This Just About Ought to Kill ObamaCare

It's a shame this was released on a Saturday:

CBO Deals New Blow to Health Plan

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

[SNIP]

... on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

Over $1 trillion, conservatively, in spending. Only $2 billion in savings.

That's a real bargain for you.

Naturally the Obama administration is claiming that the "real savings" are intangible, not monetary. I'm sure that's going to go over real well with the American people. The immediate question is how it will go over with the allegedly frugal "Blue Dogs" who say they are trying to increase ObamaCare's savings potential.

On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.

"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a score-able offset."

But score-able offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes.

The inanity of the Obamatrons is immense: The point of the proposal "was never to generate savings"? That's all we've heard about since Obama started pushing his plan.

Belt-and-suspenders? How about bull-and-manure!

With the new CBO announcement, just how much "significant change" will it require to get the Blue Dogs on board?

It shouldn't be possible, but I don't trust the Blue Dogs.