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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
No, that won’t work. That’s the same kind of thinking that everyone suspects is going on with the current Dem bills.
They are simply paving the way to single-payer.
Which nobody wants, not even Democrats.
No, this bill shows the problem with the GOP establishment.
Step up to the plate and really change up the dialogue here with a strong bill that focuses on competition across interstate lines, eliminating the worst of industry practices, cost-containment, and lack of government intervention in personal decisions. Let government be the watchdog on practices. That’s an appropriate role.
Let them butt out of individual choices.
Offer a truly bold vision.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Interesting idea there, Steve. I like it!
But, if you had the option to shop around, and could afford a health care plan for your employees, would you want to do so, creating more of an incentive for them to want to work for you? Not saying you HAVE to, but would you if you could fine it affordable enough?
Highlar on November 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Instead of increasing federal funding, the feds should decrease funding, decrease tax rates, and tell the states to fill in the hole, if needed, themselves. Enough of this money going through DC and back to the states. That is INSANE!
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The only time an employer should start considering benefits as an enticement is when the competition in his arena demands it.
Employer-based benefits is about attracting talent. Period.
It’s not a moral issue.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
And even the trillion dollar boondoggle won’t cover everyone, by its authors’ own admission.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Yep NO ONE can understand even a 200 page bill. People need visual aids to understand the dramatic differences AND the insanity of Pelosi.
marklmail on November 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
ok, let me say that I think in the Commonwealth of Virginia, our State Corporation Commission (& its subsidiary), the Bureau of Insurance, decide on which insurance company can be licensed in Virginia.
So the portability/sell ins. across state lines issue becomes one that may agitate some 10th amendment protectors.
Even my total jerky Congressidjit (Perriello) made this point at a townhall. i hate to agree with him.
kelley in virginia on November 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
From the Frau Botox wanting a Sat vote thread:
Good question – with this type of ‘precedence’ what is there to restrain the growth of an all powerful government?
Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Yeah, he is right – that is admittedly a problem.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I do think the government has to do something. We’re headed back to a time of entreprenures. The ability to compete globally is dismal.
So what works for big business is going to leave too many people out.
It’s small business time. (Did anyone else find Obama’s attack on the Chamber particularly tone-deaf, given the times?)
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Of course. That would be more market oriented. I could (a) offer insurance, 401(k)s, etc. OR (B) pay my employees more money than my competitors and my employees take care of their own needs.
I think I can attract the young, go-getter employees with (B).
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I tend to agree with you, but we face this same problem with immigration. You see, if the liberals agree to go after ‘conservative’ reforms first (ie closing the border), they retain no leverage so as to push their reforms later. Here, if they go after torts and interstate barriers, the liberals will retain no leverage, and balk. They’ll summarily dismiss GOP alternatives with impunity, as they have done.
ernesto on November 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Seriously? That’s odd.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Life Panels.
portlandon on November 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM
So you concede that it is all about gaining and retaining power, then, not improving the system.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM
From the Frau Botox wanting a Sat vote thread:
–The Commerce Clause gave them this authority, along with an act of Congress.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM
So the federal government has the authority to do anything it wants to do as long as it thinks it’s good for us?
gwelf on November 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Good question – with this type of ‘precedence’ what is there to restrain the growth of an all powerful government?
Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
–I think there are no significant limits to what the federal government can do in economic-related matters under the US Consitution’s Commerce Clause, given the last 70 years of US Supreme Court cases.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I just talked to the man who will whip Perriello’s rear end next November. He will have to raise millions to compete at the fed level. He said his race will be one of top 3 watched (& probably financed) next November.
As we get further along, I will put out address etc.
But the problem with getting a new Congress next year, even the best of them won’t want to repeal an “entitlement”.
kelley in virginia on November 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I assume that’s excluding those Democrats who have specifically stated that their strategy is to produce a single-player system. Or those who have said they absolutely do want a single payer system, though they don’t believe implementing one right now is realistic. Like, say, Barack Obama. Also, it would have to exclude at least six of my leftist co-workers, who rather defiantly proclaim they believe full-blown, European-style single-payer coverage is the solution they’d also prefer.
In my mind that’s already rather a lot of nobodies.
Blacklake on November 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM
So the portability/sell ins. across state lines issue becomes one that may agitate some 10th amendment protectors.
