Bayh: Yeah, ObamaCare doesn’t address rising health-care costs

posted at 10:55 am on March 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Laura Ingraham gets Evan Bayh to admit the obvious on her show yesterday, and holds him accountable for allowing ObamaCare to pass.  Bayh laughs that off by saying “that’s true of anyone who voted for [it],” to which Ingraham responds that Bayh’s the only one on her show at the moment.  The former Senator from Indiana described himself as “50/50″ on ObamaCare prior to his vote allowing it to proceed to passage, because it didn’t address what Democrats claimed as the central point of ObamaCare — cost control:

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you’ve raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

If ObamaCare didn’t deal with rising health-care costs, then why pass it at all?  Bayh gets a little foggy on this point, claiming that Congress needed to do something about health care.  This is no mere academic point, either, as Ingraham’s right about Bayh casting a critical vote to allow ObamaCare to proceed, as did every Democrat who contributed to the 60-vote cloture approval that allowed it to pass.  If the White House and Congressional leadership insisted that the bill reduced costs and Bayh knew differently, why did he vote for the bill at all?  Better yet, where was Bayh at the time?  Shouldn’t he have been on every nightly news broadcast, telling voters that his party’s leadership was at best very, very wrong about the nature of the bill?

Now Bayh wants Congress to produce additional reform on top of ObamaCare that will actually reduce costs.  If they produce another bill expanding government control that doesn’t address costs, will Bayh let us know this time?  Or will he merely carry the party line until the truth becomes so obvious that he can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, as he did the last time?


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

Touche……Laura.

heshtesh on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

What a Class A D-Bag. May he be hit “in an aggreessive way” by a large speeding truck.

Tim_CA on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Bayh gets a little foggy on this point, claiming that Congress needed to do something about health care.

And so we democrats knowing we had to do something simply raised costs. What the hell would you do with a bill you weren’t allowed to read before voting on it?

Herb on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

The real purpose of the legislation was to destroy the business model of private health insurance. For it’s actual designed purpose, it’s working.

RBMN on March 30, 2011 at 11:02 AM

*It’s my nature*

a capella on March 30, 2011 at 11:02 AM

If the White House and Congressional leadership insisted that the bill reduced costs and Bayh knew differently, why did he vote for the bill at all? Better yet, where was Bayh at the time?

Bayh was subscribing to the Nancy Pelosi school of thought at the time. That once the bill passed and everyone found out what’s in it(including Pelosi and Bayh), they’d love it. When that didn’t happen, Bayh knew he’d screwed the pooch and decided to bail instead of inevitably getting run by Indiana voters last November.

Only now Bayh knows he really stepped in it by voting for Obamacare. A year has passed and a majority of Americans still hate it. And to make matters worse, it’s obvious even to partisans like him that it’s not lower costs at all and requiring thousands of waivers in order to avoid the prospect of millions losing their coverage. And since he has aspirations for higher office in the future, he’s trying to walk back from his Obamacare vote. Only problem is he now owns this the same way every other Democrat who voted for it will.

Doughboy on March 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Looks like Bayh is planning a primary challenge to Soetoro.

Rebar on March 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Why is Bayh going on Laura Ingraham’s show? He’s not planning on running for something, is he?

steebo77 on March 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Frauds and Crooks

wheels on March 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Laura is mean girl if you get on her bad issues side.

hawkman on March 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I totally understand where he’s coming from. I once had a grease fire in the kitchen, so I quickly poured a jar of kerosene on it and went shopping.

As I told the fire marshall, “I had to do something!”

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Touche……Laura.

heshtesh on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

s/b Douche…Evan.

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

wheels on March 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

This.

Cindy Munford on March 30, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Bayh: “Laura, the most important thing we need to do now is get as much blush, lipstick, and nail polish and dress up this pig, while I look for a lobbying gig to bleed taxpayers dry on this Obamacare nonsense.”

BuckeyeSam on March 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Why is Bayh going on Laura Ingraham’s show? He’s not planning on running for something, is he?

steebo77 on March 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

He also appeared on Hannity’s TV show a few months ago. He’s trying to reestablish his indie cred. I don’t see how that can happen though when the dude voted for Porkulus and Obamacare.

Doughboy on March 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Bayh / Huntsman 2012…

mjbrooks3 on March 30, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Moderate democrats to the rescue!

SouthernGent on March 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM

King Barry ‘the magnificent’ said affordable health care. Affordable to who?

Wade on March 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Ed: I think you are missing the point…he voted for the bill to address pre-existing conditions, life time caps, etc. but does not admit that the cost of healthcare is going to go up because of addressing pre-existing conditions, life time caps, etc!

So, he knew that he was enacting cost drivers and then expected to come back later to fix the cost drivers that he just approved – presumably through cost controls.

What a liar!

cab8505 on March 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Heh. Slightly off topic but worthy, in fact, too good to check! Patches is now an academic. Howie Carr also provides advice for the blushing bride to be at the link Scott provides.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028719.php

a capella on March 30, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I can’t help myself, but I have to ask. One benefit Dems love throwing in the faces of conservatives is the ability of keeping a child on your policy until age 26.

If a child is in professional school (med school, law school, and the like), I can see that this might make sense. But I still think this aspect is pathetic. For crying out loud, in our history 18-year-olds have been drafted and sent to get killed in wars and this is the kind of legislation that we enact.

Why can’t these young adults survive on a low-cost catastrophic plan until they’re employed and can gain access to employer-provided insurance?

I’m waiting for a Republican to throw it back at Dems that this is among the most infantilizing pieces of public policy Congress has ever enacted.

BuckeyeSam on March 30, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I’m worried that Bayh is going to run for Governor of Indiana again.

Tommy_G on March 30, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I totally understand where he’s coming from. I once had a grease fire in the kitchen, so I quickly poured a jar of kerosene on it and went shopping.

As I told the fire marshall, “I had to do something!”

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Too funny!

Naturally Curly on March 30, 2011 at 11:32 AM

This guy us so… so I don’t know… sleazy…yeah that’s it…

CCRWM on March 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Why can’t these young adults survive on a low-cost catastrophic plan until they’re employed and can gain access to employer-provided insurance?

BuckeyeSam on March 30, 2011 at 11:29 AM

You sir, are cold and heartless. How do you expect them to pay for $5 frappalattechinos and take exotic vacations while paying for their own insurace. Shame on you!

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Two-faced, partisan hack.

citrus on March 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I’m waiting for a Republican to throw it back at Dems that this is among the most infantilizing pieces of public policy Congress has ever enacted.

BuckeyeSam on March 30, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I have yet to hear any politician of any stripe denounce this. All hail the Moocher Generation!

Naturally Curly on March 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Tool.

“Yeah, there’s this really big issue that I consider important, and this bill doesn’t go there. So, I was 50/50 on it, and therefore voted it into law, because WHAT THE HECK, it’s a left-wing thing.”

Freelancer on March 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM

someone needs to shoot that squirrel that’s nesting on his head!!

Tim_CA on March 30, 2011 at 11:39 AM

a bill you weren’t allowed to read before voting on it?

Herb on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

But Obamacare was debated on C-SPAN for 8 months before it passed!

Reading the actual 2000 pages of the law that would be implemented was not important or necessary to the Democrat party or their followers.

visions on March 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

We have to install Marxism before we can show you the benefits.

SirGawain on March 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I’ve been saying for over a year now that Evan Bayh is going to challenge Obama for the nomination.

Bayh/Hillary ’12?

Hmmmm.

portlandon on March 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM

That bill has been sitting in a drawer at The Tides Foundation for years. All they did was whip it out and give it a little fluff and tease.

Naturally Curly on March 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Ah, remember when funemployment was all the rage. Or is it still?

Brat on March 30, 2011 at 11:47 AM

The answer to regulations that don’t do what they are supposed to or are so burdensome as to be counter-productive is never, ever, not once: repeal the regulations.

Is is always, forever, without any doubt: pass more regulations to FIX the prior regulations!

Never ask if something that is regulated actually CAN be regulated to any meaningful degree. That gets you the: ‘of course we CAN regulate it!’

A market based system is too complex for micro-management and trying to get equal outcomes across the board. That is the opposite of a market system as the least able to determine outcomes, government, is put in charge of doing so. Single actors are horrifically awful at running a market, and it doesn’t matter which civilization, which political stripe nor which era you are in – it is a uniform disaster.

The cost of the burden of going through regulations is a barrier to entry to small competitors who must take up an undo burden for regulations compared to a large, existing competitor. That is a pathway to a government that will work with large corporations to protect the large corporations from new entrants to the market, which means that new efficiencies cannot be brought in via competition. When large businesses and government get together to ‘regulate’ a market, the average consumer loses as the market is rigged to the benefit of the large competitors and the government as they are the ones writing the regulations.

Whenever government removes regulations, the market then works to utilize resources efficiently through competition – that doesn’t matter if it is aircraft, electronics, or the lobster fisheries off the New England coast. If you want better products, better management of resources and more efficient use of time and resources, you want as little in the way of regulation as possible.

Regulation is to make a system of accountability for actions by actors in a market that are applied equally to all without concern for the size of the company or the outcomes of the accountability. Thus there is no such thing as ‘too big to fail’ – that is a group of cronies going to lose their lunch due to their bad decisions gaming a system with their friends in government to bail them out. A system that is equal to all, and seeks no ‘good’ outcomes but just and equitable ones via process of the system of law is the best you can hope for. When it goes beyond that you have the hubris of the idea that law can manage markets, while the proof is just the opposite in every market ‘managed’ to death by government.

You want better and cheaper healthcare? Get government out of the loop as it refuses to pay its share for the cost of what it imposes on the market and shifts that to the general population in favor of the few.

Its amazing that Obama is doing this for space access and the competition is already starting to heat up there… yet he does just the opposite everywhere else. It’s like he can’t learn from his own example, you know?

ajacksonian on March 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Faced with Republican resistance that many Democrats saw as driven more by politics than policy disagreements, Senate Democrats in recent days gained new determination to bridge differences among themselves and prevail over the opposition.

Lawmakers who attended a private meeting between Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats at the White House on Tuesday pointed to remarks there by Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, as providing some new inspiration.

Mr. Bayh said that the health care measure was the kind of public policy he had come to Washington to work on, according to officials who attended the session, and that he did not want to see the satisfied looks on the faces of Republican leaders if they succeeded in blocking the measure.

“Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill,” NYT, 12/19/09

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Now Bayh wants Congress to produce additional reform on top of ObamaCare that will actually reduce costs.

Perhaps that ass Bayh can explain WHY cost reduction WASN’T ADDRESSED THE FIRST TIME!

GarandFan on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

That bill has been sitting in a drawer at The Tides Foundation for years. All they did was whip it out and give it a little fluff and tease.

Naturally Curly on March 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM

You must be denounced as a looney, right-wing teabagger for pointing out the truth.

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Brat on March 30, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Our red-headed gal in the old unemployment line pics sure looked like she was having a ball.

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM

– “Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill,” NYT, 12/19/09

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Treacher blows Bayhs’ fog away.

BobMbx on March 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Not addressing the costs??? Seriously? You voted for it, you duffus.

Kissmygrits on March 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

This just in: Politicians lie.

For a living.

Film at 11:00.

nico on March 30, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Well of course Obamacare reduces costs. It bends the cost curve downward by giving 20 million people – likely mostly illegals – free health insurance and forcing people to use “exchanges”. How does that not reduce health care costs? It’s obvious, duh! You wingers are so silly with your facts and logic.

Monkeytoe on March 30, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Well of course Obamacare reduces costs. It bends the cost curve downward by giving 20 million people – likely mostly illegals – free health insurance and forcing people to use “exchanges”. How does that not reduce health care costs? It’s obvious, duh! You wingers are so silly with your facts and logic.

Monkeytoe on March 30, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I don’t know what the complaint is. Everytime we add another child to our family, our cost of living goes down. And its not just kids, either. In fact, after we bought our 12th car, we found that we no longer had to make loan payments.

We were really mad at ourselves for not figuring out the world of high finance earlier. Sure would have saved a lot of money along the way.

I can’t explain it, but the WH and the really smart guys who work there know what they’re doing. It really is true that the more you spend and borrow, the lower your costs get. We’re almost to the point where the banks will be paying us interest to borrow their money. Two or three more houses and we should be there.

Go figure.

BobMbx on March 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Looks like Bayh is planning a primary challenge to Soetoro.

Rebar on March 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Run, Evan, run!

parteagirl on March 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Looks like Bayh is planning a primary challenge to Soetoro.

Rebar on March 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Run, Evan, run!

parteagirl on March 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I see a Project Chaos II in our future…

slickwillie2001 on March 30, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Cost is the only thing that the GOP and the Tea Party talked about. How can this AHole say something like this will a straight face and how come Laura didn’t jump all over that. Everyone, from Paul Ryan on down said that this would cost too much and that health costs would go up!

flytier on March 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I totally understand where he’s coming from. I once had a grease fire in the kitchen, so I quickly poured a jar of kerosene on it and went shopping.

As I told the fire marshall, “I had to do something!”

Laura in Maryland on March 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Threadwinner

KW64 on March 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Smugly self-satisfied with his leadership in the senate. Can we refer to him just a “Tool” or must we say “Senator Tool”?

in_awe on March 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM