GOP health-care reform cost: $61 billion, cut deficit $68 billion

posted at 10:55 am on November 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf scored the new proposal from House Republicans on health-care reform and gave them plenty of ammunition to use against expansive and expensive Democratic plans for government takeovers.  Their plan, which relies on interstate competition, HSAs, and tort reform, would only cost $61 billion in the first ten years of the plan — or slightly less than 6% of what Democrats plan to spend to overhaul the entire system:

This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

Unlike the Democratic proposals, the bill would actually reduce premiums:

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market.  Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

Compare this to what Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth told Fox News earlier this week:

Premium costs will still go up under ObamaCare, and Yarmuth neglects to mention one thing about the costs.  Prices may drop — may — relative to what they would be without federal intervention, but the federal intervention costs a lot of money, too.  We’ll all be paying for that in taxes and fees assessed to insurers, providers, and innovaters in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries.  We just won’t see those costs directly.  It’s a shell game that Yarmuth and the Democrats are playing.

Susan Ferecchio has more at the Washington Examiner:

The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans. …

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

For the 87% of Americans who have insurance and who overwhelmingly like the system, this is a much better prescription for real cost savings, and without the heavy government intervention that threatens the liberty and economic stability of Americans.  The only people disadvantaged by this plan are those pursuing ObamaCare out of ideological animus towards the private market.

Update: Getting a lot of heat for my last sentence on Twitter.  The truth is, though, that there are only somewhere between 11 million and 14 million people without coverage due to poverty, and this would gain coverage for somewhere between 20%-25% of those.  It’s also not our responsibility to provide health insurance to the masses; that would be a choice, not a duty.  Over half of the uninsured are satisfied with their position and their care, which is different from insurance. And comprehensive insurance is the biggest problem with health-care costs in America, anyway.  Spending a trillion dollars to address a nearly nonexistent problem makes it clear that it’s a screen for another agenda completely.

Update II: Ezra Klein argues that this shows the superiority of the Democratic plan, which covers more people (about 30 million) and “saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.”  However, that Democratic plan doesn’t include the costs of the “doctor fix”, which apply to the Democratic bill because they use Medicare and Medicaid to expand coverage — which is why the Democratic plan will not save any money at all.  But let’s say for a moment that we accept that number.  Why would we spend an additional $1 trillion to “save” another $36 billion?  That would be a waste of 97% of the expenditure.

The Democratic plan “saves” money by playing around with pricing (and ignoring their parallel compensation boost), not through actual savings, and even those savings expire in the second decade.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Any reform’s going to do that. There’s a significant electoral mandate for making pre-existing conditions a non-issue when it comes to paying for treatment. Denying that over a slippery slope scare isn’t exactly the best way to win hearts and minds out there.

ernesto on November 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Yes, but there are ways to do it that distort the market far less. Health status insurance, look it up at CATO.

aikidoka on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Sort of like how Fauxbama brings in all kind of Radical Statists to do his bidding, while he can keep his hands clean.

Well, most people who read these comments should be able to ascertain whose side ‘Jimbo3′ is on by what he supports.

Trying to pretend to just be citing court cases and such, it should be transparently clear that he supports Big Government.

So what say ye, ‘Jimbo3′, do you support the Statists?

Why don’t you come clean with all of us.

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

–I’m usually a libertarian (okay, an inconsistent one because of this particular bill, but otherwise a pretty consistent one). I like less government over more government in almost every aspect of things, because governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector. But that’s different from saying this is unconstitutional. It’s not the way I read the cases and the current Supreme Court.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I guess we can expect a green masters jacket with the Presidential seal in our future then.

Koa on November 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM

It is pre-ordained that the 2010 Masters has already been won by Obama for wanting to play golf as well as Arnold Palmer, looking something like Tiger Woods, and intending to become a member of the PGA.

highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

And btw, labeling something as merely a slippery slope scare isn’t a way to win hearts and minds either.

aikidoka on November 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Plus, she shut down cameras for today and Saturday’s vote will be “closed door”.

Schadenfreude on November 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I’m putting the marker down today. There will not be a healthcare vote on Saturday because she will not have been able to secure enough votes to ensure passage.

highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Jimbo3 is a good lawyer. He states other people’s opinions very well and, rarely, states his own.
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

He had better realize that with the direction this nation is heading, there will only be two sides:

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
Abraham Lincoln
Source:April 18, 1864 – Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland

Two sides: liberty and tyranny.

