November 7, 2009

Ryan: 'This is not about health care, it's about ideology'

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, 1st District, voted against the health care bill that passed the House of Representatives late Saturday night, 220 to 215.

If that's a surprise, you haven't been paying attention. Still, regardless which side you're on, it's hard to disagree with Ryan when he says, “This is not about health care policy. this is about ideology.”

Ryan's statement on the issue, sent out just five minutes after the vote, makes crystal clear how he feels about this bill that provides health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, while providing subsidies for millions more. Here's a summary of the bill's provisions from the Wall St. Journal, which is nobody's Democratic mouthpiece.

We're a long way from making up our minds about the bill, but it's fun to see how firmly Ryan is locked into the opposition. He credits its passage to "Pelosi's arm-twisting" and "political horse-trading" and sees in the bill the replacement of the "American ideal" by a "European-style social welfare state." And he's just getting warmed up.

Decide for yourself about the bill, which still has to go through the Senate. Meanwhile, here's our Congressman, in his own words:

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan voted against the Democratic Leadership’s massive health care overhaul, which passed the House of Representatives at 11:15 pm on Saturday night. Despite Speaker Pelosi’s arm-twisting enough Democratic votes for final passage, there was a bipartisan coalition opposed to the legislation – the result of mounting evidence that the legislation contradicted its own goals, along with growing concerns with its costly consequences.

While the Majority’s health care overhaul faces an uncertain future in the U.S. Senate, Congressman Ryan continues his efforts to promote fiscally responsible, patient-centered health care solutions. Prior to the vote on final passage of H.R. 3962, House Republicans offered a simpler and less expensive health care alternative, focusing on reforms that would reduce health care costs by empowering patients and small businesses, encouraging true competition to allow coverage to be purchased across state lines, and curbing the practice of defensive medicine by reigning in junk lawsuits. The Majority rejected this common sense proposal, opting instead for a 2,034 page, $3 trillion overhaul that will ultimately restrict individual choice and increase the cost of coverage.

As a result of last minute political horse-trading, House Leadership was able to secure 220 votes to pass H.R. 3962 late on Saturday night. In advance of tonight’s vote, Ryan delivered the following remarks on the House floor:“I firmly believe that this is the most consequential vote each of us will take in our service here in Congress.
“When you expose this bill’s budget gimmicks, does it increase the debt and deficit? Yes. Will it take coverage away from seniors, raise premiums for families, and decrease health care innovation? Yes. Will it raise taxes on small businesses and workers, and cost us nearly 5.5 million jobs when our unemployment rate is 10.2%? Yes. Does this bill mean the government will take over running our health care system? Yes.

“But what is worse is this bill replaces the American Idea with a European-style social welfare state. This bill – more than any other decision we are going to make in this body – will lead to millions of Americans becoming dependents on the state rather than being dependent upon themselves. This is not about health care policy – if it were, we could pass a bipartisan bill to fix what’s broken in health care without breaking what’s working in health care. This is about ideology.

“The choice is not whether or not you’re going to stick with your party leaders. The choice here is what side of history do you want to be on? Will you be on the side of history where you stick with the people and the principles that built this exceptional nation? That is the choice we face.”
As the House Leadership muscled through its overhaul of 17% of our economy tonight, Congressman Ryan raised a number of substantive concerns with the legislation:

A Government Takeover of Health Care – Rather than address the current health care market distortions imposed by flawed government policies, H.R. 3962 would expand Washington’s heavy hand and exacerbate what’s broken in health care. Specifically, the legislation proposes:
  • One-Size Fits All Health Care. The bill’s rating restrictions, coverage mandates, and benefit requirements will halt innovation and drive individualized health products out of the market. The bill disqualifies Health Savings Accounts, which provide more than eight million Americans with access to low-cost coverage. All plans would be subject to approval by a new Health Choices Commissioner, with the authority to penalize any health plan that does not comply with this new federal bureaucracy.
  • Government Rationing. In an unprecedented power grab, this bill provides the federal government even greater leverage in deciding which medical treatments are worth paying for and which are not. In an effort to contain costs of its new health care entitlement, a new “Comparative Effectiveness Research” program will inevitably impose government control over physicians’ medical decisions, and cause private-sector insurers to limit coverage in line with the government’s choices.
  • Price Setting. While the legislation suggests providers will be able to negotiate rates with the government, there is nothing to prevent this from becoming a take-it-or-leave-it, price-setting system. Put simply, prices will be dictated to health care providers at rates determined by the federal government.
Another Unsustainable Health Entitlement – The unsustainable growth in federal spending is driven largely by the exploding costs of existing federal government entitlement programs. Paradoxically, this bill attempts to address our entitlement and fiscal crisis through the creation of a costly new open-ended entitlement. H.R. 3962 dramatically adds to the federal government’s already unsustainable liabilities, including the following specific spending concerns:
  • $3 Trillion Ten-year Price Tag. Proponents continue to tout a massive budget gimmick, using 10 years of revenues but only seven years of cost. Even with this timing trick, the CBO’s score of H.R. 3962 remains in excess of $1 trillion. Once the spending is fully phased in after 2014, its true cost exceeds $3 trillion over ten years.
  • Driving States Deeper Into the Red. Rather than make quality health coverage more affordable, H.R. 3962 attempts to cover the uninsured by adding them to ever expansive government-run programs. The dramatic expansion of Medicaid would force cash-strapped States to spend an additional $34 billion over the next 10 years – on top of the already unsustainable Medicaid burdens States already face.
  • $279 Billion Doc Fix Shell Game – In a final-hour political deal, the Majority sought to gain credit for a Medicare reimbursement increase doctors want (the so-called “doc fix”), while hiding its $279 billion cost. This quarter-trillion dollar budget gimmick is a fiscally reckless stunt: Democrats will claim support for the doctors’ payment hike as part of their overall health care plan, but at the same time pretend its cost is a separate matter.
Heavy Taxes and Fees on Individuals and Small Businesses – The massive expansion of the federal government’s role in the delivery of health care relies heavily on a number of mandates and tax penalties. H.R. 3962 imposes $729.5 billion in new taxes on families, employers and workers, including the following:
  • A total of $460.5 billion in job-killing surtaxes on small businesses;
  • Another $135 billion in employer mandates, including the “play-or-pay” scheme punishing even small companies that are unable to provide group health insurance;
  • An additional $33 billion in individual mandates – including an unprecedented Washington requirement that everyone must buy health insurance or be subject to federal penalties (including jail time).

96 comments:

  1. Paul's voicing a load of crap, making excuses why people should be denied health insurance.

    It's time for him to go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hard to tout the government as a bogeyman when you're a part of it, hard to claim you're acting in the best interest of the people when your actions are clear political maneuvering, and hard to claim bipartisanship when you clearly don't believe in it unless the other side agrees entirely with what YOU say.

    The Post didn't flat out call you on this but it did allude to it: you're right -- this isn't about health care policy but ideology. Sadly, Paul Ryan, you're focusing on the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ryan is a 110% correct and is the only one to stand up to Lord Obama. Liberals call it "denying the poor little children health insurance" when in fact the republicans offered a reasonable and more efficient model of helathcare reform.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ryan doesn't represent his district. The only thing going for him is his massive war chest which INCLUDES 1.3 MILLION GIVEN TO HIM THROUGH HIS TERMS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    Who represents who?

    Who feeds Ryan the crap he spews out as facts?

    Who? Try the insurance companies.

    Sorry, Ryan is one big bag of paid wind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This will blow up big, the Post must need the page views for ad sales.
    To get my .02 in:

    1. I will not obay any part of Obama care that I am called on to do, even if I risk jail.
    2. I will practice as much civil disobedience to con tune to fight this when it becomes the law of the land. My protests will be peaceful but they will be noticed.
    3. All rino's from Helding/Maack up the line I will work to get them out of office.

    As we see perhaps another Trillion+ that we do not have get spent and more new taxes see what that does to the economy. Think 10% is bad now just wait.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul "its about ideology" Ryan was Bush's number one lap dog, now following the herd mentality of Karl Rove.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Liberals always attack the messenger. It would be nice to debate the merits of this enormous program but you can’t seem to get yourself to do it. Do you really think government will run this program effectively?

    For most of you, this about using government to give you an entitlement that you think someone else should pay for. It's that plain and simple. You just don’t have the balls to come out and say it.

    This bill enables government to take control of a large part of our economy. Tell me one thing that government has done to lower costs and improve service of an existing program? Where?

    For Obama, Pelosi and the Dems, this is about creating a huge new entitlement that will force millions of Americans to be dependent on government for their care.

    I do not want my government running 16% of our economy. That is/was not in the founding principles this country.

    Obama and his minions have their hooks the Banks, Car Companies and soon healthcare. This is going to be a disaster for the economy. For those of you on the left screaming for jobs, Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To the anon before me you attacked the person for attacking Ryan because liberals attack the person and not what they voted on, them you attack Obama. So you must be a liberal. Welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This government can't even get out flu shots and you people believe it can run health care. Social Security is 7 Trillion in the hole. I have paid for that for 35 years. Medicare is 32 Trillion in the hole and I have paid for that for 35 years. So tell me you morons,, Where the hell do you get your faith in this government from?
    I no longer accept ANY government law as applying to me or my family. I will not be like one of you slaves and lick the hand that feeds me. I won't eat their crap so you go ahead and have at it and let me tell you this DON'T TREAD ON ME!

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ anon 8:38. anger management issues? lol

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief."

    Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

    John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more
    fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam.. You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese.. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

    John Murtha, you said our military was broken.. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

    Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PART 2

    Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

    American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer..

    You are America's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

    Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

    Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Someone has been reading the Glenn Beck indoctrination materials again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fox News headline (online)

    Will Health Vote Doom Dems?

    ...yeah real fair and balanced!

    CNN Headline:

    House Approves Healthcare Reform

    ok...pretty factual

    MSNBC Headline:

    Landmark Health Bill Passes House

    ...again factual....first time in 100 years

    So there you go...you decide who is distorting the news in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ryan is 100% correct.

    This is simple.

    If this bill was so important why doesn't it kick in until 2013?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry for the two previous removals. It took some time for me to settle down and a couple rewrites to get it right.

    It's amazing how many dim-witted liberals, socialists, fascists, commies and leftists post on this blog who either have no clue how the O'Nazi's are trying to destroy this country, or are supportive of it. To all of you fools and traitors: YES the health care system is broken. YES it needs major repairs. NO, handing it over to the government to run (who can’t even run a vaccination program) is not the answer, and foolish at best. I wish you would all just shut up and sit down. Or better yet, go steal a gun from a law abiding gun owner and do us all a favor and blow your brains out if living in this country is so stressful for you. Extreme left liberals, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the rest of the hard left national socialists are the outright enemies of this country. They are all traitors, seeing that each and every one of them swore an oath to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution. And THEY have the gall to call our returning vets "potential domestic terrorists," when in fact THEY are the real domestic terrorists trying to destroy everything good that America stands for.

    Anon 6:16, Anon 7:00, Anon 8:25, Anon 8:38 & Anon 10:54-55, you guys are right on! You are the true patriots of this country. The left has managed to all but completely remove God from this Christian based country. They have tried to convince us that homosexuality is a completely acceptable alternative lifestyle, they have gotten laws passed that allow the murder of unborn babies and punishments for doctors who refuse to dishonor their oath to do no harm. They have managed to weaken our military and denigrate it at every opportunity. They have managed to proliferate generation after generation of welfare recipients into a broad voter base. They have managed to tax us out of our homes and over-regulate us out of our businesses. And now they want to take over health care and steal 1/6th of the U.S. Economy away from the people, giving them an "in" to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives under the guise of health care.

    I am sorry to say it, but based on the conversations I hear daily in restaurants, meeting halls, at work and on the street, if the conservatives of this country (and I don't mean just conservative Republicans) can't take it back with the vote in 2010 or 2012, then very shortly thereafter they will take it back by force. They say they've had enough.

    I have read the full U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and, like Anon 7:00, I refuse to obey any law that I find to be in direct opposition to those documents. I will also refuse to recognize, with extreme prejudice, the authority of any law enforcement group that tries to enforce them.

    Real Debate, be thankful that it doesn't kick in until 2013, that will give us time to get back control of Congress and overturn this liberal, fascist stupidity. I will go down fighting before I see this country turn into the United Socialist States of America.

    For God and Country, EVERY conservative in this nation needs to get off his/her complacent butt and get out and vote in the next elections to TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK! Please, before you force the rest of us to have to do it by means other than the vote.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rees Roberts11/08/2009 2:11 PM

    Graham, I have agreed with your views when you made perfect sense but your last set of comments honestly are troubling. Why? Isn't what you just said more like "if I like what happens I will gleefully agree but if I don't agree I will break laws"? That is your honest conclusion?

    Graham, I know you are pissed about the passage of the Health care reform bill but isn't this country based on legislation voted upon by the majority of representatives who the entire country has voted in? And just because you don't like a certain conclusion, is that the basis for breaking laws? Not in the United States I was brought up in.

    You are pissed because the Democrats won an election and suddenly had enough votes to pass laws which go against your conservative view point. But Graham, please step back and listen to what you are saying. It's wrong.

    What would you say if a Republican Congress passed something and you were a Democrat? Would you be saying the same thing? Should that Democrat act in a similar way?

    To incite law breaking means simply you want to disregard those principles you seem to want to protect. Namely the Constitution.

    If your comments were to become the trend then what kind of country would we end up with? In my opinion we would end up with chaos all the time because when Republicans are in power the Democrats would riot and visa-versa. No one would end up winning that scenario.

    Please carefully read your own comments again, Graham. Did you leave yourself an out? I believe I understand the thrust of your comments. We both want a strong country to live in but this isn't the way to go about it.

    Rees Roberts

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why is it the "patriots" as they refer to themselves are first ones to say they won't follow the laws they don't like? Even though they know elections do have consequences. It doesn't seem very patriotic to me. They say we have the best country in the world, except they hate our leaders and our laws and don't want any part of it. Wave that flag boys, opps! I forgot, you "patriots" wave that yellow one now.

    Also, for those of you who actually string together Nazi, Facist and Socialist as one interchangeable insult, get a dictionary! These are 3 different ideologies with very different goals. It would be as if I called you a gay, wifebeating, vegetarian. It makes you seem stupid. Get your vocabulary under control!

    Did you notice, Ryan only got a short rant compared to other GOPs? What's up with wonderboy? They didn't use his lousy bill when they produced their own even lousier bill on Tuesday. Somebody's slipping.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Graham,

    Disciplined, principled civil disobedience has its place, so long as you're ready to face the consequences.

    But using "with extreme prejudice" and law enforcement in the same sentence sounds more like Mao Tse-Tung than Thomas Jefferson.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rees, let me take you points one at a time:

    1. You got it wrong. I don't care who the political party is, if any of them pass laws that are unconstitutional, I'm not going to obey them. I should obey one law to break another? Where's the sense in that?

    2. You bet I'm pissed about this health care bill passing. It's the wrong thing to do. But as to you question, "...isn't this country based on legislation voted upon by the majority of representatives who the entire country has voted in?" Yes, but only when that body of representatives acts responsibly and doesn't pass laws counter to the laws of the U.S. Constitution and majority of the people who elected them. The biggest problem is that these politicians are no longer true representatives of the people. They have become overlords that constantly threaten us by telling us that if you don't do what we say we are going to fine you or penalize you is some respect. Well, screw them!

    3. Yes I'm pissed because the Democrats have enough votes to pass laws that, are not just against my conservative view point, but because they are unconstitutional. If this was truly a representative form of government then the idiots in charge would put this health care crap to a referendum and not shove it down our throats without even reading the damn thing!

    4. Regardless whether the party perpetrating these crimes against the American people is Republican or Democrat, wrong is wrong and I would say the same thing. By the way, I am not a Republican. They've crapped on us almost as much as the Democrats have.

    5. You say, "To incite law breaking means simply you want to disregard those principles you seem to want to protect. Namely the Constitution." Read what I just said! I am not going to follow any law that is contrary to U.S. Constitutional law. If defending a legal constitutional law is inciting lawbreaking in your opinion, then it seem you are the one that is blowing with the current breeze.

    6. The "trend" we need in this country is a return to common sense and laws of the U.S. Constitution!

    Choochy, I know the difference between the different factions I've mentioned. The point is ALL of them, whether separately or together, are all trying to bring down the U.S. as we know it. I say screw them all and anyone who traitorously supports them. And referring to them together is like referring to the Republicans, the Libertarians and the Constutionalist as similar type groups.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Graham,

    What's unconstitutional about health care reform?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rees Roberts11/08/2009 4:18 PM

    Graham, I do not believe I have it wrong. You appear to want to judge whether something is constitutional or not.

    You certainly have the right to an opinion but when it comes to acting on your opinion your actual behavior is controlled by laws. If your behavior breaks laws then you will need to accept the consequences of breaking those laws constituted by our voted representatives. That is the way it works in this country.

    I totally get that you do not like the way this country is going. I don't enjoy seeing many of the changes either. But, through out history there has been change.

    There once was a time when women did not have the right to vote. People HATED the day when they did. Blacks used to be slaves. Now they vote too. Are you suggesting we go back to those days? I personally believe the country is stronger for those changes.

    Fifty to a hundred years from now people will look back and say the same thing to what we currently hate. But in a world of change we must at least be tolerant of it. For that is actually the only constant. Change will always occur. And I have this feeling you will agree with me on that score.

    These are trying times Graham. I feel it too. But we need to Transition to this new world we are entering in a more positive way. Merely getting angry and posturing the message of disruption is not going to help anything. But I do emphasize with your feelings. Please try to find a more responsible approach. Martin Luther King was against many civil issues but he did so peacefully. I hope he did not die in vain attempting to show us the way.

    Sincerely

    ReplyDelete
  25. Randolph the question is does the constitution grant the government the ability to force someone into buying health insurance.

    At best, that question is cloudy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Randolph, there is nothing wrong with health care reform. It's just that this is not the way to do it. What should be done is to identify the underlying problem with health care (most notably the cost and what continues to drive it up), not turn it over to the government to become competitors in the industry and thereby allow the government to take control of such a large chunk of the U.S. economy.

    The other thing that's wrong with it is that this bill goes far, far beyond trying to "fix" health care, it actually places more and more restricting controls over the population; even going so far as to threaten them if they don't sign on. FORCING anyone to BUY anything is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government that authority.

    I answered your question two posts ago when I said, "YES the health care system is broken. YES it needs major repairs. NO, handing it over to the government to run (who can’t even run a vaccination program) is not the answer, and foolish at best."

    When I heard Robert Reisch say (and I paraphrase), "The new technologies and latest medicines will not be available to those over 55 years old, we are just going to let them die," I about went ballistic. That's the attitude the scum-sucking Nazi's like Obama, Pelosi and Reisch have. Are these the people you want to put YOUR health care into the hands of? I should hope not.


    Rees, that’s part of the problem; we’ve become TOO tolerant of what’s wrong and of having what’s morally right displaced by it. Something you fail to acknowledge is that, yes there is always going to be change, but it is not always for the good. So why should we be tolerant of that? This is America and constitutionally every American CITIZEN should have the right to vote, regardless of race or gender. I’m not advocating going back to darker times. It’s these damned liberals that want to take us back to the days when the overlords ran everything and the people were their pawns. Don’t you see that happening the way these elected official REFUSE to represent us and force changes on us that it is obvious the majority doesn’t want?


    Real Debate, the question isn’t cloudy at all. Cite any quote from the constitution that gives the government the right to force PURCHASING ANYTHING on the population. And don’t hide behind the “promote common welfare” because that doesn’t work. This health care problem can be fixed without FORCING the American people to BUY anything. When an independent research group can answer the question of why a simple saline IV costs $900 (when it should cost $30), then we’re on the road to identifying the underlying cause of the problem. But, adding another bureaucracy on top of what we’ve already got and forcing the people to buy and inferior product, and threatening them if they don’t, isn’t good government, I don’t care how you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks, Real Debate. That's a start.

    Certainly the states have the right to compel people to buy insurance.

    Why would not the federal government have the same power under the necessary and proper clause?

    Is this somehow an otherwise reserved power?

    It's not taking without due process anymore than taxation is, and in this instance, people actually do get a fair return for their money.

    Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Graham,

    I'm rather glad that the federal government will be taking over my health care insurance in a couple months, through Medicare.

    Otherwise, I wouldn't be eligible for any health insurance at all.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hopefully the senate takes the time to come up with a plan for healthcare that doesn't bankcrupt the country. There are ways to fix the issue without the massive spending in the house bill.

    The amount spent seems to be far to much for the few that will actually benefit from the spending. The other fear is how bad it will get for those who are happy with what they have for healthcare and their insurance.

    The ideology goes both ways on this one folks. The missing component in Washington is common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hopefully the senate takes the time to come up with a plan for healthcare that doesn't bankcrupt the country. There are ways to fix the issue without the massive spending in the house bill.

    The amount spent seems to be far to much for the few that will actually benefit from the spending. The other fear is how bad it will get for those who are happy with what they have for healthcare and their insurance.

    The ideology goes both ways on this one folks. The missing component in Washington is common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon,

    It's the current explosion in health care costs that will bankrupt the country.

    Health care reform slows that trend.

    It's far, far more expensive to continue the way we are.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Conservatives are the biggest bunch of cry baby sore losers in history.

    Get used to losing. You have no coalition, and your extreme views guarantee you a permanent minority position.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Are your readers aware that the Wall Street Journal was purchased by Rupert Murdoch and is now just used as a cover for Fox "news"? It has no more credibility than O'riely. Muck raking, swift boating conspirators trying to turn back the calendar to 1910.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There's lots of examples of compulsory insurance, from auto insurance to workers' comp, deposit insurance for banks, liability insurance for plumbers ...

    The "unconstitutional" argument doesn't seem to hold water.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This thing is dead in the Senate anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Majority of the Senate's in favor. It's just a question of whether the will of the people is frustrated through filibuster, you know, like they tried to do to civil rights.

    I suspect senators will rise to the occasion of history, as they ultimately did with civil rights and Medicare.

    A procedural vote on cloture certainly shouldn't stand in the way, and I doubt it will.

    There's no reason it has to, of course. That's not the law, just custom.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It may be instructive to recall what a filibuster is.

    It's a minority's attempt to frustrate the expected majority vote in favor of a measure.

    Thus, it's a question of whether a clear minority of senators will try to derail health care reform because they fear the results of a straight-up vote that would easily pass the measure into law.

    So, a senator like Lieberman from Connecticut - home to Pfizer, the biggest drug manufacturer in the world - can, after bolting his own party, join with a couple other obstructionists to prevent a fair vote to reform the health care system.

    Some democracy, huh?

    I don't think the majority's going to let that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sen. Bayh of Indiana may also be among the handful of senators who'll try to block the vote on health care reform.

    Remember, he's from Indiana, home to Ely Lilly, another one of the largest drug manufactures in the world.

    Like Sen. Lieberman in Pfizer's Connecticut, Bayh may also feel he's beholden to the big drug companies whose billions in profits must be protected at all costs.

    Oh, and as far as Lieberman's concerned, there's also the consideration of all the health insurance companies in Hartford, national capital of insurance.