Even my total jerky Congressidjit (Perriello) made this point at a townhall. i hate to agree with him.
kelley in virginia on November 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Yeah, he is right – that is admittedly a problem.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM
–Let me point out that the GOP bill requires states to either have a high risk pool or reinsurance. There are no speicified penalties in the bill, though. Doesn’t a state mandate also cause you some 10th amendment heartburn?
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Yes. The states retain the right to arrange mandates as they see fit. Like it or not, that’s our Constitution.
Like many here, I’m a big 10th amendment fan in general but it does complicate situations like this.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Insurance cannot cover pre-existing conditions and still be insurance.
You cannot buy house insurance to cover a house fire that has already happened. All you can do is buy a new house.
The only realistic method I’ve ever heard of to prevent people from being dropped / denied insurance for pre-existing conditions is to offer “pre-existing condition” insurance where people buy insurance policies to cover the cost of buying insurance should they develop a chronic condition.
It would be very similar to the disability insurance I currently purchase that will pay me 70% of my salary for the rest of my life if I ever become disabled. It costs about $10 per month.
Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM
hmmm… i dont know….
moonbatkiller on November 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Um, I don’t know what you’re talking about, but that isn’t unusual.
There is no need for “comprehensive healthcare reform”. NONE! All of the incremental changes prescribed in the GOP bill need to be implemented, then when savings are realized, address the other issues. It is a BOLD move, b/c it has never been done b4. This all or nothing BS that this Congress seems to believe HAS to happen is nonsense. Just like comprehensive immigration reform. We told them secure the border first, then we can talk about what to do w/the illegals. They still haven’t done it, b/c they don’t want to. It’s about trust. And we don’t trust them.
JAM on November 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I’d love to see an entire thread devoted to this discussion. Frankly, I think some of the conservative thinking on this issue makes me scratch my head.
I can’t see that doctors are exactly great deciders. Certainly not the MBA’s flooding the industry making their bucks.
I understand we laugh at the idea of politicians taking on the mantle.
But, seriously, we all know that there are limits. No, they are not going to give livers to alcoholics, etc. Or pursue some “HOUSE” solution. That’s a TV show, not reality.
I come back to my own idea of the day here. Do try to catch this new documentary, Poliwood.
It’s about how TV thinking has infested politics.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Yes. If the people of state X want this, they can petition their state government to create this. Many people in this country need to be educated that we have different levels of government in existence, not just the Feds. Any statists policy can be implemented at the state level.
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
You don’t appear to understand what the CBO does. They take all of that into account in their analysis.
Anyway, I’m all for opening up things, so healthcare can be sold across state lines. The trick is to make them obey the laws of the state where insurance is sold, as opposed to where the company is incorporated.
Trent1289 on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I have decided to only vote for any candidate in my district that runs on the platform of “Repeal”. ie.,
Repeal TARP
Repeal TALF
Repeal The Stimulus
Repeal Healthcare
Repeal anything that this moron and his minions have enacted.
PatriotRider on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I’m not getting as to why the Dems would object to this approach. The next few days are going to be interesting to watch. BTW, I’m betting right now that Pelosi will not have her vote on healthcare reform on Saturday because she will not have the votes necessary to get filthylyingcowardcare passed.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Has AnninCA been possessed by conservative demons?
Or is this just an emenation of the penumbra of Pelosi’s “We had a great election” opposite day?
Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Oh well, that’s why you don’t understand my posts.
I know many, many people in dire straits over healthcare insurance.
But then, I know a lot of people who are simply in their 50′s, out of work, and doing their very best right now.
You probably just can’t relate.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Lol* I’m so authentically me, guys.
I told you.
Anyway, move on, I’m not nearly as interesting as the discussion itself.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM
You can’t unring a bell. So much of that money is gone never to be seen again. I’d suggest docking Congressional pay and retirement (past, present, and future members) at some percentage, 1/6th of annual benefits seems ironically appropriate, until the debt that they caused is paid off.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Oh. It was just a temporary thing.
Ann @ 11:57
No. I can relate. I just don’t see any reason why I should pay to solve their problems as well as my own.
Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Thank you. I couldnt’ figure out what the barriers were to this idea.
It’s a smart idea, in my opinion.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Hell, think of just the HR overhead you’d save. Any sane small businessman would do this, particularly in this ravaged economy. Forget the long-term negative effects: For many it’d simply seem a matter of short-term survival, future be damned. Which is, of course, the left’s specific strategy. Not a slippery slope of unintended consequences, but a conscious, Machiavellian plan.
Blacklake on November 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Neither do I. But I do see the need for a change.
This is simply way too big of a burden. It’s one thing for people to lose their jobs due to globalization, and that’s real. Very real.
It’s quite another to watch them die without medical care.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
–Then why isn’t it now available on the open market?
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
My husband was out of work for a year. I shopped around and found great insurance for our family of 4. There are many, many options out there. You have no idea what I can relate to.
JAM on November 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Trent1289 on November 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Not sure you understood what I said… or what you said orginally.
Koa on November 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Just like the discussion about outsiders involved in local elections, the fact is that each industry is in a small competitive pool.
What works in one area may or may not be the ticket to competitive edge.
There is no “one size fits all.”
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM
AFLAC (in duck voice)
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM
–I think because it’s not clear that the amount the federal government will kick in is adequate (or would be continued in the future) and because I don’t see any real penalty for the states if they don’t adopt these plans. I have to admit, though, it’s a whole lot better than the $300 million that the GOP offered in one of their earlier proposals.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
So, if an insurance company wanted to sell across state lines with this Republican bill, they would just have to make sure that the packages they offer in different states is tailored to the particular state they are offering it in. Problem solved then?
Highlar on November 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
A lot of the stories that are awful come from people who paid premiums and then found themselves purged when they actually filed a claim.
I’m sorry, but that’s what the industry has been practicing.
It’s way wrong.
There absolutely needs to be oversight.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Even if all you claim is true, and I have my doubts about that. But even if true that healthcare has bypassed all your anecdotal friends, employees, garden gnomes, etc. Massive government intervention is not the answer.
The GOP plan is a reasonable approach. I’ve long said some kind of funding program to close the insurance gap and tort reform is the solution. Neither of these approaches comes close to the 43 new government programs set up by the Dems. Not one of those 43 new programs, the mandates, fines, wealth distribution, etc. does one thing to give your anecdotal friends better care than they get now.
Time for your side to STFU and start acting like adults who come to the table to talk about real reform instead of re-naming unpopular provisions and calling dissent racism.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Oh man, there’s a marketing scam. *haha
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Jimbo3 @ 12:02
Dunno. Legal restrictions? Nobody’s pushed for it? Maybe even economically unviable at any acceptable rate.
Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM
–Would be nice, but seriously, this has been a problems for decades. You would have thought some insurance company would have offered this by now if they thought they could have sold it. It may be because the costs of this type of “guaranteed coverage” option are much higher than we think.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Because companies “have” to provide health insurance, it sets up a system of discrimination. Most companies end up providing more benefits to families (higher premiums) than singles and gay couples. If employers did not provide health care, their would be less discrimination against gay couples. I cannot believe that the Dems want to maintain this arrangement!
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:07 PM
It’s a good start, but it’s not inspiring.
We have to stop looking to personalities to inspire.
We need to get back to ideas that inspire.
I bet that doesn’t make sense to a lot of you. But I’m convinced.
It’s going to be the actual ideas, reasonable, attainable, and logical, that will win elections.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Why can’t insurance be part of unemployment benefits or part of it?
tomas on November 5, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Um… that’s how it works now. Nobody is stopping a company from selling the same product in different states but they have to go through the state insurance boards and live by the rules of the state. I fail to see why this is such a sticking point with liberals except that this is a great way to backdoor the public-option by eliminating state control and having some panel in DC deciding the rules for all 50 states.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:08 PM
The lady that sits near me was able to stay in her house during an ovarian cancer episode requiring chemo because she had income replacement insurance. The market will\does provide these insurance plans. Do I have to pay for people that do not choose to insure themself?
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM
–In a disability coverage case, you receive 60% (approx.) of your annual employment income for a period of time (I think it ends at Medicare eligibility). So the calculation is easy: say $100,000 times (say) 15 years times the likelihood of suffering an injury that would qualify for disability. That’s probably a whole lot easier to price out than a situation where the costs could be anywhere from zero to millions of dollars over a period.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM
–Insurance replacement coverage is like the disability coverage I mentioned. It covers loss of salary, not the costs of medical care. Many of us already have disability coverage through work.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 PM
AnninCA @ 12:03 PM
Begs the question in a ridiculous manner. For some reason, anybody can get free medical care at any hospital in the land.