Which side are you on Jimbo3?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

The level of government where the monetary system resides cannot be the same level where bottomless pits of entitlements exist. That’s the classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Excellent point!

I will have to file this in the gray matter file cabinet.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Here’s an even better idea. Why not just leave things alone with “health care” and work overtime staying out of the way of private enterprise generating more jobs.

kens on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

But that’s different from saying this is unconstitutional. It’s not the way I read the cases and the current Supreme Court.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Whether you pray at the altar of precedent, or not, no ruling can amend the Constitution. The federal government is Constitutionally prohibited from entering into health care, and clearly from opening a company to “provide competition” and jumping into the market, no matter what cr@ppy decisions have been made.

We are not the UK. We have a Constitution. It seems that too many have lost the importance of that. A bad ruling is a bad ruling. People who take precedence over the Constitution don’t understand our system and would be more at home in the UK, where the governmental system they seem to prefer is operative.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 12:55 PM

–They’re not in opposition. The isolated incidents would be some situation in only one state, not crossing state lines, with no impact of any significant amount on interstate commerce. Maybe I’m missing your point.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM
They are in opposition. You are talking about discretion being applied here and there, which is NOT the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment makes a statement about the enumerated powers of the Constitution, not deciding about some isolated incidents here and there.

You seem to very much prefer (or argue for, at least) and unlimited federal government with a few “isolated incidents” of restraint here and there. Don’t even bother referencing the Constitution when you are happy with the Rule of Man, instead.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Here’s the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Right now, there’s a 1995 case (US v Lopez) where the US Supreme Court struck down a federal requirement for gun free zones around schools. But in the 2000′s, the Supreme court upheld, with a few dissents, under the Commerce Clause a case where a California’s medical pot was seized by the US under a US statute even though she grew it herself and didn’t sell any. It’s tough to see a situation that would better lend itself to 10th Amendment protection than that situation.

This is from Thomas’ dissent: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

–I’m usually a libertarian (okay, an inconsistent one because of this particular bill, but otherwise a pretty consistent one).
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

That’s (support for ObamaCare) a BIG inconsistency. If this thing passes, our federal government will have carte blanche to create behavior laws:
- Fatty foods-
- Soda
- Smoking ban (oh wait good tax revenue here)
- Homosexual sexual activity
- Obesity
- etc.

Anything that is viewed as high risked can be regulated\fined.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

If we have a “right” to healthcare, do we have a right to food?

Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 12:57 PM

–I’m usually a libertarian (okay, an inconsistent one because of this particular bill, but otherwise a pretty consistent one). I like less government over more government in almost every aspect of things, because governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Are you or are you not Supporting Pelosicare?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

He had better realize that with the direction this nation is heading, there will only be two sides:

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
Abraham Lincoln
Source:April 18, 1864 – Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland
Two sides: liberty and tyranny.

Which side are you on Jimbo3?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

–I don’t see this as being a whole lot different than requiring car liability insurance. But if it were up to me, I would require everyone in the US–legally or not–to have this insurance and would then eliminate any requirement for hospitals, etc. to provide free care to the uninsured.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Here’s the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Your argument denies the bolded part, as you have allowed Commerce to include pretty much everything, which is why I said that your two statements were in opposition.

Right now, there’s a 1995 case (US v Lopez) where the US Supreme Court struck down a federal requirement for gun free zones around schools. But in the 2000’s, the Supreme court upheld, with a few dissents, under the Commerce Clause a case where a California’s medical pot was seized by the US under a US statute even though she grew it herself and didn’t sell any. It’s tough to see a situation that would better lend itself to 10th Amendment protection than that situation.

This is from Thomas’ dissent: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

but your interpretation of Commerce (as you have been arguing for the new Fannie Med) would be at odds with Thomas. I don’t get your point. You argue for just about anything being okay by Commerce and then like to refer to the 10th amendment, which specifically references the powers not delegated to the feds. But you think just about everything is delegated by commerce (and general welfare, too, I would guess) so your whole argument is just one of discretion in a few cases here and there. No need to refer to any amendment for that, since your decisions are not based on any Constitutional restrictions, only on your own arbitrary judgments (as everything is commerce and about th egeneral welfare). You also bow to precedent which means that the wording and powers delegated by the Constitution mean nothing to you, since they can be overriden for eternity with a quick, little court ruling.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I hope that you do not ride a motorcycle or a horse, or go skiing, or race, or do many things that us Texans take for freedoms.

Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

I don’t see this as being a whole lot different than requiring car liability insurance.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Except one is a state mandate. If a state wants to do this for health care\insurance (see MA), any state can.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Blinky seems to forget one thing: ObamaCare would allow for dismissal for pre-existing conditions, such as . . . oh . . . being fat, smoking, eating too much fast food, lack of exercise, drinking . . .

Stupid woman.

Ryan Gandy on November 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

The one thing Jimbo3 never cites are the Federalists Papers. Why 9 people in black robes are considered infallible is beyond me.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

–I don’t see this as being a whole lot different than requiring car liability insurance. But if it were up to me, I would require everyone in the US–legally or not–to have this insurance and would then eliminate any requirement for hospitals, etc. to provide free care to the uninsured.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

A person does not have to drive or own a car.

Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services adopt and regularly update standards for electronic administrative transactions that enable electronic funds transfers, claims management processes, and verification of eligibility, among other administrative tasks;

That would be a hell no. I work at a hospital and we are doing it on our own because it is cheaper, the free market incentive to have electonic medical records is already there. So is the interopreability between different systems. This is just an inroad for a politician to screw it up.

Theworldisnotenough on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

–I don’t see this as being a whole lot different than requiring car liability insurance.

Geez, hasn’t this been argued ad nauseam? You have choice in the matter, do you have choice with Obamacare (or Pelosicare)

But if it were up to me, I would require everyone in the US–legally or not–to have this insurance and would then eliminate any requirement for hospitals, etc. to provide free care to the uninsured.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM

So you don’t believe that people should be ALLOWED to exercise free choice?

Again, Are you or are you not Supporting Pelosicare?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

I don’t want a House Republican HealthCare Plan. I don’t want a Health Care Plan at all. The government should not be involved in any of it. Here we go again with this incrementalism. We allow a ‘little bit’ then the Democrats get hold of it and year after year, decade after decade it gets bigger, and bigger, and the public option gets thrown in to boot. Just stop. Stop legislating this completely.

Sultry Beauty on November 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The one thing Jimbo3 never cites are the Federalists Papers. Why 9 people in black robes are considered infallible is beyond me.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

–The Federalist Papers are statements of intent and belief, but they are not the law. My understanding is that alot of the quotes from the Federalist Papers were statements made 20 or more years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

The one thing Jimbo3 never cites are the Federalists Papers.

Good point. The Federalist papers don’t help anyone who’s trying to twist and pervert the Constitution, so … they just don’t exist. What would the writers of the Constitution know about the Constitution, anyway?

Why 9 people in black robes are considered infallible is beyond me.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

I consider them inflammable. That’s pretty close.

But, I don’t blame Jimbo. The religion of Precedence has been pushed for a long time. People tend to accept it pretty quickly, without much thought, and now we have a huge percentage of people praying to it.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Here’s the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Your argument denies the bolded part, as you have allowed Commerce to include pretty much everything, which is why I said that your two statements were in opposition.

Right now, there’s a 1995 case (US v Lopez) where the US Supreme Court struck down a federal requirement for gun free zones around schools. But in the 2000’s, the Supreme court upheld, with a few dissents, under the Commerce Clause a case where a California’s medical pot was seized by the US under a US statute even though she grew it herself and didn’t sell any. It’s tough to see a situation that would better lend itself to 10th Amendment protection than that situation.

This is from Thomas’ dissent: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM
but your interpretation of Commerce (as you have been arguing for the new Fannie Med) would be at odds with Thomas. I don’t get your point. You argue for just about anything being okay by Commerce and then like to refer to the 10th amendment, which specifically references the powers not delegated to the feds. But you think just about everything is delegated by commerce (and general welfare, too, I would guess) so your whole argument is just one of discretion in a few cases here and there. No need to refer to any amendment for that, since your decisions are not based on any Constitutional restrictions, only on your own arbitrary judgments (as everything is commerce and about th egeneral welfare). You also bow to precedent which means that the wording and powers delegated by the Constitution mean nothing to you, since they can be overriden for eternity with a quick, little court ruling.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

-I quoted Thomas because he was on the losing side. He thinks there is no real limit to the Commerce Clause powers. The Commerce Clause and other US Constitution powers, as interpreted by the courts over the last seventy years, have effectively gutted the “reserved” language in the 10th amendment.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

My understanding is that alot of the quotes from the Federalist Papers were statements made 20 or more years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Huh? You’re joking, right?

