Game over: Five members of Deficit Commission will vote no on final plan
posted at 9:27 pm on December 2, 2010 by Allahpundit
They need 14 of the 18 members to vote yes tomorrow to send the Bowles/Simpson plan to Congress. Ain’t happening. Guess who provided unlucky no vote number five.
ABC News has learned Andrew Stern will vote no on the deficit commission’s plan to reduce the national deficit by nearly $4 trillion. Mr. Stern, the former president of the SEIU, has informed co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson that he will be the fifth member voting no, ending the commission’s hopes of officially passing the plan to Congress. The commission needed votes from 14 of the 18 members in order to pass the plan to Congress.
Mr. Stern joins Sen. Max Baucus and Reps. Dave Camp, Paul Ryan and Jan Schakowsky in voting against the plan. He is also the only non-elected official to vote against the plan.
At Wednesday’s deficit commission meeting, Mr. Stern voiced concerns with the plan’s approach to addressing the tax system, health care, and future investments.
Two clips for you here, both of beloved conservative deficit hawks. First comes Ryan justifying his no vote on grounds that, for all the virtues of Bowles/Simpson in other respects, the proposal simply doesn’t do enough to starve the beast that is ObamaCare. You can watch him elaborate on that in this clip at RCP; he hints that he’ll soon be offering his own health-care plan in tandem with Alice Rivlin, who recently co-authored a debt reduction package of her own with Peter Domenici. The second clip is Tom Coburn’s speech to the Deficit Commission yesterday, which I highly recommend watching. It’s a superb pithy summary of the gravity of America’s financial situation. Coburn’s voting yes on the plan notwithstanding his own misgivings about some of the provisions because, in an age of sacrifice, legislators should be willing to sacrifice too in order to advance the ball. That’s also where I come down on this: No one believes Congress will approve Bowles/Simpson if forced to vote on it, but let’s force ‘em anyway simply because it’ll keep this issue front and center in public debate. Frankly, I’m surprised that Ryan, who’s struggled to get the GOP leadership to support his roadmap, would pass up the opportunity to push big-picture legislation on fiscal solvency into the House and Senate. The more comfortable legislators and citizens are facing this subject, the easier it is for the roadmap to get traction. Too bad.









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
It’s actually a bad plan. Not only do taxes go up but much new Obama spending gets sustained.
amerpundit on December 2, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Anything that exposes deficit commissions as a fraud is a good thing.
pedestrian on December 2, 2010 at 9:30 PM
So according to Ryan doing nothing because the plan doesn’t go far enough is better than doing SOMETHING that will start to stifle the bleeding?
Disappointed.
annoyinglittletwerp on December 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Doomed to failure, from the beginning.
Kini on December 2, 2010 at 9:33 PM
This is a pretty big FAIL on Obama’s part. When you’ve got Chuck Todd on Morning Joe (this AM) declaring that Obama owns whatever happens with this and bemoaning the fact that the WH is apparently clueless in terms of strategy going forward, then I’d say that the shine is almost off of those shoes. They’re finally coming around to the notion that Obama really might not be the one that they’ve (and we’ve) been waiting for.
volnation on December 2, 2010 at 9:33 PM
I trust Ryan.
mikeyboss on December 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Tax hikes, defense cuts, and ignoring the o-care monstrosity. These are a few of my favorite things. /s
knob on December 2, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Exactly, the burden goes on to the taxpayers.
What about cutting departments, programs, you know, those things our tax payer moneys go to with no discernible results.
Kini on December 2, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Raising taxes *might* (doubtful, but might) increase revenue and so decrease the deficit because revenues are raised, but cutting spending *will* work toward decreasing the deficit because less is going out.
kimsch on December 2, 2010 at 9:35 PM
When the “something” involves raising taxes, yes. This plan does nothing to diminish ObamaCare.
Caiwyn on December 2, 2010 at 9:36 PM
The government can get the money by taxing or borrowing. It doesn’t matter which, because both will hurt the ability of the real economy to generate jobs. The only way to let the economy have enough oxygen to create jobs is to cut government spending.
pedestrian on December 2, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Funny how the big things are hardest to see
Kini on December 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM
If Ryan is against it, then it probably wasn’t a good thing.
angryed on December 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Rand Paul expressed my opinion on the debt commission report on Cavuto’s show today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvU19hsoUEo
FloatingRock on December 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM
this is a pointless exercise anyway. maybe O wanted to hide behind a commission, but why go along?
this is 6 Dims, 6 appointed by O and 6 Rs. that never sounded good to me
this thing would be advisory anyway…there’s nothing to “pass” congress. the legislative details would have to be hammered out….I guess I’m not getting the angst.
they’ve made their point regardless
r keller on December 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM
This is all bogus. If the commission had come up with a workable plan, or even good ideas, are you going to say that congress can not adopt those ideas because the report wasn’t officially submitted to congress?
So the deficit commission failed to reach an official recommendation and congress just gives up on the whole idea?
Does this mean there has to be another panel of experts to spend another year trying to reduce government spending while congress continues to spend, and spend, and spend, and spend, and raise taxes?
This was all BS from the very beginning.
Skandia Recluse on December 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM
So Paul Ryan votes for TARP, but votes against cuts to entitlements and tax deduction like the health care tax exemption which is necessary to get a truly consumer driven health care system? Hmmmmmmm.
milemarker2020 on December 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM
I trust Ryan.
mikeyboss on December 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM
If Ryan is against it, then it probably wasn’t a good thing.
angryed on December 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM
I’m with you guys…
ladyingray on December 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Like a few others, I echo the sentiment – I trust Ryan. Besides, any panel that has union thugs is quite irrelevant.
rightwink on December 2, 2010 at 9:48 PM
It is time for government to ‘sacrifice’ and cut back… way back on its power, reach, intrusiveness and spending. That is what is called for, not tinkering with the tax code to ‘enhance revenue’ that comes out of the pockets of people needing to keep their cash during a recession that appears to be heading to something worse.
SSA is a nice thought, too bad its in the red and its a ponzi scheme. Why is the government running a ponzi scheme?
Same with medicare/medicaid, why is the government running a ponzi scheme in the health care arena? Is there some magical formula that allows governments to ignore the realities of these things?
Do we really need an FCC that has outlived any usefulness it once had as it now seeks to censor the american people online?
How about a Dept. of Agriculture that pays people to not farm on farms they don’t even live on? Do we really need this?
Why do we have a Dept. of Labor? Can’t people figure out how to work on their own?
The BATFE is so great at keeping firearms out of the hands of MS-13 and other lovely foreign gangs now coming to America, isn’t it? Oh, wait… its the American people that it wants to stop from defending itself, so sorry! Why do we need this bit of insanity?
Until these Bozos putting forward the ‘hard choices’ of how much to soak the American people for things that run contrary to the Constitution actually bother to READ the Constitution, they can stick their ‘shared sacrifice’ up their collective butts and rotate it. Stop the damned spending, cut the beast back to something that can actually defend the borders and get rid of the ‘nice’ programs driving us to permanent insolvency and bankruptcy as a Nation. That is a sacrifice I would rather my fellow citizens not share in… and all it requires is to stop the spending. Is the concept of ‘thrift’ really so hard to pound into the heads in DC?
ajacksonian on December 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Hmmmmmmmm…
… a bunch of professional political elite bureaucrats in charge of fixing what professional political elite bureaucrats caused.
Sounds like putting Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission…
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on December 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Anything dealing with Erskine Bowles deserves to be doomed to fail.
SouthernGent on December 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM
We don’t need a Debt commish.
We need the TWO STEP PAPPY PLAN!!!
1. CLOSE THE BORDER.
2. CUT FEDERAL SPENDING ACROSS THE BOARD 10%
Fiscal problems solved…………along with a myriad of others (and if you save Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/Welfare/etc. by closing the Border you dramatically reduce the nations “uninsured” and destroy the primary selling point for Obamacare in the process).