    Starting to see a pattern here?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Randolph - since the Constitution does NOT expressly convey the power to the US Government to force citizens to buy insurance, I submit that this health care plan will be overturned as unconstitutional. You may want to brush up on the 10th Ammendment.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon, 9:50,

    "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Even the most strict, strict constructionist wouldn't buy your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Randolph, you seem to have (accidentally) excluded listing those powers for which the feds have the power to make laws to enforce - let me do it for you:
    (1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

    (2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

    (3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

    (4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

    (5) To regulate immigration.[7]

    (6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

    (7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

    (8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

    (9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

    (10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

    (11) To provide and regulate postal services.

    (12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

    (13) To constitute lower national courts.

    (14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

    (15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

    (16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

    (17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

    (18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

    (19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

    (20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

    (21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

    (22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

    (23) To admit new states into the Union.

    (24) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

    (2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

    (1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

    (2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

    (3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

    (4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

    (5) To conduct a census every ten years.

    (3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

    (1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

    (2) To borrow money.

    Try again, Randolph.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon, 11:51,

    Do you really think the president - a professor and lecturer on constitutional law - would present a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional?

    I think not.

    And, as noted above, the authority of government to require people and businesses to buy insurance, has long been established in any number of circumstances.

    Or do you advocate vacating all those laws as well, even though they've consistently been upheld by the courts?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon, 11:51,

    ... seems you'll need to spend the next seven years or so passing a constitutional amendment, if you really aim on carrying the day.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rees Roberts11/09/2009 6:52 AM

    No comment just the actual certified version of HR 3639 Health care reform bill:

    http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

    I came across it and thought maybe people might want to see it. It requires Adobe Acrobat to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Republican are going to have a field day at the next election. Pushing this piece of crap legislation through will be the demise of many Democrats. They can thank miss bitch Pelosi for their fall.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Paul Ryan needs to stfu

    All of you whiner conservatives should join him. You had a chance to fix this a few years back but you didn't care. So now the Democrats will fix it and you don't like the solution? Too bad, it is your fault it looks this way. Could have had a fix based on your ideaology but no....instead Paul Ryan and the conservatives tried to privative social security and give tax breaks to people that didn't need them.

    Democrats will have no problem in the next election. In case you missed it on Tuesday they picked up seats in the House.

    ReplyDelete
  48. So Randolf,

    It appears in your eyes profit is a bad thing. The fundamental problem I have with liberals is they want to use government to take away profits of legitimate companies and individuals they deem as "too profitable." You obviously don't believe in the free enterprise system which by the way gave our citizenry the best health care system in the world. Expensive, yes but the best. A free market system with free market competition, not government mandates, will drive costs down. The liberals don't believe in free enterprise. History has shown you cannot mandate price constraints on gasoline, oil, food, or anything else. If you take the profit motive away there will not be innovation. There will not be new drugs, instrumentation, techniques or anything else that has help fuel our life expectancy or quality of life. Randolph, does government mandate what your salary is? Should it? Something tells me that you aren't the hunter gatherer type. You just want big brother to give you what you want because you can't get it on your own. Unless you are infirmed, I would classify you as weak. I still want to hear from you as to what evidence you have that government, based on past performance can A) reduce costs B) can reform anything with mandates, C) can efficiently deliver a service better than the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Free Market is a myth. It is based on assumptions that will never be met.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 8:46 - you call charging those who don't buy the public option with a 5 years sentencing fixing it? there are so many things that you that signed up for have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm not against a view that is of a different approach to a constitutionally abiding law. I will fight to the death a law that ATTACKS our constitution or Bill of Rights PERIOD. Now do you GET IT? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEM'S OR REPUB'S.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Randolph says, "There's lots of examples of compulsory insurance, from auto insurance to workers' comp, deposit insurance for banks, liability insurance for plumbers ..."

    States rights Randolph, states rights.

    Are you aware that the federal government and state governments are not the same thing?

    Apparently not.

    It is amazing though how you are suddenly concerned about legislators relationships with various groups.

    Yet somehow you never made those connections in relation to Governor Doyle and all of his cozy relationships that got preferential treatmeant while you were the editor of the paper.

    I guess it matters which side of the aisle you support as to how you view an issue.

    (I'm not surprised)

    ReplyDelete
  53. SOCIAL SECURITY OVER 7 TRILLION IN THE HOLE.
    MEDICARE-MEDICADE 35 TRILLION IN THE HOLE.
    I ALREADY HAVE PAID INTO THESE PROGRAMS FOR 35 YEARS.

    YOUR RIGHT LIB'S LETS DISTROY OR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TOO.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 9:19 - when you have every Democrat and 1 Republican voting for this bill how can you say it has nothing to do with parties?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Of course, this has nothing to do about the reform of health care. Never has been. It is about the Democratic Party and the Rahm Emmanuels of the world "increasing/seizing control over blocks of the economy and citizenry and turning them into captive clients of their party -- votes and money to keep them in power." This is about FASCISM and I have attached Webster's definition of the word for your referral... since you obviously forgot what it means.
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

    Ironically, today is also the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall! Do you remember what that was supposed to stand for? It was a defining moment to the world that Socialism/Communism was a failure and a burden to the human spirit of Freedom. Sadly, twenty years later we are not that land of Freedom. We Americans have become this whimpering band of idiots who are quickly giving away more than two centuries of toil and supreme sacrifice, who now embrace the very scourge that threatened us. Our lesson: we must be responsible for who goes in office and pay attention to what really matters.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon 9:45am

    Lets take each one of those segments of that definition and see how it applies:

    A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,

    Ummmm you are obviously referring to our elected dictator? Come come now, how does one become a dictator when elected and knows he has a term limit. hmmmmm

    stringent socioeconomic controls,

    Oh you must be referring to our free market system. Man, you ain't seen anything like your definition in this country.

    suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

    Oh let me see, ohhhhh you obviously mean your free speech to say what you just said. Right? Obviously, you are one of those in control or else you would not be allowed to say what you just shared with us. I bow to thee oh god of spin.

    and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

    Oh goodness, the first black as an elected president and now we have racism as defined. Yikes. Belligerent nationalism.....not anywhere I've seen. Ohhhhhh, you mean the commercials on TV. Gotcha. Guilty as charged.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The Translator11/09/2009 11:26 AM

    Paul Ryan is right and it scares the hell out of the left. I dont see where Obama thinks he can get arurnd the Tenth ammendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon 9:45am:
    Hitler was elected.
    Gun control (registration) was in place before Hitler was elected.
    Hitler had Hitler Care for the Jews. It was called "Special Treatment".
    Anon 9:37: AM
    The Repub's have a version of the health bill of their own and as far as I'm concerned until the Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are "FIXED" first the government should forget about screwing up our health care industry. The Repubs would have squashed this thing already if they would have taken that stand.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Let’s examine some this creeping socialism, shall we?

    1) Everybody who accepts tax exemption on their home mortgages, raise your hand.
    2) Everybody with a government-insured and subsidized home loan, raise your hand.
    3) Everybody with their money protected in a government mandated FDIC-insured bank account, raise your hand.
    4) Everybody whose employee-provided health insurance is tax exempt, raise your hand.
    5) Everybody who’s on Social Security, raise your hand.
    6) Everybody who’s on Medicare, raise your hand.
    7) Everybody who’s collected VA benefits, raise your hand.
    8) Everbody who’s ever collected unemployment, raise your hand.
    9) Everybody who’s covered by workers’ comp under that mandatory insurance program, raise your hand.
    10) Everybody who’s ever placed their savings in a tax-exempt fund, raise your hand.

    Anybody left out there?

    I see, it’s fine when you get government aid for your own benefits. It’s when those benefits go to others that you object and call it socialism.

    Well, those of us who like programs like Social Security and Medicare would greatly appreciate it if you’d all demonstrate the conscious of your convictions and turn back your bennies to the government, so we’ll have more. Pay taxes on your government-subsidized loans, reject your Social Security payments if you reject socialism so much. When it comes time for you to sign up for Medicare, turn it down so you can buy health insurance on your own, like you say you want everybody else to do.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anon 111:37,

    Hitler's health care plan also banned abortions. Carried the death penalty for doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Randolf,
    So we should have government run everything, right? Except the newspapers of course.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Randy this plan will hurt medicare and seniors. The only reason AARP supported this plan is there investment in insurance companies - I don't hear Obama bring up this point when he blabbers about their support. Randy toy really move to a socialized country. You are correct in your statements above ther is already too much government in our lives. We don't need more.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anon 9:45. Every Deomcrat did not vote for this bill. Pelosi has a 75 vote majority and this passed by 3 votes.

    You are simply incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So Randolph's position is that we are not taxed enough?

    Have you ever considered the massive cost of government employees? That's where most of it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon 4:59 nailed it: "The missing component in Washington is common sense."

    The underlying problem with health care is "COST." The government going into direct competition with the insurance companies is not going to reduce the cost of health care. If anything, it will drive insurance premiums up. The government does not need to go into the health care business, possibly they could to set specific costs for medical procedures. There is no justifiable reason why a 4-hour operation should cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of each medical procedure, medication and equipment usage should be required to be justified. Can anyone explain to me why a hospital has the right to charge $50 for an aspirin? Get malpractice rewards under control and watch the $150,000+ per year doctors pay for malpractice insurance drop dramatically. Specify just how much a lawyer can charge for handling a malpractice suit and it will drop even further. The government, by going into direct competition with the insurance companies is not going to reduce medical costs or insurance premiums, it's going to be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Then, once the government finds a way to make a profit on its health care premiums it will get even less affordable and we'll still be fined if we don't buy it (and that is wrong on so many levels). Cost is what drives premiums. Get that under control and the premiums will come down. I am also not opposed to a profit cap for insurance companies.

    Health care is like food, water, heat, etc., in that it has become a necessity of life. Things that are true necessities of life should not be left unregulated for corporations to use to prey on the populous (like gasoline, etc.), but neither should it be in the hands of inept bureaucrats that have no idea what they're doing. Fight the COST of health care and make it affordable, then, through slightly inflated premiums, those who can afford to pay for it will also be helping those who truly can not afford it.

    Randolph, if the government takes over the entire health care system Medicare and Medicaid (which are both well over 1 trillion in debt) will be absorbed in it. I hope you feel the same way when you’re on a waiting list for months or years for a procedure, or when they tell you that you are too old and not worth the investment and to go to a hospice, take pain pills and wait to die. Quality of life has nothing to do with it. They don’t care! And why is it that senators and representatives won’t be using this same health care coverage that they are imposing on the rest of us? I don’t hear you complaining about that.

    It’s amazing how many people have not explored this health care bill and refuse to believe the socialist garbage that’s in it. Why does this bill deny doctors from having a vested interest in the hospitals they are working in? Why does this bill require that the federal government have direct access to everyone’s personal bank accounts? Why does this bill include language that turns over health care decisions to bureaucrats? And on, and on. It’s all in there if you read it.

    Randolph, you say, “The "unconstitutional" argument doesn't seem to hold water.” But look at what you’re citing: everyone of them is insurance required by businesses to purchase, not individual citizens. This bill is directed at each individual citizen and threatening them of they refuse to purchase it. Boo!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Randolph, I have never said that those who are living and/or working below the poverty level, or those who are legitimately collecting welfare or SSDI, or who are between jobs don't deserve health care benefits, and I've never argued against providing for them. In fact, most of the people posting here have no problem with that. There is no doubt that many social programs are needed as a safety net for those who legitimately need them. But, so little is being done to eliminate fraud and abuse that it keeps driving the costs up. You also need to stop and think about the difference between benevolent social programs and socialism. They are not one in the same.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Grahamy - dissertation time again? Can't you even allow someone to respond before you are compelled to post again. Grahamy gives us a break - you are not that important!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anon, 1:15,

    Rather than weaken Medicare, the House bill strengthens it.

    It reduces the amount seniors have to pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs and allows the government for the first time to negotiate for lower Part D drug prices overall.

    It adds more preventive care services and cancer screenings for the elderly, at no charge to them.

    It also provides benefits to help seniors and people with disabilities to remain in their own homes by establishing the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program.

    Hurt Medicare? Hardly. This is the best improvement in Medicare in years.

    ReplyDelete
  69. And round and round she goes.....

    Where she stops, nobody knows.

    ReplyDelete
  70. dy what is a qualified plan, how much will a person who makes $40,000 before taxes pay with deductible's and out of pocket expenses, what about a person making $100,000, which do you think companies are going to pay - the 72% of insurance costs that they are required to or the 8.5% penalty for not offering? If you don't know the answer to just a few of these questions, if a person does not buy into one of the plans, will they be fined, what about an illegal alien - will they be fined, - these points are covered in the 1st 300 pages of the bill. This bill is going to be the worst thing that can ever happen to the American public.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Sorry the questions above are for handy Randy.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anon, 3:52,

    I don't understand your run-on sentence, but something in there may refer to your fears that your employer could drop your health care if the bill passes.

    If so, I'll ask a question of my own: What's to stop your employer from dropping your health care right now?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Randy - I could have put a question mark after each statement. Read again and answer each question. It has nothing to do with my employeer, but to answer that queation, employeers will pay the 8.5% vs. the 72% - which will force all the employees to the plan, so where is the choice the Mesiah keep babbling about. But before you answer this queston answer the other ones. If you do not know the answers, read the 1st 300 pages of the bill - you have no idea what is in it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anon, 4:16,

    Too hard to read. Not the bill. Your prose.

    ReplyDelete
  75. If it is such a great bill why did so many dems vote against it? a 5 vote margin isn't an overwhelming show of support. Maybe the senate can come up with something better that we could actually afford.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Randy –

    Ok, let me simplify it for you so that you cannot cop out on my prose.

    How much will a person making $40,000 pre tax have to pay for complete insurance coverage, deductible, premium and out of pocket expense?

    How much a person making $100,000 have to pay?

    Do you think companies will pay the required 72% for employee insurance costs that are required or just pay the penalty of 8.5%? I already answered that one for you – this plan will drive everone to it with no choices.

    If a person does not buy into one of the plans how much will they be fined?

    What about illegal aliens if they don’t buy a plan?

    Are there any circumstances when ObamaCare will pay for abortions?

    These are just a few of the many questions I know, but I’m sure you do not or you do not want to admit to them.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anon, 4:54,

    On average, insurance premiums would drop about 12 percent.

    There’s not enough information here to say precisely how much for your $40,000 income example would realize (individual? family? How much out-of-pocket do they have now?) But, generally, families in this income range would, on average, save around $1,260 a year on a typical $10,000 family plan, and that’s without the additional government subsidy a family would become eligible for in this income range. In that case, a typical policy would cost considerably less, up to 84 percent less than current premiums.

    Somebody making $100,000 a year wouldn’t be eligible for the government subsidy, so the savings may be limited to just 12 percent, if that.

    In either case, out-of-pocket expenses would be capped at a maximum $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for families. Less than that on a sliding scale for lower income families. Those out-of-pocket costs can now be unlimited, depending upon how good your policy is.

    Insurance companies also would no longer be allowed to place annual caps on coverage or lifetime coverage caps.

    Since there’s nothing stopping your employer from dropping your insurance coverage right now, I don’t know that the new bill would have any practical effect on employers deciding whether to continue your coverage after the bill’s passage. They may have somewhat less incentive to drop you, however, since the employee coverage will cost them less and they’d have to pay a penalty to drop you once the bill is passed.

    People in the country illegally are not eligible for any of the benefits under the bill.

    The penalty for not having insurance depends on how much you make. Penalties could start at $200 and could go up to as high as $750 over the next decade.

    No government money can be spent on abortions unless the mother’s life is a stake or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, same as now.

    I puzzled out my own situation based on my own health care costs last year, and it wouldn't have made much difference for me. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans won't be affected by health care reform at all.

    It's basically designed to help millions of uninsured people to be more readily able to afford health insurance, and to stop insurance company practices of canceling policies for the sick or refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

    The long-term savings in health care come over time, a great benefit for taxpayers in the long run, but like I said, most people who already have insurance will see no personal change in their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Insuring people with pre-existing conditions would be huge for us. We could then move and get a better job and still have health care coverage. This is because I have a couple of pre-existing conditions. If we were to change jobs now we wouldn't be able to get health insurance.

    Anyone know if this would kick in at 2013 too? Or would pre-existing conditions part of it kick in immediately?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous 10:06

    Banning discrimination in insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions would be immediate upon passage and signature of the president.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Another very important part of health care reform would end the exclusive protections health insurance companies enjoy from normal federal anti-trust laws.

    The way it works now, health insurance companies can divide up territories exclusively and fix prices among themselves, eliminating any competitive pressures to keep costs down.

    Much of the health care reform bill deals with restoring competition to the market place.

    It's ironic that Republicans - supposedly the champions of competition in the market place -oppose these changes.

    ReplyDelete
  81. It's also ironic how the "aginners" disappear from these blogs as soon as the discussion turns to the facts of the health care reform bill instead of their propagandist distortions.

    ReplyDelete
  82. As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for.

    Here are the deals:

    * The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!

    * The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

    Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)

    * The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.

    * Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.

    The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.

    So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Randy you lie - not one of your response are correct. Go back and read the bill. And also let's here how Obama bribed the AMA and AARP. You are just a fat liar or an ignoramus. You are just spweing the bitch Pelosi BS talking points. This bill is going to cost everyone more from the $40,000 to 100,000 income. I am done with you - you are dismissed! I won't deal with liars.

    ReplyDelete
  84. As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for.


    Here are the deals:

    * The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!

    * The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

    Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)

    * The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.

    * Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.

    The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.

    So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anon 2:02, you are a total idiot. That was a continued response, not a second before some one else had a chance to respond. Look at the times: 1:42 & 1:52. Why don't you just go crawl back under your rock. Or hey, how about this, why not come out from behind that Anonymous cloak and use your real name, coward? Here's even a more novel idea: why don't you respond to the ISSUE instead of making stupid personal attacks? Jack ass.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Grahamy - Like I've said before - your thoughts are not that important to ramble on like you do on and on and on.....

    ReplyDelete
  87. Funny how it seems every time the health care reform debate turns rational, somebody from the peanut gallery shouts out, "You lie!"

    ReplyDelete
  88. Randy you do lie, why not respond to 8:02 - because you have no good defense.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Randy it is funny when someone speaks the truth - you can't support your drivel. The best thing that ever happened to the JT's was when you left. At leat we don't have to read your crap there. Unfortunatel you have the love of Pete and dustin and now your crap is out here. You should move from that house on North Main and throw the profits to the poor and then I suggest you move to a socialistic country.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Randy you are correct - this is the only time I will agree with you - s/b 8:10.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Randy given reality (8:10), you do not know how to respond - you only know how to tell lies. Nothing in your post is correct. This plan will cost everyone more money and hurt our seniors. And for your information abortions will be snuck in under educational monies to teaching hospitals.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anon, 8:10,

    I’m shocked, shocked, that negotiations are ongoing with stakeholders in the health care bill!

    C’mon, if the Republicans weren’t just sitting on their hands, they’d be at the table, too, while these things get worked out.

    But, no, they’ll just sit on the sidelines and shout, “You lie!”

    That’s really helpful.

    Anyway, of course the administration is negotiating with doctors on future Medicare reimbursements. This isn’t a dictatorship, and support from the medical community is crucial in making the health care system work. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

    I don’t know about your conspiracy with the AARP, but the fact remains that Medicare Advantage hasn’t worked out very well, and it was on the chopping block from the beginning.

    Medicare Advantage works like the old HMOs, which didn’t work too well either, and it never delivered the savings to the government that was promised over traditional Medicare.

    I go on Medicare next year, so I know of what I speak. I’ve been in the process of selecting a Medicare supplement insurance plan. I looked at both the Medi-gap supplements on the market and the Medicare Advantage plans on the market, and the Medicare Advantage plans certainly offered no advantage to me. Your care options are limited, as are your choices of doctors and other providers.

    Overall, Medicare Advantage offers less, and it costs the government more per patient. It’s time to kill the extra government subsidies that have been keeping it alive and just makes it artificially appear less expensive when it’s really not.

    I’m not saying there aren’t people who like it, but it’s not fair to everyone else for Medicare to more heavily subsidize the care for those people when traditional Medicare is less costly and at least just as good, if not better.

    If we’re going to cut wasteful government spending on health care, Medicare Advantage is a good place to start.

    It’s OK to experiment with these things, but when government programs outlive their usefulness and fail to deliver the economies promised, we have to have the courage to end them.

    Obama’s negotiations with the drug companies promises to significantly reduce the “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D that leaves some seniors up against an extra $5,000 in drug costs a year. It’s a good deal to end that alone. At lease it ends the Bush-era ban on negotiating the price of drugs at all, leaving the drug companies free to charge whatever they want.

    I was in the drug store the other day when a woman was told she’d exceeded her initial Part D coverage and had to pay $400 for her next prescription. I could tell by the look on her face she couldn’t afford it, and it came as a great shock.

    Let’s fix this now.

    Moreover, does it really surprise you that interests willing to negotiate do better in legislation than those that don’t?

    I share your dismay with the insurance industry, initially on board because they stand to sell millions of new policies, albeit at reduced prices, but then reneging on the deal in the 11th hour.

    I agree wholeheartedly that if they’re not going to cooperate in lowering costs, they should lose their most-favored anti-trust exception, which has meant price fixing and escalating costs for the consumer for years.

    Serves ‘em right. If they’re not part of the solution, they remain part of the problem.

    They’ll still do well under the bill, they just wanted more, and Obama and the Democrats (actually, some Republicans, too, quietly), just said enough was enough.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Randy - you'll say anything to cover your liberal butt. I'm done with you - you are dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Randy this is just the beginning. Your socilistic ways will cease very soon. The Jimmy Carter one term president will prevail.

    Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats for 2010 House Elections, Poll Shows

    According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 48 percent of voters said they would back a Republican, while 44 percent said they would support a Democrat, if the 2010 House elections were held today.


    Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele (AP).
    Fresh off major Election Day victories in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans got another boost Wednesday with a new Gallup poll that shows registered voters favoring the GOP over Democrats if the 2010 congressional election were held today.

    The Gallup survey, conducted Nov. 5-8, found that 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a Republican candidate for Congress, while 44 percent said they would back a Democrat.

    Independent voters were decidedly stronger in their preference for a Republican candidate, choosing the GOP by a 22 percent margin -- 52 to 30 percent -- according to the survey.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Randolph said.


    Well, those of us who like programs like Social Security and Medicare would greatly appreciate it if you’d all demonstrate the conscious of your convictions and turn back your bennies to the government, so we’ll have more. Pay taxes on your government-subsidized loans, reject your Social Security payments if you reject socialism so much. When it comes time for you to sign up for Medicare, turn it down so you can buy health insurance on your own, like you say you want everybody else to do.


    Your leaving one part of the equation out in your comments. Those benefits you receive you have paid for. Social security was paid for by you and your employers, medicare same thing, just about everything you listed is something you paid into. The FDIC insures money, do you think banks don't pay for that? In return do you think the banks don't recoup that from their customers? The argument is really when is enough, enough? Yourself in recent blogs have said your waiting for medicare to kick in. What's the hold up, you've paid into it for years now that you need it you have to wait. You are told when you can collect SS, why it's your money? You have contributed along with your employers on your behalf throughout your career, It's your money? They will give you medicare and ss when they think your ready for it. It does not matter that you paid in, what matters is, they don't have your money. They have used it for other things so you will just have to wait your turn while they collect it from someone else. It's Bernie Maddoff style, do you really think National Healthcare will be any different?

    ReplyDelete