Except for me, of course. They make me pay.
Also, better they die for lack of my money than I die for lack of my money.
Troll Feeder on November 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I am confused. Health insurance covers the medical costs and Diability\AFLAC-like coverage can provide income replacement. What am I missing?
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM
The way I see this debate is a lot like local issues. Local representatives need to meld their ideology into solutions locally.
Ditto for the national characters.
I’m not interested in the image-makers. I think they are, by profession, suppose to lie.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Let’s not gloss over the fact that even an offensive $300 million isn’t even a third of the $1.5 TRILLION offered up by the filthy lying coward and his corrupt party. When does the left jump off of their plan and start negotiating in good faith? My guess is never and I think it is going to kill off this administration’s ability to be much more than a lame duck showpiece for what the problems are in promoting affirmative action candidates without the skills to do the job for which they were hired. In other words, the death of healthcare reform will mean that the filthy lying coward’s golf game will be awesome by 2012.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Well, no. The problem is that only applies if your CURRENT status is life-threatening.
Let me explain. My friend, no insurance, was dying of ovarian cancer. The hospital was legally allowed to send her home.
She couldn’t even make it to the toliet to evacuate.
My own friends, several of which were RN’s, intervened. We pressured and got her back into hospital care.
She died, but without that problem.
It’s not as easy as many of you suggest, and that’s why you won’t attract voters, either.
The solution is a something between the harshness now and the libral nirvana.
Come on. This can’t be that crazy-hard.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM
The liberal answer to that question is that healthcare is an inalienable right. Individuals shouldn’t be penalized for opting to get a big screen TV instead of insurance.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:17 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
So, again, What is there to restrain the growth of an all powerful government?
Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM
–Not much on economic matters at federal level as I read the cases. The Tenth Amendment, perhaps, on isolated incidents. But it’s been this way for seven decades.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Seriously, if the GOP is too harsh about this issue, they will fall by the wayside.
It is a major concern for real people.
I’m waiting to see. I hear the awful rhetoric from the left which constantly suggests that the GOP are selfish, hate people, yadda, yadda.
But this honestly might be a dealbreaker.
How does the conservative movement come down on this issue.
What are their solutions?
Do they have compassion or not?
I have no interest in a party that only has compassion for their party interests.
That’s nuts.
I want to see what they think and propose for real people in this country.
Otherwise, frankly, you’re a flipping footnote in my book.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Here’s where that argument is outdated, to me.
So you want your neighbor who lost their job due to globalization go die on the sidewalk?
That’s unacceptable.
Just unacceptable.
AnninCA on November 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
–Nothing. I had thought your replacement insurance was “income replacement” insurance. I misunderstood.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Im sorry, we’re discussing politics here…right?
ernesto on November 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM
When has anybody Ever gotten to a “liberal nirvana.”?
Does anybody really believe that the Frau Botox bill will IMPROVE our medical system?
Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM
–Once this is in place, it will be almost impossible to reverse it. As to the good faith negotiations, the GOP just got the text of its proposed bill on its website this week. They’ve been saying they wouldn’t negotiate. The GOP miscalculated.
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Compassion can be expressed at the state level of government. CA is very compassionate with its citizens. If other states want to follow their model, they can.
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Those two statements are in direct opposition to each other.
It’s been bad for quite a while, but nothing like the federal government claiming the power to just open up a company in order to “provide competition” to the private sector – which is, itself, enough of a joke to warrant the impeachment and removal from office of any moron who proposes such an idea.
I guess you think that we’ll be seeing the United States Airline, soon? We need “competition” for the private sector there, and transportation is more important to our economy than health care.
progressoverpeace on November 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
True. ;) But let’s at least not pretend that Dems are all about “saving the planet” and “fixing the problems of regular people.” Not that you were doing that. But they are.
Missy on November 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM
So you’re answer is a big NO!, correct?
Juno77 on November 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I don’t think they miscalculated at all. Pelosi, Reid, and the filthy lying coward in the White House have shut the GOP out of any negotiations up to this point. Why should they negotiate on a bill that completely ignored their concerns up until the cusp of voting on it? Why should the GOP have rushed out an alternative plan when so many of the details of the actual bill have been squishy for months as the filthy lying coward tries to come up with the votes for radical socialism?
