February 25-26, 2010
Feb 25 01:03 Moderates Like Sen. Klobuchar? Feb 25 08:12 Take A Hike Feb 25 08:54 The Lightning Is Gone Feb 25 10:15 Liveblogging the Summit Feb 25 13:13 Testy Is Today's Byword Feb 25 13:35 Liveblogging-- Afternoon Session Feb 26 00:25 Seifert: Let's Halfheartedly Do What's Right Feb 26 07:13 Thursday's Observations
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Moderates Like Sen. Klobuchar?
Based on this article , the Strib is still pretending that Sen. Amy Klobuchar is a moderate. If Sen. Klobuchar is a moderate, then she's either a spineless moderate or the definition of the word is meaningless in today's media environment.
WASHINGTON - Rep. Keith Ellison feels energized. Sen. Al Franken says, "We need this now." Pressure is building on moderates like Sen. Amy Klobuchar to push for a public option, while Republicans like Rep. John Kline warn of impending "political theater," all while Congress girds for a presidential summit on health care that will play out on live television Thursday.With all due respect to Sen. Klobuchar, she isn't a moderate. Whether it's been the pork-filled stimulus bill or the Senate's health care legislation, Sen. Klobuchar voted the same way as self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders, (I-VT). TWICE. The stimulus bill did nothing to spur private sector job growth, which is what President Obama promised. The Senate's health care bill, if enacted, would give the federal government the authority to regulate insurance premiums. That's what the legislation would do until the Supreme Court ruled that that's the insurance commissioners' responsibility.
Let's remember that Sen. Klobuchar thinks that Congress has the authority to order the Pentagon to draw up plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq:
In fact, the leaders of Iraq's otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so.There's just this little problem with Congress demanding the Joint Chiefs of Staff draw up those plans: the Constitution says that giving orders to the military falls under the executive branch's authority.
Have we defined moderate down to someone who either doesn't know the Constitution or who refuses to live within its limitations is a moderate? Here's Dictionary.com's definition of moderate:
a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actionsI'd say that a senator, who's sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, who ignores or doesn't know the Constitution holds extreme views. Just because she isn't an irate extremist like Sen. Franken doesn't mean she's a moderate.
With or without the public option, Democrats like Klobuchar have signaled their support for the 51-vote reconciliation strategy as a way to pass a modified health care bill.Is expressing a willingness to use the nuclear option to radically change America's health care system an act of moderation? I'm betting the vast majority of Minnesotans wouldn't agree that it's an act of moderation. I'm betting that most Minnesotans think that's what a tyrant would support.
One significant departure from both the House and Senate bills is that the new plan would give federal regulators the power to block rate increases by private insurers, a nod to those who say the health effort has paid too little attention to curbing health care costs.Let's remember that each of the 50 states has an insurance commissioner whose job it is to approve insurance rate increases. President Obama's provision is a naked power grab designed to strip the states of their regulatory responsibilities while appropriating that responsibility to the federal government. Opponents of that federal power grab would have a powerful Tenth Amendment argument based on a history of this responsibility being the states' responsibility.
When did we start believing that moderates supported unprecedented power grabs of this magnitude?
Just because someone has a pleasant personality doesn't mean they're a moderate. Just because someone doesn't have Sen. Franken's temper doesn't mean that they're amoderate. If a politician votes like Bernie Sanders, they aren't a moderate.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:03 AM
No comments.
Take A Hike
If I was any of the insurance companies being asked to justify the premiums they charge to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius , I'd tell her to take a hike, that that isn't her responsibility. There's no chance that that's what they'll do but that's what I'd do if I was in their position.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asked the heads of five major health insurance companies on Wednesday to meet with her next month to explain why their premiums are on the rise.It's frustrating to watch these idiots' grandstanding. The reason the rates increased is because the healthiest dropped their health insurance. When that happens, the people in the pool are mostly higher risk customers. That's what's driving insurance premiums higher.
Mrs. Sebelius' move came as Democrats stepped up attacks on the health insurance industry ahead of a bipartisan health care summit Thursday they hope will jump-start President Obama's stalled overhaul legislation.
At a contentious House hearing, Democrats confronted executives of one company that has sought rate increases of up to 39 percent in California and accused them of purging their sickest customers while spending millions on exorbitant salaries and retreats at ritzy resorts for executives. And the House neared a vote on revoking health insurers' antitrust exemption.
If insurance companies were dropping high risk patients, that would produce a pool with a relatively low risk, which would drop insurance premiums.
Lost in all this is that Wellpoint in California got California's insurance commissioner to approve the rate increase. It's interesting that HHS Secretary Sebelius isn't talking about the state health insurance commissioners, isn't it? I wrote here that creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority was a naked power grab being authored by the Obama administration .
Rather than trusting insurance commissioners to monitor and accept or reject insurance premium increases, President Obama wants Washington to strip that authority from the states. What could possibly go wrong? But I digress.
As usual, the Obama administration is ignoring the Tenth Amendment in their attempt to consolidate as much power in Washington as possible. The Obama administration has proven time and again that they're perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way of their agenda.
Even if health care is signed into law, it's far from a settled thing because of the constitutional challenges it's sure to meet. This Tenth Amendment challenge is just one aspect that would be challenged. The individual mandates will be challenged, too. The special treatment that the Nebraska Blue Cross and Michigan Blue Cross is constitutionally suspect, too.
Rep. Henry Waxman is using his authority as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to bully private companies:
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said at a hearing on WellPoint Inc. that his panel's investigators had received internal company documents showing that in 2008, 39 company executives received salaries of $1 million or more. And in 2007 and 2008, it spent $27 million for 103 executive retreats, which Democrats said included stays at fancy resorts in Hawaii and Arizona. "Corporate executives at WellPoint are thriving, but its policyholders are paying the price," said the California Democrat.I won't defend Wellpoint's profits but I will defend them from the standpoint that they are a regulated business who's won approval of the rate increases fair and square. As I highlighted earlier, it isn't the federal government's job to regulate businesses that are regulated at the state level.
This is classic liberal overreach. They don't have the constitutional authority to do something but they're attempting to do something anyway. It's time that these progressives were taught a lesson in constitutional limitations. If that happened, the federal government's overreach would be limited and states could return to their proper roles as regulators closer to the people.
I smile anytime that accountability is brought closer to the governed. So did the Founding Fathers. That's good enough for me.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:18 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Feb-10 01:04 PM
If the Congressional Democrats are attempting to take over the health insurance industry because insurance executives make too much, ask them if they will commit to limiting their combined salaries, perks, and campaigns to under $1 million each. Since private insurance cost increases are lower than the government's, they ought to get themselves under control before complaining about others.
The Lightning Is Gone
Based on this article , I'd say that President Obama's election coalition has all but disappeared:
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to 29-year-olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was read by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.The finding that the support gap has narrowed is troubling enough. That's enough to make a Democratic strategist cringe. That said, that last sentence is the sentence I'd most be worried about:
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008, including high numbers of first-timers, young minorities and youths, are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18- to 29-year-olds has substantially narrowed, from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the Republicans in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.Young Americans for Liberty, college students who support Ron Paul's principles on campus, haven't experienced that enthusiasm gap like their liberal counterparts. In fact, they're pumped and ready to get liberty-loving young people to the polls this November.
I've met with their group here in St. Cloud. They're one of the most active student groups on SCSU's campus. SCSU's chapter of the College Republicans, while not as robust a presence as the Young Americans for Liberty group, are still plenty energized.
According to Pew's polling, SCSU's conservative students are pretty much typical in terms of intensity with what they're finding nationwide.
"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president and, perhaps, with politics itself."With young people supporting him less than enthusiastically, President Obama's coalition has all but disappeared. His support amongst independents was large and enthusiastic. They're now supporting Republicans by 2:1 margins. Seniors supported President Obama, too. Thanks to the Democrats' proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage, seniors have abandoned President Obama, too.
Democrats saw evidence of this last November, when Republicans removed Democrats from power in the New Jersey and Virginia governors's races. Young, minority and new voters who Obama pulled into the fold in 2008 did not turn out at the same levels for the two Democratic candidates. The same thing happened in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race last month in which a Republican won a solidly Democratic seat.
Couple that with the luster going off his speeches and I think it's safe to say that the lightning has left President Obama's bottle.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:57 AM
No comments.
Liveblogging the Summit
10:05-- Sen. Coburn is talking about CMS stating that government regulations drive costs up and that the government's involvement is 33 percent of the health care costs increases.
10:07-- Sen. Coburn is now talking about lawsuit abuse reform and defensive medicine costs. Eliminating lawsuit abuse and defensive medicine costs would save almost $850,000,000,000 annually.
10:09-- Sen. Coburn: Incentivizing people on food stamps to eat healthier would reduce costs. One out of three dollars doesn't help produce better health.
10:12-- President Obama is saying that saving money on government health care won't save money in the private sector. Sen. Coburn quickly and correctly reject President Obama's assertion.
10:42-- Paul Ryan is responding to Rob Andrews on the issue of federal regulations. Andrews says that the federal government needs to regulate health care mandates. Ryan nailed Andrews, saying that organizations like NFIB will do a good job of negotiating health care policies for their members. Ryan then says that governors will do a good job regulating health insurance, too.
Recap from earlier-- Sen. Baucus apparently believes that he's getting paid for each time he says "We're not that far apart." Yes, Sen. Baucus, the plans are that far apart.
Summary thus far: The difference thus far is stunning. Democrats sound like their bills are nearly identical to the Republicans' bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sen. Kyl is now highlighting how the Democrats' legislation would have Washington, DC regulating health care whereas the Republicans' would trust state legislatures and governors should regulate health insurance.
The differences are significant and we still haven't gotten into the Democrats' tax increases.
FACTCHECK-- PRESIDENT OBAMA: "It's Not Factually Accurate. Here's What The Congressional Budget Office Says. The Costs For Families For The Same Type Of Coverage As They're Currently Receiving Would Go Down 14 To 20%." PRESIDENT OBAMA: "No, no, no. And this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight."
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): "That's my point."
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Well, exactly. So let me respond to what you just Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage as they're currently receiving would go down 14 to 20%." (President Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)
CBO: "Average Premiums Per Policy In The Nongroup Market In 2016 Would Be Roughly $5,800 For Single Policies And $15,200 For Family Policies Under The Proposal, Compared With Roughly $5,500 For Single Policies And $13,100 For Family Policies Under Current Law. The Weighted Average Of The Differences In Those Amounts Equals The Change Of 10 Percent To 13 Percent In The Average Premium Per Person Summarized Above!" (Emphasis In Original; CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Bayh, P. 6, 11/30/09)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): "So It Is True That Some Persons In The So-Called Nongroup Market In The Year 2016, Would Find Their Premiums Would Go Up Without Subsidies. And I Think That Figure Nets Out To About 7%, But They're Getting Better Insurance." (Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/7/09)
FACTCHECK-- Senator Reid TODAY: "... no one has talked about reconciliation, but that's what you folks have talked about ever since that came out." (Senator Reid, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)11:15-- Rush is talking about Dave Camp's presentation, saying that Camp "is sinking three-pointer after three-pointer with nothing but net." I agree. Camp was citing specific pages in the Democrats' bills, only to have President Obama cut him off.
Reid Spokesman ONE WEEK AGO: "If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes." (Statement by Senator Reid Spokesman Rodell Mollineau, The Plum Line, 2/19/2010)
OBSERVATION: This is a pretty stellar performance by the Republicans. Their arguments are solid. They're challenging the Democrats' claims. Most cleverly, they're citing the Democrats' legislation. They've shown the reasonableness of their proposals. President Obama himself is agreeing with the Republicans' goals.
11:53-- Rep. Louise Slaughter is now speaking. Yet another Democrat talking about abandoning "the elderly, the mentally ill" and other victim groups. She's inferring that only government can take care of these people. This is a deep philosophical disagreement.
12:55-- They're starting to regather at Blair House. The summit should start again in 10-15 minutes.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:35 PM
No comments.
Testy Is Today's Byword
Check out this article and see what jumps off the page at you. Here's what jumped off the page at me:
President Barack Obama scolded Virgina Republican Rep. Eric Cantor for the stack of paper he brought with him to the health summit, calling it the type of political stunt that gets in the way of lawmakers having a serious conversation.Here's something from an exchange between President Obama and Sen. McCain :
"People are angry... we promised them change in Washington," Senator McCain said at the meeting on Obama's stalled top domestic priority at the Blair House presidential guest house in Washington.This was stunning TV. President Obama has having a snit all day thus far. Petulant is an adjective that fits President Obama to a Tee. He's had his lunch handed to him several times, with Dave Camp, Eric Cantor and Lamar Alexander leading the charge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Look, let me just make this point John, because we are not campaigning anymore," Obama said, having had time to compose his rebuttal jab.
"We can spend the remainder of our time with our respective talking points going back and forwards, we are supposed to be talking about insurance."
This isn't going according to the Democrats' script. In fact, I'll predict this: If this afternoon's session goes like this morning's session, this will demolish the Democrats' 'Party of No' storyline forever. They're getting their backsides kick. The reason I know that is because Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer spent their time talking about how little the differences were between the Democrats' legislation and the Republicans' ideas. That simply isn't credible. If that were true, we would've agreed on a compromise bill long ago.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:13 PM
No comments.
Liveblogging-- Afternoon Session
1:15-- Dave Camp continues to do a great job. This time, he's highlighting the Democrats' legislation that gives "an unelected secretary of HHS" the authority to establish what benefits the federal government will mandate.
1:32-- Marsha Blackburn is highlighting the sale of insurance across state lines. She's comparing it with people buying other products across state lines. She's now talking about the California 39 percent rate increase. If the legislature opened things up, "Californians could go to Oregon" and save money.
1:39-- President Obama says that mandates "may increase costs a little bit." WHAT??? That's just plain wrong. Mandates significantly drives up costs.
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:44 PM
No comments.
Seifert: Let's Halfheartedly Do What's Right
DISCLAIMER: I'm part of Tom Emmer's steering committee.
According to this Strib post , Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert offered amendments to the legislation that would move Minnesota's primary from September to August. Had it passed, Tom's amendment would've required voters to present a photo ID before voting. Unfortunately, too many DFL legislators stayed loyal to the DFL leadership to vote for a reform that upwards of 75 percent of Minnesotans agree with.
Larry Haws and Larry Hosch, who represent HD-15B and HD-14B respectively, voted against the photo ID amendment.
Marty Seifert's amendment would've reduced the number of people a legally registerd voter could vouch for from 15 to 3 . My question for Rep. Seifert is simple: Why didn't your amendment eliminate vouching altogether? If you think it's important to offer an amendment limiting vouching, you obviously must think that there's something wrong with vouching. If something in our electoral system needs fixing, shouldn't we fix it rather than just tinker around the edges?
I remember this Powerline post from the 2004 election cycle:
Among the well-funded and supposedly independent groups supporting John Kerry in the campaign is Americans Coming Together (ACT). ACT has taken notice of Minnesota's special vulnerabilty to vote fraud and organized a sophisticated effort to exploit it in a manner that violates Minnesota law. In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:Clearly, the opportunity for voter fraud exists within a vouching system. There's no reason to trust someone vouching for someone who doesn't have the proper paperwork. As Powerline's post shows, liberal special interest groups have figured out how to game the system.Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
This email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the "vouching" necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer "personally knows" the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
With that in mind, shouldn't Mr. Seifert's amendment eliminated vouching, not just cut down on it? I'll admit that it was likely that the DFL was going to defeat the amendment. That's all the more the reason to draft it right. Doing something half way gives the DFL the excuse that they didn't vote for it because it didn't fix the problem. Had Rep. Seifert offered an amendment that would've eliminated vouching, the DFL would've been forced to defend a system that can be gamed.
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 12:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Feb-10 09:21 AM
Hmmm. It seems to me that you've pointed to what I see as the major difference between the two men. While I can see the validity of both approaches, it seems Mr. Emmer was willing to hold firmly to a principle and lose the whole thing, while Mr. Seifert was willing to serve the same principle by supporting a "half measure."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Feb-10 10:09 AM
Jerry, I've learned the hard way that there's no middle ground between right & wrong. If you accept the premise that voter fraud is possible by letting people vouch for people who don't have proper identification, then it should stopped, not curtailed.
Comment 3 by kb at 26-Feb-10 02:41 PM
I'm not sure I agree with you here, Gary (and Jerry.) If you are going to allow same-day registration -- which photo ID does -- you also can have legitimate reasons for not being able to have one. Photo IDs can be forged after all. Nothing's perfect, but wouldn't registration closing on October 1 or thereabouts be a better bill than same-day registration with photo ID?
And if so, why didn't Emmer propose that? Does he support voter fraud?
Of course he doesn't. You and I know that. And you and I know both GOPers would be prefer photo ID. But one was willing to work for a movement in the right direction now and continuing work later, and the other wanted all-or-nothing ... except it's an odd definition of 'all'.
You know Friedman's dictum -- the best is often the enemy of the good.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Feb-10 06:40 AM
King, I haven't researched this yet but I think Motor Voter, passed in 1993, provides for same day registration. That means election laws can't provide for the elimination of same day registration. Now if you want to talk about repealing Motor Voter, I'll be a staunch ally.
I understand the concept of incrementalism. I just disagree with that strategy in this situnation. The DFL wasn't going to pass any changes to vouching. PERIOD. The only way the laws will be changed is by winning the House & Senate & keeping the governor's mansion. Then incrementalism won't be needed.
Here's my dictum: the best is the enemy of the good & the DFL is the enemy of the best & the good & even the satisfactory.
Comment 4 by Average Joe at 26-Feb-10 03:19 PM
Total crap.
Marty has offered the stronger amendment at least once before, probably more. The DFL wasn't going to go for it this time simply because Emmer offered it. So instead of putting up the same amendment that's failed before, offer something that's at least closer to what we want.
Emmer supporters are the most desperate I've seen in a long time. You guys make Brian Sullivan people look secure in their candidate.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 26-Feb-10 03:23 PM
Activists keep complaining that candidates don't follow the platform. It says: "M. Eliminating the practice of vouching for individuals at polling places, requiring that voters be registered at least 30 days prior to an election and requiring that voters
present a valid proof of U.S. citizenship and state residency and a photo ID, at the time of registration and when voting."
Now, if the DFL won't budge on this whole thing, is it better to get some motion forward, or to wait until we get a majority that agrees 100% with this Platform plank? Isn't admitting that vouching for 15 promotes fraud-- but maybe vouching for 3 doesn't-- a good, principled first step? If that doesn't fly, how is it better to have proposed the whole plank as written?
Thursday's Observations
Though I didn't get to watch the entire summit, what I did see impressed me. Going in, I knew I'd be confident that John Kline, Eric Cantor, Dave Camp and Paul Ryan would be persuasive. They didn't disappoint in that respect.
Paul Ryan was particularly persuasive. His dissertation on the CBO's deficit projections was a thing of beauty. When Xavier Becerra tried accusing Ryan of criticizing the CBO , Ryan's strong response quickly forced Becerra to quickly backpedal. Here's that exchange:
BECERRA: Mr. President, thank you very much for bringing us all together. I do want to address something that my friend, Paul Ryan, said, because I almost think that we can't have this discussion any further without addressing something Paul said.As good as Congressman Ryan's exchange was with Rep. Becerra, Eric Cantor's substantive criticism of the Senate health care bill was even better. Here's a portion of Cantor's criticism:
Paul, you called into question the Congressional Budget Office. Now, we could all agree to disagree. We could all have our politics, but if there's no referee on the field, we can never agree how the game should be played.
RYAN: Let me clarify just to be clear.
BECERRA: No, no, let me...if I could just finish. And so I think we have to decide, do we believe in the Congressional Budget Office or not? Because Paul, you and I have sat on the Budget Committee for years together and you have on any number of occasions in those years cited the Congressional Budget Office to make your point, referred to the Congressional Budget Office's projections to make your point. And today, you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office.
RYAN: No, that is not what I'm saying.
BECERRA: Well, that was my interpretation. I apologize if I misinterpreted.
RYAN: I am not questioning the quality of their scoring. I am questioning the reality of their scoring.
BECERRA: If I could just finish my -- OK. I -- I take your point on your clarification.
So...but I do want to go back to your suggestion as to why we're here. And you suggested that maybe we are here to find some points of agreement to bridge the gap in our differences. And I do like...to go back to basics, we're here because we Republicans care about health care just as the Democrats in this room.I'm certain that the American people agree with Rep. Cantor. I'm certain that they don't trust Washington with setting the right regulations, especially when the legislation cedes all authority to the HHS secretary. I'm betting that the American people aren't comfortable handing that much authority to an unelected official.
And when the speaker cites her letters from the folks in Michigan and the leader talks about the letters he's received, Mr. Andrews his, all of us share the concerns when people are allegedly wronged in our health care system.
I mean, I think that is sort of a given.
We don't care for this bill. I think you know that. The American people don't care for the bill. I think that we demonstrated, you know, in the polling that they don't.
But there is...there is a reason why we all voted no. And it does have to do with the philosophical difference that you point out. It does have to do with our fear that if you say that Washington can be the one to define essential health benefits, there may be a problem with that.
And that's the language in the Section 1302 of this bill, that it says that the secretary shall define for people what essential health benefits are.
Dave Camp also skewered President Obama with his presentation :
CAMP: Thank you, Leader Boehner. And thank you, Mr. President, for the invitation today.Again, I'm betting that most people would agree with Rep. Camp that lawsuit abuse reform must be part of any health care legislation. Camp and Ryan also did a great job of highlighting the fact that Democrats are cutting Medicare with the intent of using that money to pay for a new entitlement. It's one thing to cut Medicare to strengthen it long term. It's unacceptable to cut Medicare to pay for a new entitlement because that would make Medicare less solvent while creating a new entitlement at a time when entitlement reform is badly needed.
I think as we focus this part of the conversation on cost, a lot of Americans say to me, "If you're really interested in controlling costs, well, maybe you shouldn't be spending a trillion dollars on health care, as the Senate and House bills do."
Also, cutting Medicare benefits by a half-trillion dollars to fund this new entitlement is I think a step in the wrong direction, and many Americans do as well . The nonpartisan actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services say on page four of their letter on the Senate-passed bill that it would bend the cost curve in the wrong direction by about a quarter-trillion dollars. They specifically say the health expenditures under the Senate bill would increase by $222 billion.
A key way of reducing costs that's missing from the House and Senate bills is responsible lawsuit reform that guarantees injured parties, much like our two largest states have adopted, Texas and California, access to all economic damages such as future medical care. If they need nursing care in the future, they'll get it, lost wages, reasonable awards for punitive damages and pain and suffering.
The Democrats' storyline of Republicans being the Party of No was demolished, too, though I'd be surprised if they didn't play that card again. It just won't have any credibility. Yesterday, America got to see the Republicans' poise, their ideas and their solutions. I think they did themselves an immense amount of good for November.
This was likely the first time America got to see John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Dave Camp. They now can picture them as credible alternatives to Speaker Pelosi's leadership team.
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 7:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Feb-10 08:24 AM
What I found most astounding was Coburn's (I believe) statement that 1/3 of all Medicaid (and Medicare?) goes to fraud. Add to that the 1/2 of all spending that Mayo says goes to government overregulation, and we could cut health spending by 2/3! You think that a few more people could buy insurance under those conditions? Create a bigger market, more people enter it, and the price goes down some more.
