In the post below I discussed Lynn Woolsey’s blog post advocating hands off Social Security. In that short piece she added,
There are many better ways to reduce the deficit, including introducing the public option into the health exchanges created by the health care reform bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the public option would save $68 billion dollars over the first seven years. I have introduced a bill to do just that.
Someone on her staff needs to point out to the congresswoman that her theoretical $68 billions savings wouldn’t reduce anything except offset part of the added cost assessed by the CBO after this year’s massive health care bill was passed. I wrote about this in an earlier post, Lynn Woolsey: how could you support this mess?
And, of course, she and some of her colleagues just introduced a revived public option proposal on July 22, 2010. Armed with figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), she claimed it would reduce the nation’s massive deficit (by $68 billion between 2014 and 2020). However, the total cost of the new health care plan (with or without a public option) jumped after passage; the CBO reported that the plan would cost $115 billion more than previously assessed, putting the total estimated cost at over one trillion dollars — more than the president and Congress had promised. A “saving” of $68 billion won’t even put us back at baseline. Not to mention that costs will almost surely climb a great deal more in the future, despite assurances from politicians and public option or no public option.
Rep. Woolsey hasn’t understood yet that our overextended government MUST reform Social Security and other sectors of our federal obligations if we are to avoid economic disaster in epic proportions. She also doesn’t understand that her public option is not the panacea she props it up to be.