You may be a fan of Obamacare and the filthy lying coward it is named for but the public is smarter than you. They don’t like the bill and the GOP made the right move in pointing out the fact that they had no hand in it and then offer up this reasonable alternative.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The really question is does Jimbo3 support this view of federal government power. He constantly provides court case backing for broad federal government powers, but without stating his opinion on the matter.
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Compassion is a function of the individual, People should have comapssion and act accordingly. Government plays a different role. Government protects my ability to act compassionatly as I see fit. Not to force me to act compassionatly or to act compassionatly on my part. Just my take on it.
Koa on November 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM
In which country(ies) would you rather have a healthcare problem; the U.S.A., Russia, Canada or England?
Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I think it was a combination of things, on a political gamesmanship level. They saw how the Pelosi and Reid plans were going…public support was dwindling over the months…so…they waited for a majority to be against it (over 50% against the Democrat plans)…won VA and NJ to show that Republicans can do it right…and then show off their proposal which is TONS less expensive than the Democrat plan AND begins to work against the deficit much earlier. It may not have everything, but the Republican plan is a good starting point, I think. Lieberman is right: better to take incremental steps and get them RIGHT than to go for an all-or-nothing approach and have it explode in your face.
Highlar on November 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM
–Have you forgotten about Amtrak?
Jimbo3 on November 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Eh, wouldn’t exactly be something new. Feds used to set every airline ticket price back in the day.
ernesto on November 5, 2009 at 12:37 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
Compassion is not something you do with other people’s money! State government is neither compassionate or abusive. It is what it is- a set of public laws and the bureaucracy that runs the machine. These laws/bureaucrats help some and hinder others. It is the nature of public governance and has been true for centuries.
It is only in the post-hippie era that somehow it became a civic obligation to coddle the population instead of giving them the tools and rewards for self-determination. California has been at the forefront of taking away wealth and opportunity in the name of compassion. It is small wonder that the state is a vile blot on America these days.
highhopes on November 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Considering that it is California, compassion can have a different meaning. (illegal immigration, taxes, ect….)
Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Pelosi added an attachment for ‘management’ = 2790+ pages now…
Plus, she shut down cameras for today and Saturday’s vote will be “closed door”.
This was going to be the most “transparent” congress and adminstration in history.
Weasels go have a party. Pelosi/Reid represent you well.
Schadenfreude on November 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM
This bill is apathetically late.
Mr. Arrogant on November 5, 2009 at 12:41 PM
No disagreement, but our federal constitution allows states do implement “compassionate” programs if their voters choose. I would not support those programs.
WashJeff on November 5, 2009 at 12:42 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
A must read website: Defend Your Healthcare
dmann on November 5, 2009 at 12:43 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
Not at all. Amtrak has been a total disaster that has needed to be taken out of the feds’ hands for a long time – as it was supposed to be dismantled a couple of years after it was started, anyway.
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
Now that is a real efficient orginization. Government controlled I think.
Johan Klaus on November 5, 2009 at 12:45 PM
We always seem to get to the shame portion of the liberal argument once they are out of arguments.
Who is dying for lack of care? Where are all these people lying outside of hospitals dying in the streets?
The problem is not access to care, the problem is paying for it.
My uncle w/o healthcare (both by choice and circumstance) had all his cancer treatment and chemotherapy paid for by the state and private donation.
My stepfather, an indigent, had his care for stroke paid for by the state, the VA and private donation.
Now, his death WAS hastened by a system which is overloaded by cost. The hospital (not VA), seeing he had VA coverage and no other private insurance, withheld his food and water so he “wouldn’t linger”, despite the fact he had an inoperable bleed in his brain. A little extra morphine towards the end, and insurance problem solved.
The euthanasia problem, under the Dems, will no longer be healthcare’s dirty little secret.
quiz1 on November 5, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Exactly. Social issues and most interactions between government and individuals were left to the states. It should also be noted that states cannot create money so they do not have the ability to take down the dollar with runaway spending on these issues, wehreas the federal government can easily break our monetary system (and hence, our nation) by getting stuck into bankrupting programs, as we are with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. 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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »