Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

In case you can't make it out, that's 9,000,000,000.00. "Perhaps the largest check ever written," according to Wall Street watcher Aaron Ross Sorkin.

h/t Jen Doll

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Ed Morrissey also points out that the spread of opposition vs. support has drastically changed in recent weeks:

The spread against ObamaCare jumped significantly in the last week, as Harry Reid prepared his version for the Senate. It went from -2%, within the margin of error, to -18%, the largest gap between supporters and opponents.  The previous high had been 15 points at the end of September, with opposition peaked at the current 56%.  The new gap suggests that more core supporters have begun to fall by the wayside.

The big takeaway from the internals is, as always, independent voters.  They are looking a lot more like Republicans on this issue.  Where Republican voters oppose ObamaCare 83/13, independents aren’t far behind at 70/23.  Self-described moderates have fled as well, opposing ObamaCare by almost exactly the overall topline, 55/39.

[The current reform package] mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of that for younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those age 60 to 64 is four to five times greater than those 18 to 24. So, the young would overpay for insurance that -- under the House bill -- people must buy: Twenty- and thirtysomethings would subsidize premiums for fifty-and sixtysomethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)

Overall, health care lobbying has increased, exceeding $422 million during the first ninth (sic) months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. That's more than any other industry and a nearly 10% jump over the same period in 2008. The center's Dave Levinthal said the frenzy of new lobbying activity makes financial sense.

"If lobbying didn't work, people wouldn't do it," he said.

She's not perfect, but my goodness, what you see is what you get.

Perhaps the biggest of those [Democrat-sponsored budget] maneuvers was Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.

Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion.

And the net increase is that small -- yes, that "small" -- because Democrats are assuming that there will be $420 billion (that's half a trillion) in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs.

So the American public is left with two terrible options under ObamaCare: Either there are going to be unprecedented cuts to Medicare and other federal health programs -- or the program is going to be a budget buster on an unprecedented scale. 

What's more, note the Democrats' budget gimmickry: The $848 billion increase in federal health expenses -- from 2010-2019 -- is for a one-time starting period in which taxes and fees will have been collected for years longer than expenses have been paid out.  If the Democrats were willing to compare apples to apples -- not giving tax collection a "head start" but measuring after subsidies are being paid, as well  -- the cost would be far higher, over a trillion dollars. 

Yes, a trillion.  And it won't even cover all the uninsured.  I guess those costs will come the next time the Democrats have the White House and 60 Senate seats?