The thing that got me was, think of the logic: they have to come up with a bill and they wanted to come underneath $1 trillion. So how do they do it? Well, what they do is they say we're going to tax people over 10 years, but we're really going to start the benefits of the bill 4 years into that. So in other words, we're only going to do benefits for 6 years, but we are going to tax for 10, and therefore it all comes out to be less than $1 trillion. I mean, it is such bizarre math that it's laughable. If you said I'm going to start a lemonade stand and the first 4 years I'm going to collect money for lemonade and then I will start giving people lemonade at the end of the fourth year in order to make this thing come out, people would say you're crazy. You know, they would say this is bizarre. The other deal that was cut for the insurance companies--I mean, I just can't imagine why that didn't get more attention--you're a doctor and I'm a sick patient and you and I talk together about the fact that, Todd, you need to get your appendix out or something like that, and an insurance company comes in and they're going to second guess it. Well, if you make the wrong decision, you get sued as the doctor. But now here's a deal: you can make a decision, I make a decision, the insurance company comes in and says you don't need your appendix out, and then I drop dead and my wife says, well, the insurance company made a medical decision, they said Akin shouldn't get his appendix out.…
W. Todd Akin: “The thing that got me was, think of the logic: they have to come up with a bill and they wanted to come underneath $1…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker critiques the financial logic behind a healthcare bill and its implications for medical decision-making.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
In just about a week or so, we're going to be sitting down at tables celebrating Thanksgiving and eating turkey and getting a little sleepy maybe afterwards. But as we think about Thanksgiving and we think about the holiday of Thanksgiving…
On rollcall No. 376, 377 and 378 I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 376 ``aye'' on rollcall No. 377 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 378. Personal Explanation
On rollcall Nos. 75, 76 and 77, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on all three. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The…
On rollcall No. 360 and 361, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 360 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 361. ____________________