PappyD61 on December 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Wait a minute, wasn’t Andy Stern BHO’s vote on the commission? hmmmm
d1carter on December 2, 2010 at 9:53 PM
What is a socialist, big-time SEIU goon doing on that panel? I can just about imagine his contributions to the panel: more gold-plated Union goodies for him and his Union thugs.
Ogabe on December 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Paul Ryan should have voted for it.
ninjapirate on December 2, 2010 at 9:56 PM
No thanks Ryan. I have no interest in government health plans.
upinak on December 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM
When did Coburn go all D’Artagnan..?
d1carter on December 2, 2010 at 10:02 PM
I wish someone would have voted no on then explained their vote by stating it is job of Congress to handle our finances and they shouldn’t be schluffing it off to a commission set up by the Executive Branch.
ButterflyDragon on December 2, 2010 at 10:04 PM
A plan that makes PlaceboCare the de-facto national health plan, envisions the federal government taking over a percentage point of GDP more than they have historically done post-WWII, and turns SocSecurity into an explicit save-the-labor-union-and-shiftless-poor-on-the-backs-of-everybody-else enterprise is a non-starter in my book.
steveegg on December 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Fatally flawed right in its charter, this little gaggle of beltway experts was assigned the impossible task of finding a way to fund the federal monster as it currently exists. It should surprise nobody that they labored mightily and failed, because the beast cannot be funded as it currently exists.
Whats required is a massive redistribution of power and responsibility downward on the federal pyramid.
Three words: Localize, Privatize and Euthenize!
If State and local governments want to do some of these things, without the power to print money or run permanent deficits, then its up to the people who live there to pay for it.
If a function can be accomplished more efficiently by privatizing and facilitating it, then let’s do that.
And if something shouldn’t be done at all, then STOP DOING IT!!!
Make up your mind boys and girls; you can be free or you can be taken care of. You can’t be both!
Lew on December 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Oh yeah – fully half the spending cuts will come from the military. <expletive deleted> brilliance in this day and age, sheer <expletive deleted> brilliance!
steveegg on December 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM
The House is supposed to be the fiduciary of the Federal Government… It doesn’t need panel to provide cover for it. Mr. Ryan and the rest of the GOP caucus will be in a position to propose actual spending cuts in January.
phreshone on December 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Does anybody seriously think that the debt commissions plan would have solved all of our debt problems? No. But people are so desperate and afraid that they’re willing to take the first carrot that’s offered to them, in this case by the lamest lame duck congress ever. The same ruling class establishment that got us into this mess is trying to preserve as much of their rotten legacy as possible, that’s all this is.
I know people are impatient but we just threw these lame ducks out for a reason. The new congress hasn’t even been seated yet. They are the congress the “we the people” elected to solve this problem, not the lame ducks.
I recommend calcium supplements, AllahPundit.
FloatingRock on December 2, 2010 at 10:21 PM
While the deficit commission is a start/blueprint for future cuts in this government’s pig-headed spending and the slavery entitlements, we have to start somewhere. I too will wait to hear what Paul Ryan has to offer. There is no one with his tenacity to break the government’s spending sickness. Ryan is far ahead of any other government representative, (including the President), with the knowledge of how to work with the bureaucracies within, yet gives us a shot of getting out of this mess. It would do this nation well to see his plan in full detail before dismissing it.
Rovin on December 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Andy Stern makes any committee an utter joke.
John the Libertarian on December 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM
The actual task the were assigned was to get the budget off the table for the election. That plan failed also. The fact that the lame duck Congress will likely fail to pass a budget is the only bonus.
pedestrian on December 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM
While glad that Ryan is going to be head of the Budget Committee……
…..I’m not optimistic remember the pap that ERIC “MAKE ME VOMIT” CANTOR and Ryan were part of the “YOUNG GUNS”.
He’s a little too chummy with the Beltway me thinks.
When the media trys to PALINIZE HIM with the same fury as they did the Hillbilly from Wasilly THEN AND ONLY THEN will I know he’s doing the right thing.
PappyD61 on December 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM
The House is supposed to be the fiduciary of the Federal Government… It doesn’t need panel to provide cover for it. Mr. Ryan and the rest of the GOP caucus will be in a position to propose actual spending cuts in January.
phreshone on December 2, 2010 at 10:10 PM
I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t know that.
