Ryan was correct and incorrect (he's both, but overall just dishonest), you'll see this through:

I realize this is a lot of reading, but if you really want to see where Ryan was correct and incorrect (he's both, but overall just dishonest), you'll see this through:

After the Blair House Summit, a bunch of you e-mailed to ask what I thought of Rep. Paul Ryan's argument that the bill "does not control costs" and it "does not reduce deficits." There's a lot going on in Ryan's remarks ( ), so this might take awhile. But before we dive so deep into the weeds that we're seeing earthworms, here's the basic conclusion: Ryan's critique scores some clean points and also deploys a couple of dirty tricks, but it doesn't damage the bill's claim to reduce deficits and doesn't even engage whether the bill controls costs.

But let's begin at the beginning. Ryan says that "the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years" is $2.3 trillion. On this, Ryan is right, but misleading. In Ryan's favor, Democrats have artificially lowered the cost of the bill by pushing its start date back to 2014, even as its 10-year budget window begins in 2010. The 10-year cost of the bill is really only counting six years of operation. This was a deceptive effort to keep the bill's price tag under $1 trillion, even as the bill's price tag was really quite a bit more. Point for Ryan.

Ryan gets the $2.3 trillion by looking at what health-care reform will spend in 2019 and extrapolating that number out across the next 10 years. I'll trust that he did the calculation correctly. The problem is that Ryan uses the classic “This Is A Big Number" technique to imply that the bill is financially irresponsible, when putting the number in context would show just the opposite.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts the deficit far faster in the second decade than in the first. That's because the revenues and savings grow much faster than the spending. The bill might cost $2.3 trillion, but it either raises or saves $2.95 trillion, for a net deficit impact of negative $650 billion. So although Ryan uses the price tag to imply that the bill's spending is somehow worse in the second decade than in the first decade, he omits the information that's actually relevant for his presentation on cost control and deficit reduction.

I imagine the congressman would respond to my previous point by saying that he doesn't buy the CBO's estimates. His argument here has to do with how the federal budget is structured, or what's called "double-counting." And it's complicated, so bear with me. 


Social Security and Medicare both have trust funds which are supposed to store money to pay for the program's future costs. If a new policy saves Social Security $50, and the government then doesn't have to borrow $50 that it would otherwise have had to borrow to pay for Social Security, that improves the deficit outlook by $50. With me so far?

But let's say that the government then takes that $50 from the trust fund and sends it over to an education program. From the perspective of what's called the "unified government budget" -- which is the budget we use -- there's no difference because the government is not borrowing any more money. To use an example Peter Orszag favors, from an accounting perspective, this is the same as a parent giving his son $50. The parent may be $50 poorer, but the family's finances are unchanged.

That trust fund, however, has to eventually be paid back. If you don't leave the money in the trust fund, then you have to assume that other programs will be cut later when the trust fund's debts come due. You have to assume, in effect, that you'll take the money back from your son, or from another part of the family budget. Otherwise, you're double-counting the cash, because you're assuming that it lowered potential borrowing for Social Security (count one) and for the education program (count two).

According to Ryan, there's about $124 billion in double-counted money in the bill. Assuming his math is correct (and no one I talked to said it wasn't), that's a fair critique. What isn't fair is to suggest that this is about the health-care bill. This is how the government does its accounting.

The money flowing into the trust funds is continually used to pay for other government priorities. And borrowing for other government priorities is not built into trust fund estimates, even though that borrowing also competes with the trust funds in the future (live by unified government accounting, die by unified government accounting). This was true when Rep. Ryan voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and the Iraq War, and it's true now.

And many budget experts think it's the right way to do things. Though it's true that the trust fund will have to be repaid either through spending cuts or tax increases, the trust fund will be repaid. Otherwise, the government defaults and everything goes to hell. This assumption that the government will pays its debts is not only necessary for accounting purposes but also for, say, investing in Treasury bonds, or in the stock market, or any other facet of American economic life that presumes the continued fiscal soundness of the American government. You can argue, they say, that the government shouldn't use trust fund money to do other things, but that's not the same thing as saying the accounting shouldn't presume repayment.

But whether you think the accounting is right or its wrong, it's not playing fair to change it on the fly. By the rules that both Republicans and Democrats use, the bill cuts the deficit.

Wherever you fall on double-counting, $124 billion isn't much money in the scheme of this thing. Ryan gets his big money a few paragraphs later, when he makes a much more dishonest argument. The play here is simple, and it's beneath a politician of Ryan's reputation: He attaches the cost of fixing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate to the health-care reform bill.

For a longer explanation of this issue, head to ( ). The short version: In 1997, Republicans passed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate into law. The provision created a simple equation meant to hold down Medicare costs and cut doctor payments when they rose. But the provision was passed when Medicare's costs were uncommonly low. Suddenly, SGR was forcing huge cuts rather than the modest adjustments that had been intended. So legislators began voting to delay implementation rather than cut doctor payments.

The first delay was passed in 2003, under Republicans. Then again in 2005, also under Republicans. Then in 2006, under Republicans. Then in 2007 and 2008, under Democrats. For those keeping count at home, this is a policy in a Republican bill that Republicans delayed three times and Democrats delayed twice. What's needed is to reform the system so we stop delaying it. And we will need to do that -- and this is important -- whether or not health-care reform passes.

To put this slightly differently, imagine you're buying a new house. But your old house needs $20,000 in roof repairs. You will have to pay for those repairs whether you move or whether you stay, because you can't have your roof caving in come the next heavy rain. Are your roof repairs part of the cost of the new house? If you think so, then you agree with Ryan. If not, then you don't. The SGR problem predates health-care reform and exists irrespective of health-care reform's fate. Attempts to lash the two together are nonsensical.

This has gone on long enough, so we'll address the final point quickly. Ryan says that the chief actuary of Medicare says the administration is bending the cost curve up. That's not quite what he showed.

Rather, health-care reform initially increases spending to cover the uninsured. That raises the level of spending, but not the curve. The curve actually flattens. If you extend the trend out to the second decade -- which is what Ryan does in other parts of his presentation, including for the $2.3 trillion figure -- the curve goes down. Kevin Drum graphed it ( ), concluding that "a decade after the reforms kick in, we'd be providing health care to at least 30 million more people and spending no more than we would if we did nothing," which is to say, the curve-bending elements of the plan would've saved enough money to cancel out the new coverage expenses.

To sum up, then, Ryan makes some good points about the true cost of the bill and realities of the federal budget. But he purposefully omits any mention of the bill's expected savings, disingenuously attaches the price tag of a broken Republican policy onto the health-care reform bill, and selectively stops extrapolating trends when they don't fit his points. It's a presentation designed to make the bill look less fiscally responsible than it really is.

But don't listen to me. Robert Reischauer is the head of the Urban Institute. He's also one of the CBO's most revered former directors, in no small part because his relentlessly honest cost estimates helped doom Bill Clinton's bill in 1994. I reached him earlier today and asked whether he thought this bill made fiscal sense. "Were I in Congress and asked to vote on this," he replied, "I'd vote in favor." The bill isn't perfect, he continued, "but it at least has the prospect for creating a platform over which more significant and far-reaching cost containment can be enacted."

Gee, at least when "O" lies, he keeps it short

There's a Website that has put up Obama's last year of of Speeches on the Health Care bill, with just his Talking points/sound about redundant Baloney and repetition...Geez.

"The Time is past.....We must Act.....The time is ripe for action.....We gotta get it done.....the stars are aligned.....its time to deliver....right now....the time is now.....It has to get  done.....Let me be clear......We're going to  get this done....This is not about me.......Raise Health Care's Quality and Lower its Cost"

Here, ENJOY......

Repeating the same Mantra over and over hoping it would be considered truth, has NOT worked for the Last YEAR...other than 2 competing bills that barely passed each house, with 2,000 pages of 160 new Bureacracies and Federal Agencies,  HOW IS THAT SAVING MONEY ?  ITS CRAP. 

And you repeating the Repeats of Obama's Redundant BS just ain't getting it done....Dufus.   And you act like WE have not ever heard the LIES before ? 

We heard it already, SHADDDUP  !

And another...

This time I've not put the internal links, but they're within the linked post:

At last week's health care summit, Paul Ryan launched a broad attack on the fiscal soundness of President Obama's health care reform. rather than interjecting with a reply, Obama allowed the next speaker in line to make his point. It's possible that Obama, who had otherwise displayed tremendous command of the details of the issue, simply didn't know how to respond. I tend to suspect he knew he couldn't keep correcting every GOP misstatement, lest he receive even more disapproving press commentary for acting like a condescending professor (see, for example, Mark Halperin and Dana Milbank.)

In any case, Obama's passing up another opportunity to rebut Republican misinformation elevated Ryan into a party hero. Finally, a party stalwart made a factual attack that was not immediately disproven by Obama! Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard gushed:

Obama didn't even bother questioning Ryan's presentation. He changed the subject to Medicare Advantage. The expression on the president's face as Ryan made his case was absolutely priceless. Simply put, he looked like someone who realizes he's met his match.

Former Karl Rove aide Peter Wehner added:

It’s a nice model of how to shred bad arguments and untrue claims. And it underscores why Ryan is a rising star in the GOP.

And Investor's Business Daily devoted an entire editorial to challenging Obama to rebut Ryan's claims. I've been meaning to get to this task, but Ezra Klein beat me to it. Basically, Ryan has a few tiny arguable points, and the vast majority of his claim is pure hokum. The niggling, almost-true part is that the Democrats would cut money from Medicare, use that money to pay for expanded health coverage, but also count the savings toward extending Medicare's solvency. This is arguably a form of double-counting, but it's the same method both parties have used for years now.

As for the hokum: Ryan claims that the plan is phony because it ignores the fact that Congress is going to have to increase reimbursements for doctors who treat Medicare patients. The problem is, that reimbursement fix is going to happen anyway, regardless of whether reform occurs. So to count that cost as a hidden cost of health care reform is simply incorrect.

The broader point is that Ryan misleadingly portrayed the health care plan as hiding its costs, by phasing in benefits more slowly than costs. As I wrote on the day of the summit:

Ryan objected that the Senate health care bill does not really reduce the deficit, because it raises taxes and reduces spending over ten years, but pays out benefits over just six. If that was true, it would be a sharp rebuttal to Obama's claim of reducing the deficit. And you could certainly design a bill like that. By spreading out the savings over a long time and delaying the benefits, you'd have a bill that technically saves money over a ten year window, but starts to lose money by year ten, and to bleed more red ink after that.

But it's not true. The benefits do phase in slowly, but so do the savings. The CBO finds that the Senate bill reduces the deficit in year ten. It would reduce the deficit by more than a trillion dollars in the next ten years.

Ryan's argument holds a lot of superficial appeal to people who are looking for reasons to oppose the health care plan but lack a firm grasp of the details. On close examination it falls apart.

If Looks Could Kill

Obama would be up for the murder of Paul Ryan - Ryan made Obama & the Dems look foolish & unprepared. In fact, the Republicans were very prepared while Obama & the Dems certainly didn't seem to be. Obama himself looked churlish & petty with his snide commentary.

@ Whitehorse

Did you even read the previous two comments, Whitehorse?  They both completely contradict (with citation, I might add) your idea's about what Paul Ryan may have accomplished.


Citing links from single-payer zealots isn't going to gain any traction here. Maybe you should go hang out at TPM or DailyKos or something.

You can't handle what Paul Ryan Accomplished

RYAN:  This is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.  When you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does is it treats Medicare like a piggy bank.  It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare not to shore up Medicare solvency but to spend on this new government program.  When you strip out the double counting and what I would call these gimmicks the full ten-year cost of this bill has a $460 billion deficit.  The second ten-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.  Hiding spending does not reduce spending.  And so when you take a look all of this it just doesn't add up. 

Obama cannot refute Ryan, all we got in his response was a drifting off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed 'you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office.


You excel at attacking the messenger.

Both bloggers, while they would be satisfied with single payer, find the currently proposed legislation perfectly acceptable.  Kind of makes them NOT zealots, doesn't it?  By definition, I mean?  "Perhaps you should stop using that word.  It does not mean what you think it means."

Furthermore, both of their pieces contain complete citation.  More than I can say for your replies, certainly.  I realize it may not be fashionable here to back up assertions but I find it worthwhile.

Please tell me... don't know that this bill is acceptable to single-payer zealots because they know that it will lead to single-payer in the future.

I mean, we're way beyond that aren't we? Everyone knows what the game plan is. Why play dumb? 

Wait. What?

How will this move to single-payer?  What's your logic there?  It didn't happen in Switzerland, which is essentially the model for the current bills?  Why would it happen here, particularly when there's principled opposition to it?  It hasn't happened throughout Europe, generally, so why do you think there's some sort of unstoppable slide to single-payer here?

Link programs counter the

Link programs counter the cynicism and resignation that can result from watching conventional television news. Regards, Watch TV Online