March 4-7, 2010
Mar 04 10:53 He Can't Help Himself Mar 04 15:30 Pence: The American People Get It Mar 05 04:05 I Agree With the St. Cloud Times Mar 05 17:37 Michele Travels, Tarryl Whines Mar 06 11:32 Looking For a Compelling Story? Here's One Mar 07 08:16 This Week In Elections
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
He Can't Help Himself
When it comes to telling it like it is , President Obama is a failure. Not a total failure but a failure nonetheless. In the interest of fairness, let's start with what President Obama got right:
Where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can't afford it. Businesses can't afford it. The federal government can't afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don't get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who's sick and who's healthy; who can pay and who can't.President Obama is right. Republicans and Democrats think that the current system needs reforming. Here's where President Obama resorts to his favorite trick, the use of the strawman argument:
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry, whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.If President Obama means that conservatives believe that patients should have the right to consult with their physicians and determine what's best for them, then I'll admit he's right. If President Obama means that Republicans want to totally deregulate the insurance industry, then he's wrong.
Furthermore, it's far from certain that President Obama's comprehensive plan will work. States like Texas have proven that reducing lawsuit abuse cuts health care costs by reducing defensive medicine costs.
Here's another example of President Obama's outright deceit:
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions,families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care, ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.This WSJ article highlights Rep. Paul Ryan's arguments against President Obama's claims:
The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.President Obama's health care plan doesn't get close to being deficit neutral because he double counts Medicare cuts, first saying that they make Medicare solvent, then saying that they'll be used to pay for a new entitlement. I'd say President a used car salesman gimmick for attempting this but I'm not certain that even they'd stoop to this level of deceit.
What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.
This paragraph is especially aggravating:
I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well; every family, every business owner, every patient, every doctor, every nurse.The American people have been telling President Obama and Speaker Pelosi's Democratic minions that they don't want this legislation. They've said that in the Virginia and Massachusetts elections. They've said that in townhall meetings in New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Texas.We've told pollsters across these 50 states that we'd rather do nothing than pass this legislation.
It isn't that we haven't spoken out. It's that Washington hasn't done what we've told them to do. This isn't because they don't get it either. It's that President Obama is perfectly willing to go against the will of the American people for the sake of his legacy.
It's got to stop. It's time that We The People told Congress that they'd better stop this insanity or we'll replace them each November until their disastrous legislation is repealed. PERIOD.
If President Obama can't help himself, then we'll help him remember that he works for us. We'll help him remember that we're not here to build his disastrous legacy.
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010 11:03 AM
No comments.
Pence: The American People Get It
I just finished interviewing Rep. Mike Pence, the Chairman of the House Republican Conference. My first impression from the interview is that Chairman Pence is an optimist who trusts the American people. I'm basing that opinion on Chairman Pence's response to a health care question I asked early in the interview.
I started by saying that I don't know that the American people understand the difference between price controls and cost controls. I then asked if he'd like to explain the difference. Chairman Pence said that he thought "that the American people do get it" that "that's why the American people have rejected it."
I mentioned that Gov. Daniels' HSA plan in Indiana and Gov. Pawlenty's plan here in Minnesota both rely on people making wise health care choices. Chairman Pence said that one of the things he took from President Obama's speech yesterday was his saying his plan "gives control back to the American people." Chairman Pence said that his first reaction was that "if you're going to give control back to the American people, you should give it to the American people, not the government."
Another question I posed to Chairman Pence was about the economy. I started by mentioning that the jobs report due out Friday morning was rumored to be negative. I then asked him whether he thought a double dip recession remained a possibility. Chairman Pence said that "the American economy is the most resilient economy in the history of the world" but that the Democrats' stimulus bill hasn't done anything that would "unleash private sector ingenuity."
Chairman Pence said that we're spending too much, that, historically speaking, spending has been approximately 20 percent of the American GDP. That's why he and Rep. Jeb Hensarling have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit the federal government from spending more than that 20 percent figure in any year. Chairman Pence then said that, if President Obama's health care legislation passes, "the federal government would be spending almost 40 percent" of the American GDP annually.
I asked Chairman Pence what he thought of the TEA Party movement, what its contributions were with respect to the Democrats' agenda. Chairman Pence started by saying that the TEA Party "movement was an expression of the American people's frustration" with Washington.
Chairman Pence said that TEA Party activists "were people from both political parties" who were frustrated that Congress wasn't listening to them. Chairman Pence said that he likes to live by the belief that "a congressional minority with the American people on their side" can defeat congressional majorities.
I said that I shared that belief, that I worded my belief a little differently. I said that "Being on the side of the angels on an issue will beat lots of money more often than not." I said the Florida primary between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio was a perfect illustration of that. Chairman Pence said that that's why he's confident that Republicans will return to the majority in 2011.
I told Chairman Pence that a defining moment for me of the conservative movement came in last Thursday's health care summit when Rep. Paul Ryan refuted President Obama's claims that the Democrats' plan would lower health care costs, lower the deficit and lower health insurance prmiums. I said that President Obama hasn't refuted them because he can't refute Congressman Ryan's claims.
Chairman Pence he "likes to say that President Obama listened but that volume must've been turned down", something I got a chuckle out of.
Finally, I told Chairman Pence that I'm impressed with the conservative nucleus they've put together on the House side, with himself, Paul Ryan, Thad McCotter, my congresslady Michele Bachmann, John Kline, Eric Cantor, Leader Boehner and many others. I told him that as long as they'd keep upholding the principles outlined in the Constitution, that the conservative blogosphere would have their backs and that, more importantly, they'd have the support of the American people.
I'd like to thank Chairman Pence for granting this interview. I appreciate his optimism. Frankly, I'm impressed by his optimism. These haven't been a great last couple of election cycles for Republicans. It's amazing to me that they don't feel like they've been hit with a bus considering Speaker Pelosi's hardball tactics.
It's only possible, in my opinion, because Chairman Pence believes that the American people get it and that the American people believe Republicans have the better solutions.
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010 3:33 PM
No comments.
I Agree With the St. Cloud Times
Thought I disagree with some of the statements the Times' Editorial Board made in this editorial , I certainly agree with the editorial's title:
Our view: Yes, nation needs a vote on health billOne thing that I disagree with is this statement:
In fact, we believe that thanks to Republicans' politics of fear and Democrats' pathetic communication skills, these issues have united to become the main driver behind middle-class concerns about Obama's plan.The biggest problem that the Democrats' health care bill has isn't due to the "Republicans' politics of fear" or the "Democrats' pathetic communications skills." The biggest problem facing the Democrats' health care legislation is reality.
The reality is that the Democrats' health care legislation adds approximately $460,000,000,000 to the already oversized deficits over the next decade. Another reality is that the Democrats' legislation increases taxes by $500,000,000,000. Another reality is that the Democrats' health care legislation counts the Medicare savings twice, once for saving Medicare, the other time for creating a new entitlement.
These aren't trivial things. These are the types of 'details' that expose the lie behind the Democrats' health care legislation.
Something that the Times' editorial omits is what Paul Ryan said directly to President Obama:
This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.Numbers matter in this discussion. They matter because they tell us whether the government can keep its promises. All the fine-sounding policies in the world don't matter if you can't pay for them.
The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.
The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets.
The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program. The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.
Numbers matter because they tell us that the Democrats' health care legislation can't keep the promises it makes because they'd have to tax us into oblivion to pay for their legislation.
The Times' editorial relies on this assumption:
If Obama gets his wish, the vote will come in about a month. If Republicans get theirs, America starts from scratch.We wouldn't have to start from scratch. That's an assumption, not a verifiable fact. One option is starting with Paul Ryan's plan. Congressman Ryan's plan doesn't raise taxes. What Congressman Ryan's plan does is cut health care costs and health insurance premiums. Does the Times Editorial Board think that that isn't a worthwhile option? Are they just dismissive of Congressman Ryan's plan?
Because Republicans in Congress are listening to their constituents, they know that doing nothing is unacceptable. They also know that just being against something isn't good enough. That's why Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr and Devin Nunes put the Patients' Choice Act together.
The PCA is the health care legislation that deserves an up or down vote. Politicians that summarily reject PCA should be summarily rejected this November.
Posted Friday, March 5, 2010 4:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Mar-10 07:05 AM
First, tax the rich. Get rid of the Bush [done by reconciliation] tax cut for the wealthy. Get them back to paying a fair share.
Second, squeeze out insurance company profiteering via single payer.
Third, vote out of office, in primaries, every DC politician who impeded single payer and public option. Every last one of them.
Except, Obama is not up for reelection. I would hope Howard Dean runs a challenge. Dean surely would have my vote.
And Rove and FOX are fear mongers.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 05-Mar-10 07:10 AM
Now. I agree entirely that cost control is important.
I have not seen the GOP, other than perhaps Ryan, saying they wanted to take on Big Pharma, the HMOs, and the insurers.
Who are you going to squeeze? A few doctors? Graduate more, stop the rationing of doctors at the med school level. But they do the heavy lifting. Not insurance company bureaucrats who make non-coverage decisions with people dying from that. Not the first floor HMO bean counters. Not the pharmaceutical companies with the same drug pricing in the US and Canada skewed falsely and not under market forces that would apply if we had single payer and a single big buyer negotiating to have as good a price in the US as any other nation where those firms do trade.
Cost cutting talk, and it is only talk, without going after the HMO, Pharma and insurance leeches is blowing smoke.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 05-Mar-10 08:55 AM
Well, there are two ways to control costs. One is by government dictating to providers what they can be paid. Since government now controls roughly half of all health care spending, you will find a huge amount of that "savings" simply shifted onto private health insurance companies, and about 1/2 of that savings going right back into gaming the government system, rather than to medical care. Even at that, government-run health insurance costs have been escalating at almost twice the rate of private health insurance, with private insurers providing substantially better quality of care.
As for "single payer," I will point out that we have exactly that for senior citizens. It's called Medicare, it's mandatory, and it's broke. Many doctors won't see new Medicare patients because it doesn't pay well enough. There are so many rules that you can't often get the care you really need and you aren't allowed to pay for it out of your own pocket. Add to that the fact that GM went broke paying retiree health benefits that, according to "government sources," completely covers medical care for retirees. Hint: Medicare is a lie, a fraud, a sham, and ought to be abolished and turned over to private insurers. If you want to "squeeze" something, squeeze government OUT of the health care industry, and watch costs fall 50%, while quality improves.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-10 09:27 AM
Jerry, I disagree with you that gov't can control costs. They can control prices but they can't control costs. If that's what you meant, then I'm with you.
Eric, I'll pass on your option of getting rid of capitalism, which is what you're saying. The United States has a higher standard of living because of capitalism.
The places with the worst environmental record are countries that don't believe in capitalism.
As for single-payer, I've written extensively about it. One of the posts includes a study by AMSA, the American Medical Students Association, a proponent of single-payer. Here's what they say about single-payer:
3.Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
Everyone hates pharmaceutical companies...until their product saves their life or the life of a close friend or a family member. Then their tune changes ASAP.
BTW, how inhumane is it that we'd shut down a system that's produced miracle cures for children? And the old & infirm? And those people hampered in the prime of their life by a debilitating disease or condition?
That's pretty cold of you, Eric. Shame on you.
Michele Travels, Tarryl Whines
For quite some time, Michele Bachmann's DFL opponents have whined about her travels. As near as I can tell, their whining hasn't gained traction with Sixth District voters. According to this MPR post , Tarryl is at it again:
Bachmann's opponents accuse her of neglecting her Minnesota constituents in favor of courting conservatives around the country.I'm thankful that Tarryl won't be in St. Paul or Washington doing a job on my wallet next year. Tarryl isn't a moderate. She only plays one when she's in her district. Based on the votes she's taken and the causes she hasn't taken up, she's as radical liberal as John Marty.
State Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, who is competing to run against Bachmann this fall, said the congresswoman is a "crusader for herself. She's off pursuing the celebrity status as opposed to actually doing the job," Clark said.
The reality is that Michele gets invited to alot of events across the nation because she's a passionate believer in following the Constitution, in limited government that lets the government closest to the people make the decisions, and in capitalism. Tarryl can't make any of those claims with any credibility. Right now, that's the type of governance the American people are craving.
This video shows why Americans love her:
Granted, the chances of a truly independent inquiry happening are nonexistent. Still, Michele was effective in highlighting the sleaze factor that's got America upset, sometimes even furious. Democrats are quickly becoming the sleazy party. Rep. Grayson's protestations notwithstanding, Americans are tired of the backroom deals and business-as-usual Washington. They voted for a post-partisan leader who promised a different Washington.
It's obvious that they're getting a highliy partisan leader who doesn't intend on changing Washington. Instead, President Obama has shown that he's putting a higher priority on changing America.
That's why it's important having Michele Bachmann in Congress. The reason why I and other conservatives love Michele is because she doesn't lose track of her principles. That isn't fashionable within the DFL locally and with Democrats nationally but it plays well with independents and especially well with conservatives starved for leaders with spines.
Let's also set one thing straight. Michele towers over Tarryl in terms of gravitas and charisma. Tarryl is a talented politician but she's prone to saying what she thinks her audience wants to hear. Those types of politicians aren't in style these days.
The American people want principled leaders who don't change their message depending on what their audience believes. They don't want politicians who say one thing in their district and do another thing at the Capitol. Unprincipled politicians have a tendency to sell out their constituents, which is the last thing they're looking for now.
Posted Friday, March 5, 2010 5:37 PM
No comments.
Looking For a Compelling Story? Here's One
For those of you who are looking for a compelling story this morning, Sanu Patel-Zellinger's bio is interesting reading. I'd recommend that everyone become familiar with it.
My name is Sanu Patel-Zellinger. I was born in India and grew up in Kathmandu (Nepal), before coming to the US in 1991. I paid my way through college and earned my degree in Business from Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota in 1997.That alone made the reading worthwhile. Here's more information that made it that much more compelling:
Shortly after, I received my US citizenship in 1998. I was as proud as could be. I married my husband Fred Zellinger at Grace Church (Eden Prairie) in 2000. Both of Fred's parents were teachers, and his father taught for over 35 years and currently live in Wisconsin.
My parents are now retired and live in Lakeville, where the whole family enjoys gathering often at their house. My grandparents (now passed away) were active in fighting for India's freedom in the 1940's, and my grandfather was also the president of the Bhartiya Janata Party (loose translation is the "People's Party", one of the main political parties in India, with values similar Conservative values) during the 1970's and early 1980's until he passed away.Clearly, Ms. Patel-Zellinger and her family values liberty, which is the best starting point for legislation. If legislation doesn't make us more prosperous, more safe or more free, then it's legislation that shouldn't be a high priority. Someone with Ms. Patel-Zellinger's upbringing is likely to have the right priorities.
Follow this link if you'd like to contribute to Ms. Patel-Zellinger's victory this November.
Originally posted Saturday, March 6, 2010, revised 07-Mar 7:40 PM
Comment 1 by Gregg Peppin at 06-Mar-10 11:00 PM
Sanu Patel-Zellinger is a true American success story and an inspiration to everyone that the American dream is alive and well. She's a smart, articulate, liberty-loving conservative with a great shot to beat tax-raiser Ann Lenczewski!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-10 12:37 AM
Thanks Greg. I knew there was a good reason why I liked her from the outset.
Comment 2 by Lata Patel at 07-Mar-10 12:16 PM
Sanu is focused,determined and a born leader. I strongly believe that she will deliver with her quality and strength of values.
Comment 3 by Harry at 08-Mar-10 07:58 AM
I met Sanu at the SD 40 convention, and she struck me as well-spoken, hard-working, and a principled conservative. She will be a great candidate.
Comment 4 by Carole and Laddie Zellinger at 08-Mar-10 09:58 AM
This is not a "mother-in-law" joke, it is 100% the reverse. Sanu's
mother-in-law, Carole Zellinger, a retired teacher who raised seven children, is 110% supportive of Sanu. Carole and Laddie Zellinger have been very involved for over 50 years in Wisconsin government and politics. They very personally know Sanu's background and beliefs. The depth of Carole's support for Sanu? When Laddie suggested a donation to Sanu's campaign, Carole said she
had been thinking of an amount 10 times higher! What a mother-in-law!
Comment 5 by Suresh Patel at 08-Mar-10 11:09 AM
Sanu is an honorable,determined young lady. I WISH HER SUCCESS.
Comment 6 by Gavin Sullivan at 08-Mar-10 04:40 PM
Re: '[M]y grandfather was also the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (loose translation is the "People's Party", one of the main political parties in India, with values similar Conservative values) during the early 1980's until he passed away.'
The president of the BJP from 1980 to 1986 was Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Source: http://www.bjp.org/content/blogcategory/82/250/
Ergo: Sanu Patel-Zellinger seems to be claiming that Atal Bihari Vajpayee is her grandfather.
An oddity: Vajpayee isn't dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atal_Bihari_Vajpayee
Comment 7 by Fred Zellinger at 08-Mar-10 05:28 PM
Gavin,
Thank you for reviewing the information. Sanu's deceased grandfather was a state party leader in India, and is not Atal Bihari Vajpayee who was the national leader as you assumed.
Comment 8 by Gavin Sullivan at 08-Mar-10 05:57 PM
I see Sanu has updated her website, removing the error to which my comment called attention.
What is the correct name of Sanu Patel-Zellinger's deceased grandfather? In which Indian state did he live?
I'm curious because Sanu explicitly affirms her belief that the BJP is an admirable party, similar--in her view--to the GOP. (This is the first time I've heard anyone praise the GOP by comparing it to a hard-line Hindu nationalist political party.)
Comment 9 by Nancy Zellinger at 09-Mar-10 11:52 AM
Go Sanu! I believe she will add a breath of fresh air to Minnesota politics. She is genuine, entertaining, and determined. I call her my sister-in-law, but I love her like a sister. She has added a spark to the Zellinger family. I am so thankful my brother married such a good woman.
Comment 10 by Vicki at 09-Mar-10 08:02 PM
Sanu would make an excellent state representative. She would represent pro-family, conservative fiscal values with energy and determination.
Comment 11 by Jacqueline Caston at 15-Mar-10 02:03 PM
The real thing to focus on when it comes to Sanu's background, I feel, is not the tiny details of a referenced political party, but the fact that she came from a family where all of the kids wanted more than anything to come to this country for its liberty and opportunities. I wholeheartedly support her because what we really need right now is a candidate that genuinely respects and appreciates what this nation was founded on. We need someone who will toil to preserve the best parts of this incredible nation for the following generations. And in my opinion, Sanu fulfills and surpasses that standard. She will use her business intelligence, her diverse perspective and her experience as hard-working member of the community to serve us, rather than the usual crafty manipulations of our more politicized current representatives.
This Week In Elections
Starting today, I will be doing a weekly update on the trends I'm seeing. I'll also be writing about noteworthy articles that go at the heart of this November's elections. This Doug Schoen op-ed is one worth reading because it talks to the seemingly few sane people left in the Democratic Party. Here's what Schoen wrote that I emphatically agree with:
If the president decides to forgo compromise and move forward with his original bill, only two things could happen; both spell political disaster for Democrats. He could fail, with moderate Democrats voting "nay" out of fear of political pushback. In that case, Obama would look incredibly weak. Health care has been the defining issue of his presidency so far. And the perception of inefficacy could cost Democrats control of both chambers in November.We now know that President Obama's idea of a slimmed-down version of health care reform isn't slim by thoughtful people's standards. It's bigger because President Obama is theoretically adding 4 Republican ideas to the bill. I say theoretically because President Obama's lawsuit abuse reform is a sham aimed at grabbing headlines.
Alternatively, the Democrats could jam the existing health bill through Congress via reconciliation, a Senate procedure that lets them ignore Republicans. But that would be an act of just the sort of hyper-partisanship Americans have rejected time and again. Indeed, a recent CNN poll found that nearly three and four Americans want lawmakers to either abandon the existing bill and start over, or drop health care reform altogether.
President Obama's mishandling, with the 'help' of WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, of the health care debate is causing independents to question congressional Democrats' competence. It's affecting their opinion of the Obama administration, too. Health care, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' unwillingness to listen to the American people are the main reasons why this is shaping up to be a wave election that Republicans will likely ride back to the majority in the House.
This article is another noteworthy article because it shows the lengths to which President Obama is willing to go in selling his health care plan:
President Barack Obama on Saturday continued his final push to pass a healthcare bill this year as he attempted to assuage Democratic concerns that pieces of the massive measure wouldn't take effect this year, in time to show voters tangible results.Republicans have said that they have a plan that would lower the cost of health insurance premiums while dealing with the issue of people with pre-existing conditions. They'd do this by moving people with PECs into a high risk pool that the states would run. People in that pool would have their health insurance premiums subsidized, which would make their insurance premiums affordable.
"And while it will take a few years to fully implement these reforms, there are numerous protections and benefits that would start to take effect this year," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "This year, small-business owners will receive tax credits to purchase health insurance.
"This year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will finally be able to purchase coverage. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. And they will no longer be allowed to drop your coverage when you get sick."
Republicans did a great job explaining the details of their plan at the Blair House health care summit two weeks ago. In other words, people now know that there's an alternative to the Democrats' plan. The people now know that there is competition between the Republicans' plan and the Democrats' plan. That's a fight the GOP is likely to win, especially when they find out that the Ryan plan doesn't raise taxes.
The thing that caught my attention was that President Obama didn't mention the tax increases contained in the Democrats' health care legislation. He didn't mention the individual mandates, either. When those provisions are implemented, people will immediately feel the pain caused directly by the Democrats' legislation.
It's a pretty lame sales pitch if you can't mention a number of things contained in the bill. That's where President Obama finds himself. My message for the Democrats' congressional candidates is simple: Good luck this November.
Posted Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Mar-10 05:08 PM
I have a question: If Congress is going to mandate that insurance companies take people with PECs, and aren't allowed to drop coverage if people get sick, and have to cover children with PECs, doesn't their authority to do so rest on their Constitutional authority over interstate commerce? And since they won't allow insurance to be sold across state lines, there is no interstate commerce, right?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 07-Mar-10 05:23 PM
J. Ewing. We disagree on a fundamental point. To you healthcare is commerce. To me it is a basic human right of every citizen of a civilized nation, despite this being the one advanced nation ignoring the fact.
Starting from different positions we reach different conclusions.
Beyond that, writing insurance is not a right. It is a privilege. It is licensed. It is regulated. States rights advocates probably prefer the system you do not like.
Writing insurance is commerce, and there's no genuine cause to exempt health insurers from antitrust law, as if they were like baseball teams or something, I recall growing up there was that exemption.
Now, doctors are trained in differing states, and nations, and are licensed and policed state by state, so is that something you'd change? Or do you only have the crying towel out for insurers?
Next, patients cross state lines for health care treatment, and equipment and medicines are in interstate commerce. Given that, why would you not say a concervative reading of the commerce clause would allow regulation nationwide, given how big a chunk of the economy goes into it?
It seems your only gripe is over the insurers not being able to seek the lowest common denominator with what, North Dakota so far that, as Delaware is in corporate law. Bad policy. Would you want New Mexico setting standards for Doctors in Minnesota?
There are nuances your argument ignores.
As a practical matter, single payer is the only approach long term that will work. It has been stymied by the exact people J. Ewing feels are mistreated.
And by the way, Gary. JE, who insurers nuclear power plants against major disaster liability?
If you want more nuclear power, how do you propose to manage liability for unlikely but potentially catastrophic accident?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Mar-10 01:34 AM
Eric, Where in the Constitution does it say that health insurance is a right? What article, what section? If you can't explain that, then this conversation is over.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 07-Mar-10 06:00 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126338/Obama-Retains-Trust-Congress-Healthcare.aspx
I expect the loss of trust in the Dems and Obama is among those progressives who are disappointed.
The GOP is hanging tight at 1/3 trust.
J.Ewing, look who's last.
Now, Gary, given that doctors are trusted most, perhaps your sniping at Tarryl Clark instead of Maureen Reed is misdirected.
Finally, itinerant former tax collectors going around the nation giving speeches against taxes, like Michele Bachmann for example, what's the trust level there?
It astounds me, the Sixth District.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-10 07:50 PM
Eric, Michele isn't an "itinerant former tax collector going around the nation giving speeches against taxes." Michele was a tax attorney, which is an important distinction.
It's also worth noting that people agree with Michele's anti-tax increase speeches. The dynamic shifts dramatically when the American people agree with you. That's why Democrats will be booted from office in big, big numbers this fall.
Why hasn't it dawned on you that the American people want to keep as much of their money as possible when times are tough? Why hasn't it dawned on you that people understand that people want small businesses to make healthy profits so they expand their businesses & hire people?
Reagan famously said, correctly, that he was never hired by a poor person. Frankly, I don't care whether small business owners pay what's subjectively known as their fair share. I care that they make enough profit to hire people & let everyone prosper. That's my ONLY BENCHMARK for taxation.