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

-I quoted Thomas because he was on the losing side. He thinks there is no real limit to the Commerce Clause powers.

No, he doesn’t. He WARNS against just that.

The Commerce Clause and other US Constitution powers, as interpreted by the courts over the last seventy years, have effectively gutted the “reserved” language in the 10th amendment.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

But you agreed with that gutting, expansive definiton of “interstate commerce” and then said you liked the 10th, in isolated circumstances, which is why I said that your two statements were in opposition to each other and that you were just arguing for an unlimited federal government with a few arbitrary restraints here and there.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM

The Federalist Papers are statements of intent and belief, but they are not the law. My understanding is that alot of the quotes from the Federalist Papers were statements made 20 or more years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Totally agree on what the Federalist Papers are. Judges are supposed to determine if a person, or law, is in compliance with the law. If the law is vague, should not the lawyer learn the intent of the writer(s) of the law before issuing a judgement? Thus, SCOTUS should refer to the Federalists Papers early and often in issuing judgements.

If something is unconsitutional, the founders gave us the amendment process to overrule the court.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Jimbo thinks to require someone to get auto insurance that will cover OTHERS from UNINSURED’S so a person following the rules & obeying the road laws doesn’t end up paying for the injurious behavior of the OTHERS is the same as requiring someone to pay for the LACK of OTHERS & telling them what they can or cannot do with their kidneys are one in the same. He’s VERY smart.

Sultry Beauty on November 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM

The Federalist Papers are statements of intent and belief, but they are not the law.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13

The Federalist Papers were detailed arguments by the Framers for the Constitution; to explain why it was needed, what it meant, and what it did. They were to sell the Constitution. Anyone who wants to know what certain parts of the Constitution were meant to do, or what they were put in for should reference the Federalist Papers to see if an explanation was given. The Federalist Papers are original intent in writing.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:28 PM

–I’m usually a libertarian (okay, an inconsistent one because of this particular bill, but otherwise a pretty consistent one). I like less government over more government in almost every aspect of things, because governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Are you or are you not Supporting Pelosicare?

I’ll answer that for you then – clearly you support the takeover of our healthcare system.

But you realize that is in contradiction to what you also stated.

In summary, you support the takeover of our healthcare system, even though:

“governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector. “

Now, why are you contradiction yourself?

And why are you supporting that bill?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 1:29 PM

-I quoted Thomas because he was on the losing side. He thinks there is no real limit to the Commerce Clause powers.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

That’s not what he thinks, or he would have agreed with the winning side. He’s saying that the winning side is basically giving the federal government authority to do whatever it feels like.

That’s a bad thing, whether some judges made it legal or not.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Thus, SCOTUS should refer to the Federalists Papers early and often in issuing judgements.

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Exactly. It’s odd how lawyers argue based off of precedents set by previous case decisions for almost everything these days, but don’t think the papers which give insight to the intent of the Constitution are important in the least.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Exactly. It’s odd how lawyers argue based off of precedents set by previous case decisions for almost everything these days, but don’t think the papers which give insight to the intent of the Constitution are important in the least.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM

SOrt of reminds me of Global Warming arguments. “Eric Mann’s chart shows that temperatures….”

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM

SOrt of reminds me of Global Warming arguments. “Eric Mann’s chart shows that temperatures….”

WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Or the Limbaugh quotes. We got them from this lefty website, that got them from this other site, that got them from this book which didn’t source them, which got them from wiki, which wasn’t sourced.

No attempt to verify the initial source as legit.

Lawyers do the same thing. They’ll cite 8 different cases as markers and argue a position based off of precedent, no matter how f’d up the logic behind the original case that started that chain was.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

My understanding is that alot of the quotes from the Federalist Papers were statements made 20 or more years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Huh? You’re joking, right?