Thank you for cluing me in.
annoyinglittletwerp on December 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM
How much did this panel cost us?
Kini on December 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM
re: Ryan’s vote:
“The perfect is the enemy of the good” – Voltaire
tagryn on December 2, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Ryan’s in some pretty shady company with his no vote.
Ryan
Stern
Baucus
Schakowski (a thoroughly reprehensible “human”)
the other D-WI
aquaviva on December 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM
But for opposite reasons.
FloatingRock on December 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Did I miss something of significance with Eric Cantor? I’m not sure why some of you think he’s some sort of enemy for the conservative movement or he can’t help to advance the cause to rein in the government. Even Allah’s “Rove is a RINO” leaves me confused.
Rovin on December 2, 2010 at 10:37 PM
True enough, but the point to be made is that merely finding a way to pay the bills doesn’t even begin to address the deeper problems inherent in the serious maldistribution of power. There is quite simply too much power in the hands of too few people, too far away from the people who have to pay for it. And it is not only fiscally unsustainable, it is also politically unstable and growing more unstable with every election cycle.
Lew on December 2, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Should have voted for it. Lot better than what we’ve got now..
therightwinger on December 2, 2010 at 10:40 PM
The best thing the Republicans could do is to address the pre-existing condition nonsense that self employed people have to deal with.
In an era when so many folks are working out of their homes
and struggling to get their ideas off the ground, nothing would be better politically and practically than a fix for that issue.
rickyricardo on December 2, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Funny that Bammie’s lapdog Stern is the fifth man out. That gives Ryan a shield against attacks from the White House.
slickwillie2001 on December 2, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Ryan 2012!
RMOccidental on December 2, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Why do I get the distinct feeling that Ryan is voting no because then the “commission” would get credit instead of him? This wasn’t a perfect proposal, but it offered the most serious chance at bipartisan cuts in entitlements since welfare reform in the mid-1990s. Solutions to our fiscal crisis are going to HAVE to be agreed upon by both parties because neither has enough of an advantage to force their policies through. Anything Ryan offers will be seen as a partisan proposal and will be D.O.A. in the Senate.
AngusMc on December 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Don’t you think that the new tea party candidates that we just elected should have the chance to deliberate on the best course of action? Isn’t that why we elected them?
FloatingRock on December 2, 2010 at 11:39 PM
I trust Ryan 100%.
jhffmn on December 2, 2010 at 11:43 PM
Why wouldn’t they get a chance to deliberate? All this vote meant was that it would get a bipartisan endorsement and then be sent to the House for their consideration. Like I said, the ultimate solution will HAVE to be bipartisan and this could have given the tea party candidates an opportunity to really work on solutions. Instead, the next two years will be nothing but political posturing by both sides with nothing getting done to solve our fiscal problems.
AngusMc on December 2, 2010 at 11:43 PM
Any presidential committee with Andy Stern should come with a huge mallet and a crate of watermelons.
Chuck Schick on December 2, 2010 at 11:44 PM
Is Coburn now untrustworthy?
AngusMc on December 2, 2010 at 11:44 PM
For another thing, before any such legislation goes through the process, the process has to be cleaned up. Aside from the extending the tax cuts nothing else matters until the next congress. That’s when we’ll be able to make a much better deal.
Don’t jump on the Obama/Lame-Duck bandwagon. The debt commission plan is only a draft of what will finally result. The American people didn’t throw the Democrats out because they want the tea party to raise taxes during a recession. They didn’t elect us to leave Obamacare intact.
The plan get’s the debate started for the next congress, that’s what it’s good for.
Besides, there’s no way that this could be debated and passed in the short time remaining to the lame duck. The only way they could do it is if it’s another chicken little emergency wherein we’re all supposed to believe that it’s such an emergency it has to be passed before the next congress is seated. How lame would that be? Nobody is going to fall for that any more, and that’s why the tea party matters.
FloatingRock on December 2, 2010 at 11:49 PM
What precludes the House from taking up some to the issues raised by this commission in January?
d1carter on December 2, 2010 at 11:52 PM
There won’t be any bipartisan cover for it, so the first side to bring it up will get hammered by the opposition.
AngusMc on December 3, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Bipartisan cover? We won’t need as much bipartisan cover in the next congress, for one thing, and second, there will still be bipartisan cover because some of the “blue dog” democrats have elections coming up and will play ball.
We’ll be in a stronger position to negotiate, not weaker.
FloatingRock on December 3, 2010 at 12:10 AM
Liberals believe that adding some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will (somehow) start a chain reaction that will destroy all life on earth.
…But those same people think they can increase taxes at will, and the economy won’t be affected by it.
logis on December 3, 2010 at 12:12 AM
That’s pretty funny coming from the former head of the SEIU. The same SEIU that announced to its members, a few days ago, that their health insurance plan would no longer cover children…
Gohawgs on December 3, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Here’s a novel idea… How ’bout Congress starts doing its JOB and stops standing around waiting for other people to do it? We elect certain representatives to make these decisions, and it should have ALREADY been done long before now.
Murf76 on December 3, 2010 at 12:18 AM
From the transcript:
[Even] though you like all these things about the Debt Commission, youre going to vote against it. Why — CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Yes, because I think it goes backwards. MONITOR BREAKFAST: You really think this would be a negative? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I do. MONITOR BREAKFAST: Do you think you can possibly get a better deal in the next two years? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Well, I dont know about that. MONITOR BREAKFAST: Why not start with that and build on it? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Because I think it makes health care dramatically worse. And look, Im trying to be guarded in my comments, because I really respect what Erskine and Alan have done. They should be commended. But they didnt deal with health care. The GAO, in 2009, told us our unfunded liabilities were 62.9 trillion. Then a year later, they told us it was 76.4 trillion. Two weeks ago, they said no, its 88.6 trillion. 5.3 trillion of that is Social Security. The rest are health care programs, federal health care entitlements. You cannot fix this problem without taking on health care. This exacerbates the health care problem. It doesnt even take a step in the right direction. It takes many steps in the wrong direction, from my perspective. So I think it makes it worse. I think it accelerates and entrenches the Obamacare system, which to me is a huge step in the wrong direction. MONITOR BREAKFAST: So it will make the whole budget thing worse? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I think so. I think in time it will make it worse. What this does is it takes a few steps forward, on Social Security and taxes and discretionary, but it takes many steps backwards in health care, and health cares the big thing. So thats the point Im trying to make.
http://fora.tv/2010/12/02/Monitor_Breakfast_Rep_Paul_Ryan#Rep_Paul_Ryan_Says_No_to_Deficit_Reduction_Plan
EconomicPirate on December 3, 2010 at 12:25 AM
The House is only one side of the equation. The Dems still control the Senate and White House. Any serious deficit reduction package is going to need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome the filibuster, then 2/3 of both the House and Senate to override Obama’s veto.
Any GOP-only plan is dead. Any Dem-only plan is dead.
AngusMc on December 3, 2010 at 12:27 AM
The plan sucks because it taxes the middle class more and it doesn’t begin to touch Obamacare which is the major problem with the deficit now… Obamacare has to be repealed and as soon as possible.
Don’t fund Obamacare, the FDA and The EPA aqnd this country can begin to recover.
CCRWM on December 3, 2010 at 12:45 AM
J_Crater on December 3, 2010 at 12:50 AM
The margin will improve in the Senate, too, even if we won’t have a majority there. And I believe that the pressure on the Democrats will only grow over time—their only chance to survive is to put forth a good faith effort to cut spending.
No, the sky isn’t falling. We don’t need to fall for the chicken little routine again.
FloatingRock on December 3, 2010 at 12:55 AM
…Or rather, the sky is falling, but we have enough time to deal with it responsibly.
FloatingRock on December 3, 2010 at 12:58 AM
The fact that the sky is falling is how I know that the Democrats will be forced to the table or cease to matter.
