Charlie, I'm not sure if your correcting me or agreeing with me
I said, you can't lower the deficit without raising taxes. Then Cheez pointed out that you could also cut spending elsewhere, to which I had replied that if it was so easy to cut spending elsewhere, why haven't we done that all along? (and if we showed people how much money could go back in their pockets by cutting that spending, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to re-spend that money on healthcare reform)
Then cheeze made fun of my argument and I rolled my eyes at which point you entered and said, "its simple to cut the deficit, just raise taxes and shift spending"
It was a combination of responding to your first sentence, "it doesn't seem to make sense...", and kind of glossing over the rest of your conversation.
Basically I'm saying it makes perfect sense and you and cheez hit on the reasons.
And while I agree that the question should be asked, why can't we do the "savings elsewhere" part without the rest, I think it's safe to assume that a lot of these savings are tied into the things that also will cost money. I haven't read the CBO's report closely, but it's not like the pieces of the reform are all separate components. That part is not that easy.
the senate version uses a tax on high cost insurance plans (which is also supposed to bring down health care costs)
which is like saying the luxury tax will bring down the price of a mercedes benz. raising taxes does not control prices. it raises them
Perhaps, but in this case I don't think it's the taxed insurance plans that are supposed to see the lowered costs, it's health care in general. I don't know the details but I presume it is something like trying to slow the number of people who have those plans and use unnecessary services too much because they are "free" to them.