Benefits? It's about the cost and the process!

One week later and there is no BO-Care "bounce" in the polls!

The Wash Post has an interesting analysis: Washington Post poll finds split on health-care law remains deep

Why haven't the numbers changed?

It's "spending money that we don't have" and a process that made sausage making look attractive in contrast.

Prof Samuelson has more on the budget outlook:

"Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings.

A further irony will not escape historians.

For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis.

The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered -- though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain."

Fred Hiatt writes this:

"According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last week, Obama's budget plan has the government spending one-quarter of the national economy (25.2 percent of gross domestic product) 10 years from now, while collecting revenue that's less than one-fifth (19.6 percent).

Such a gap isn't sustainable for any country.

The United States would have to borrow so much money that in interest alone the government would be spending 4.1 percent of GDP -- compared with 1.4 percent this year."

That's it! Most of us are concerned about spending money like this. You can't spend money that you don't have, no matter how noble the objective may be!

The second reason is the "process", a corrupt performance that has left a bad taste in people's mouths.

How can anyone support the way that votes were bought and deals were made?

And last but not least! What exactly is in this bill? Does the language of the bill match the political promises?

For example, there appears to be a contradiction on pre-existing conditions:

"William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said:

“The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy.

But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition.

And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”" (NYTimes)

Check out "Monday morning thoughts":