FloatingRock on December 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM
No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s actually worse. The last thing we need to do is adopt the democrat solution of doing something for the sake of doing something, results be damned.
xblade on December 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM
This plan can be summed up as follows:
“Government will not cut its entitlement programs. But you serfs need to pay more to correct the mistakes of government.”
shawk on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 AM
You’re not going to solve our “debt problem” anyway until you get rid of the Fed. Every “dollar” that private bank prints is sold to the U.S. Gov’t at interest. They don’t teach you that in public school do they? The people’s representatives (Congress) have lost control of issuing the nation’s currency (as prescribed by the Constitution).
shawk on December 3, 2010 at 5:46 AM
I believe Ryan on this one.
Done That on December 3, 2010 at 5:56 AM
Not enough other people free stuff for unions.
tarpon on December 3, 2010 at 6:14 AM
THIS.
Well said.
Thanks for the info. Based on that exchange, I can see why he voted no. And I do trust Ryan on this.
We’re going to have to trust someone here on this.
And this crap about sticking Band Aids all over everything is doing nothing about the monstrous overspending.
You don’t apply Band Aids to a sucking chest wound.
That’s what they keep doing.
And we are still dying out here.
Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM
I’m good with the NO vote… I also trust Ryan. Much more to come with this story.
Keemo on December 3, 2010 at 8:38 AM
Nice try in trying to villify Ryan, by being surprised about his NO Vote. He is keenly aware that we can do better, understanding that the American people are still not completely at their breaking point, when that they comes we won’t need a commission.
conservador on December 3, 2010 at 8:40 AM
No one respects Paul Ryan more than I do; and I agree with his basic judgment that the commission draft does too little on health care, but does reasonably well with Social Security and discretionary spending reductions. The tax reform outline has some good things, too (eliminating deductions in exchange for a reduction in rates for everyone).
Having said that, I would have advocated for a “yes” vote. The “no-action” scenario is terrible from a fiscal conservative perspective. Better to keep this train moving and try to improve it.
Ryan has stated that many of the commission’s good ideas will be reflected in Congressional Republican budget proposals, so his “no” vote will hopefully not put an end to the positive possibilities here.
Chuckles3 on December 3, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Crapo and Coburn were just on TV saying the report is the best chance to start to solve the problem. Sorry, but as members of Congress, Crapo and Coburn ARE the problem. Why on earth should we let them muck things up again? Paul Ryan is the only one who is making any sense. Everyone else around the table might as well be talking baby talk.
Mr. Grump on December 3, 2010 at 9:22 AM
I like Ryan a lot (probably my favorite guy in the House at the moment) but I’m torn about this. It could be a starting point that could receive further modification with Ryan’s help in the future. He could always vote “no” later if the improvements didn’t pass.
I am really interested to see what he and Rivlin came up with on HCR.
DrSteve on December 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM
Settling for less has gotten us to where we are today.
I vote to hold out til the whole thing collapses.
Give not one inch into any of this insanity.
We need to stop begging for scraps.
Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM
If Coburn would stop bullshitting about “sacrifice” and plainly say we’ve got to eliminate entitlements for all but the truly helpless then I’d be impressed.
As Boehner might put it Coburn’s “sacrifice” is a subjective pile of crap.
rcl on December 3, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I think you misunderstand Mr Ryan if you think he wants something like Obamacare.
Mr Ryan understands that we can’t eliminate Medicare overnight. The idea is to stabilize the needs of those currently enrolled and create a better future for those coming down the line. This involves putting control of the money in the hands of the individual; where they chose where to spend their health care dollars. In addition, something needs to be done about govt reimbursement for Medicare. As more doctors are refusing, those patients will have little or no choices in providers. It’s not the patients fault, it is the consequence of the bureaucracy.
If Doctors were food, this is what Michelle Obama would refer to as a “desert” situation.
The challenge is in finding a balance of just the right amount of govt involvement in health care. I’m a less is better person as is Mr Ryan I derive.
DWB on December 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM
There’s no legitimate reason for Stern to even be on the panel in the first place.
Jason Coleman on December 3, 2010 at 10:23 PM