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

–You’re right. I’m wrong about the Federalist Papers. But some of the quotes I’ve seen here were made in the very early 1800s.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Live streaming of the ‘House Call’ protest & speeches
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_wm.aspx

rayra on November 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM

About 10th amendment and portability and state mandates-is it really an issue? The bill creates the incentives for the state to offer thsoe insurance pools, nothing wrong with that. At the same time, portability issue – is the insurance company allowed to seek business across the state lines, if it is licensed by that state, where is it against 10th amendment?

anikol on November 5, 2009 at 1:50 PM

But some of the quotes I’ve seen here were made in the very early 1800s.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Yes, a lot from the Founders in their later talks and speeches and their Presidencies. But the Federalist Papers are details of the original intent of the Constitution.

progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM

AnninCA @ 12:17 PM

Come on. This can’t be that crazy-hard.

I’m pretty sure that the Boy Scouts managed to reduce it to just two words.

Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

As a lawyer why wouldn’t you be interested in the Federalist Papers? They’re insight into the minds of the guys who wrote the Constitution.

It seems like a much better tool than poorly decided case laws which then go on to set a precedent.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Why would we spend an additional $1 trillion to “save” another $36 billion? That would be a waste of 97% of the expenditure.

Come on haven’t you ever heard of “Buy Now and Save!!”??

Everyone knows when you buy something on sale, the bill doesn’t actually show up on your credit card statement, because you saved so much money, right? /sarc

txmomof6 on November 5, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM
As a lawyer why wouldn’t you be interested in the Federalist Papers? They’re insight into the minds of the guys who wrote the Constitution.

It seems like a much better tool than poorly decided case laws which then go on to set a precedent.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM

According to a law review article, they’ve been cited in more than 1700 cases, including the most significant early Supreme Court case (Marbury v Madison).

They are clearly very important, but they’re not the only documents available to help determine original intent (the notes of the Constitutional Convention).

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM

According to a law review article, they’ve been cited in more than 1700 cases, including the most significant early Supreme Court case (Marbury v Madison).

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Well that’s good to know, but I’m guessing nationwide there are more than 1700 cases a month. Unless I’m way off with that estimate, their percentage of use is extremely small.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM

According to a law review article, they’ve been cited in more than 1700 cases, including the most significant early Supreme Court case (Marbury v Madison).

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Well that’s good to know, but I’m guessing nationwide there are more than 1700 cases a month. Unless I’m way off with that estimate, their percentage of use is extremely small.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM

–There are not alot of cases with questions about the US Constitution, so not much reason to refer to these items in 99% of the cases.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 2:43 PM

You’ve left out some things.

Dave Rywall on November 5, 2009 at 2:43 PM

You’ve left out some things.

Dave Rywall on November 5, 2009 at 2:43 PM

The Dems’ plan has enough deficits for both.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM

–There are not alot of cases with questions about the US Constitution, so not much reason to refer to these items in 99% of the cases.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Good point.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 2:47 PM

ED:

Why do so many, like you, get this one wrong?

It’s Democrat, not Democratic…

And democratic should ALWAYS be lower case, at it’s a political system, not a Party.

Miss_Anthrope on November 5, 2009 at 2:50 PM

My understanding is that alot of the quotes from the Federalist Papers were statements made 20 or more years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

You’re far beyond Wrong: It’s difficult to take seriously anyone who says this

Janos Hunyadi on November 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM

You’re far beyond Wrong: It’s difficult to take seriously anyone who says this

Janos Hunyadi on November 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Jimbo’s already noted he was wrong on that point.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2009 at 3:04 PM

But that’s different from saying this is unconstitutional. It’s not the way I read the cases and the current Supreme Court.

Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Perhaps you should read the Constitution first before deferring to un-Constitutional cases and rulings. Just because a ruling goes a certain direction doesn’t mean its correct. Your later example with “medicinal plants” bear that out. Many of the 20th century cases are simply WRONG in regards to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is a summary clause that is defined in following clauses in that section.

Let’s review the original Commerce Clause…

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I don’t see any mention of providing for the general welfare of individuals.

From a strict conservative/libertarian position, Congress has no authority to create a business selling insurance to individuals, nor force them to buy insurance.

From a “feel-good/squishy progressive/liberal position, how does generating trillions of dollars in debt, undermining our financial stability and taking control of 1/6 of the economy… provide for the general welfare of the United States????

Seems to me, the progressive version of universal healthcare fails all flavors of reading the Constitution! This bill will NOT provide for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, it will greatly ENDANGER the general welfare of the United States.

dominigan on November 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Hannity is playing some clips from the Tea Party in D.C. today.

It sounds like a massive crowd, chanting…KILL THE BILL!!!

capejasmine on November 5, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Check out Mark Levin rallying the troops at the DC rally:
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/mark-levin-at-health-care-tea-party.html

onlineanalyst on November 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM

–I’m usually a libertarian (okay, an inconsistent one because of this particular bill, but otherwise a pretty consistent one). I like less government over more government in almost every aspect of things, because governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Clearly you support the takeover of our healthcare system.

But you realize that is in contradiction to what you have also stated.
In summary, you support the takeover of our healthcare system, even though:

“governments usually f**k things up and cost more than the private sector.

Now, why are you contradiction yourself?

And why are you supporting that bill?

Shouldn’t a big-ass Lawyer be able to answer simple questions like that?

Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM

“But Goldman in many ways crystallizes all that is wrong with the financial bailout, started by the Bush Administration, but carried on and expanded by Obama’s. Goldman has been declared a bank, not much different than the old Bailey Building and Loan, and yet they don’t take deposits or offer checking accounts. So what do they do? They trade, and they are trading as a federally protected bank, meaning they get to borrow at cheaper rates and they are Too Big To Fail.

How anyone considering themselves to be a capitalist can support this arrangement is beyond me.”

Charlie Gasparino from RealClearMarkets. His book is called The Sellout.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/171549-charlie-gasparino-another-crash-has-to-happen-again?source=yahoo

KentAllard on November 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Maybe the GOP plan will help pay for the party blinders y’all are wearing as you blow the horn for this joke of a plan.

Dave Rywall on November 5, 2009 at 4:04 PM

You keep avoiding discussing the quality of health care available to Americans as compared to the quality of care offered in other countries. How you can do that is beyond me! (Read NY Times Kristof piece today.) Just by changing the approach to health care in this country, preventative medicine being key, we will not only save lives, but also, if you are inclined to put the deficit before life, we will also save our treasury. How do you argue to save the lives of children by stopping abortions, yet so cavalierly put anti-big government arguments before American’s right to quality, affordable and most importantly accessible health care? Rest assured, the insurance companies are not at all interested in people’s lives…only their pocketbooks. No amount of competition will solve that problem.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

The CJ Political Report on November 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Um, Ed, the Republican plan saves American taxpayers money. The Democrat plan costs the American taxpayers 1 trillion dollars.

That is the relevant comaprison. Whether it costs the taxpayers money by increasing their taxes, or by increasing net expenditures, is utterly irrelevant. What matters is the total cost

Greg Q on November 5, 2009 at 4:29 PM

WTF???!!

ARE YOU ALL ON DRUGS???!!

Teh One has SPOKEN!!!

The opponents want to do NOTHING!!!

There IS no other plan. They HAVE nothing to offer.

WHY DON’T YOU STOP MAKING SHIT UP???!!!!!

/full barking moonbat mode OFF

manofaiki on November 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Spending a trillion dollars to address a nearly nonexistent problem makes it clear that it’s a screen for another agenda completely.

Bingo!

Ann on November 5, 2009 at 6:38 PM

We are watching the systematic destruction of our Constitutional Republic. There is no authority for the federal Government to mandate health care yet we have people on this board debating the minutia of the bill.

The Rockefeller CFR/Trilateral New World Elitists are essentially staging a coup de ta while the American people are basically in shock.Everyday another unconstitutional law is rammed down our throats with little or no debate. They have nationalized our banks, stolen private Corporations,stole over 900 billion dollars and now they are trying to nationalize our Health Care System.

For the life of me where is the rule of law? Just like Michele Bachmann said in a recent speech; “we are being ruled by thugs and gangsters”.The One World Order Elitists are using Barry Soetoro to implement their plan to create a One World Government as outlined on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

David Rockefeller, gazillionaire head of the Council on Foreign Relations, has said in his autobiography ‘Memoirs’, “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global, political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

I am sorry but debating bills that are illegal seems a little silly.We should be all trying to impeach these gangsters from office starting with Barry Hussein Soetoro.

Frankly, I am now starting to understand how Hitler was able to take over Germany.

ScottyDog on November 5, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Maybe the GOP plan will help pay for the party blinders y’all are wearing as you blow the horn for this joke of a plan.

Dave Rywall on November 5, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I don’t need either plan. Sorry you are too weak and lazy to support your own needs.

ClassicCon on November 6, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3