Everyone knows the cost of the health care bill and want it defund. Will this special committee defund it or is it protected under the budget bill passed?

Congressman...when are you going to vote for repeal of billions of dollars in oil and gas subsidies instead of all this movement to pull the plug on grandma as republican senator Grassley tried to pin on others?

Repealing the 1099 provision was something that needed to be done which is why President Obama signed this legislation 4 months ago. Imagine how much better off we'd be if President Obama could also sign legislation to cut billions of dollars in oil and gas subsidies even oil company executives testified before congress they did not need...perhaps congressman Forbes can get serious on this waste of tax payer money as well?

I have to take exception to the congressman's claim that a vote to repeal the health care law will yield 'potential' savings. I believe this is an outright lie to convey such a misleading claim and it is shameful. Talk about fuzzy math...the CBO has already come out with its analysis and they convey a completely different conclusion, that it will CUT health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars over the same period. It is getting very hard to make judgments based on the claims coming from congressman Forbes. The congressman has cited statistics on regulations using figures that are over 10 years old and many constitutents regularly are complaining about the structure of your poll questions. Why is it that the congressman does not lay out both sides of an issue and then stake his claim allowing the voters to make their informed judgments? Isn't that what representation really is, or is everything a non-stop spin campaign. I do not believe we are being served effectively with this kind of thinking I find self serving and shallow. The voters are constantly having to shape the arguments here in order to provide for some balanced judgment.

I take several issues with your claims above, as I find them to be misleading. First, I don't like the use of the term "deficit" in your preliminary claim, as the deficit typically refers to the amount that expenditures exceed revenues during a one year period - as opposed to "debt" or “deficits”. Using the term deficit instead of deficits or debt could lead some to believe that the $500 billion over ten years is yearly savings. You also rightfully acknowledge that it COULD raise deficits. It also COULD reduce deficits. There is uncertainty in any budgetary forecast, as they are nothing more than estimates, but the CBO projects that we will reduce deficits (contrary to your point above). Beyond the fact that the CBO does not agree with you, it also perplexes me how the law adds $500 billion to the deficit over ten years, but eradicating the law will save $700 billion in the current year, when the vast majority of the spending associated with the bill takes place in the final 6 years of the decade…. Unless you are still referring to a time period of 10 years, in which case, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for enactment to cost $500 and repeal to save $700 unless you’re comparing two different time frames. I fear that I may need some independent attestation to any of those figures to buy into them. Many people might ask how in the world are we insuring 31 million more people (largely through government subsidies) without increasing deficits? The answer to that question is simple – by shifting the burden. While the costs will go up, it is projected that revenues will increase by even more. The vast majority of these funds will come from higher Medicare taxes on individuals making more than 250k, annual fees on health insurance providers, higher taxes on expensive health plans, and regulations that encourage businesses employing more than 50 people to provide a portion of their health coverage. There will also be some savings resulting from the mandate, which should decrease to some level the approx. 45 billion lost yearly to uninsured medical treatment that is never repaid. Aside from the potential mandate savings, these costs are real costs. There is no doubt that increasing these taxes and other costs (mostly on the wealthy and medium to large businesses) to fund lower income subsidies is redistributive in nature. That is a valid argument if you are against redistributive policies (the tax code is too progressive, etc.). Premiums may rise for certain individuals. That is a valid argument. There is no doubt in my mind that some measure of economic efficiency will be lost as a result of the increased taxes/fees. The question that should be in each voter’s mind, is how much efficiency will be lost and is it worth it to lose that economic production in order to ensure that affordable health insurance is available to all citizens? That is the real question – not this bogus notion that it’s about the government’s budget, or these bogus numbers created out of thin air. Perhaps you could argue that the additional taxes/fees will constrict the economy to such a level that tax revenues will decrease by a larger extent than assumed by the CBO, but you would need data and reasonable assumptions to back that up. What I would urge you to do is to stop giving us these watered-down regurgitated talking points and provide more details and more insight. I believe the larger portion of the voter population is much smarter than you give them credit for.

Health care in America should be dual service operation, with one sector serving the revenue based populous and the other serving the recipient based populous. The institutions and individuals connected to creating and earning money, should have affordable, appropriate medical services through competitive choices. The institutions and individuals who rely on receiving funding or aid should have appropriate medical services through the reinvested services of the recipient base from which they are a beneficiary. In example, through federal aid a person was able to recieve three degrees leading to a license to practice medicine in New York County, in eight years. Well for eight years that person should be required to volunteerily serve in New York County as a doctor or pay at a premium rate to the fund for the recipient based populous. Actually this concept should apply to all that receive assisance from the collected monies of the revenue based populous.