The Health Care bill moving towards completion in the Senate is a great deal less than what our most fervid progressives could have hoped for, Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman having killed the public option and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson having wrung out concessions over public funding for abortion. It has exposed such seams in the Democratic Party – Harry Reid threatened to cancel Christmas this year until he got his last man on side – that noted economist and former Enron adviser Paul Krugman has called for changes to parliamentary procedures that have served the Republic for over 200 years.
Getting Ben Nelson on side took more than merely alienating the National Organization for Women, it cost the federal fisc $1.2 billion over 10 years, a sum that once seemed a very great deal of money but which pales against the specter of government taking the reins on one-seventh of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. It is perhaps the signal accomplishment of the bill that it split the left while unifying the right - in opposition:
The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.
So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.
These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
Democrats will argue that it was the obstructionism of GOP senators which created this spectacle, but they have always had the numbers on their side to invoke cloture. Any bill that could not pull in Olympia Snowe – the senior senator from Maine asked for a little time to read the 1,200 page document delivered three weeks ago, not to mention Harry Reid’s 400 page amendment delivered yesterday – has serious material and process issues that will take decades to unravel, even as the taxation begins next year.
But Ben Nelson got his billion for Nebraska. Which reminds me of a wise old man of my acquaintance, who had a political allegory of his own: “There was once a wealthy man who met an attractive woman at a social gathering and took a liking to her. With a tendency towards directness in any case, and as he was pressed for time, he asked her whether she would sleep with him for a million dollars. The woman gasped in shock, considered for a moment and then reluctantly agreed.
‘How about $10?’ the man asked.
‘Sir, what do you think I am?’ the woman replied angrily.
‘We have already established that, madam. Now we are haggling as to price.’”
On ‘Voyage of the Damned’, we are.
All of it wrong on so many levels. Federal monies to ‘forever fund’ a single State, and I have to wonder why the other 49 States aren’t screaming “Me too! Me too!” Were there any sort of legitimate Judicial review in work here, I have to believe there would be an utter deconstruction of the Bill; innumerable points of law violated.
Ward Carroll touting this year’s movie “Inglorious Bastards”…subliminal reference to the halls of Congress? That’d be my guess.
Tis no secret our the body of our elected Representatives and Senators consist of boors and whores. It sickens me much when they refer to what “the American People” want or don’t want, especially when many in Congress could care less. They know what’s best.
McConnell said it well last night, “One can stop it, or all will own it”. No surprise it passed, once all the arm-wrestling and pay-offs were made. I believe we know only a little of it, that the real story of all the bullying and payola is far more sickening. But hey, complaining about politics is like…
How many pieces of silver?
Extortion on the grandest scale by Nelson, and two-bit whoring taken to a whole ‘nuther level by Landrieu’s Louisiana purchase.
bc
mebbe it is time to have 5-10 million show up in DC with torches and pitchforks and out the ba$-turds. Storm the Bastille kind of thing, except they really have nothing of value left – having lost their integrity. And honor. And decency.
The Republic of Texas is looking better and better.
I have always considered myself a patriotic American proud of my beloved country. If anyone met me you would know that I am not a very martial person or “warrior.” But as an able bodied citizen, out of both a sense of honor and gratitude, I have sworn an oath and my life to protect a document which has made this country the greatest society man has known on this earth and which afforded me opportunity undreamed of in all recorded history. This past year I have felt and thought things I have never imagined I could. Today, all kidding aside, if Texas seceded I would go to her if she would have me. Disgust at what is happening does not begin to describe it. And with the unconscionable audacity only a malignant narcissist could not just possess but display so cavalierly and without any sense of irony Obama declared today that we can not treat tax dollars like “Monopoly Money.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/21/obama_we_cant_treat_tax_dollars_like_monopoly_money.html
The fact that none in the room did more to call him to task strongly suggests to me that the spirit of a free people is dead in our hearts. I feel I may have lost my country today.
Okay, honest question here.
I understood (perhaps wrongly?) that for the majority here, your biggest fear with the Bill initially proposed was the public option. Most people seemed to agree that some form of reform was needed, but didn’t want to have anything to do with government control. So with the public option gone, what is really so bad with a mechanism which allows people who lack workplace coverage to obtain group health insurance, federal funding to allow people to buy coverage and new regulations on private insurers that will reduce insurers’ ability to discriminate against the sick?
Like most congressmen and senators, Michelle, I haven’t read the bill, and this post had more to do with the process by which it was finally completed than its merits. But philosophically, it’s a massive government intervention into what had been a private contracting scheme, it will be very expensive and like most well-intentioned schemes cobbled together by small groups of people and imposed upon the rest of us, I doubt that it will have only the desired effects.
I do not know if the bill carries a mandate, for example, without which most of the young and all of the poor will probably decline to purchase insurance – even on an exchange – until they get sick. In which case, all current participants would share none of the advantages of a broader insurance pool and all of the disadvantages of ensuring houses that are actually on fire.
It will do nothing to reduce health care costs, which everyone agrees is a huge problem, and to the extent that new people join in the exchanges it will actually increase them since it adds demand to a static supply – the promised Medicare cuts are illusory.
What we do know is that Congress has just succeeded in adding yet another perpetual “entitlement” scheme of unknown proportions that will reduce personal flexibility and choice, even as our national debt and interest payments on that debt threaten to strangle the economy and ruin the dollar, all because of a manufactured “crisis” that has been in fact the operating status quo since World War II.
I doubt it will even have most of the desired effects. The unintended side effects, I’m certain, will be enormous and bring the program down. The FedGov is already facing a bond market that is shaky, and China is telling the Obmanoids that there isn’t enough money in the world to buy the Fed Bonds. This is a matter of not confusing them with the facts. Sooner, or later (more likely sooner), this will come back to bite the libs hard.
I’d laugh at that, but we are as much in this as the ones that want it.
I’ve heard this argument before – that the costs of healthcare would increase because more people would be insured. Perhaps I misunderstand the arguement but putting aside the fact that many of these uninsured are already receiving healthcare, presumably in the most expensive way possible (in the ER), I don’t see how anyone could possibly argue that giving more people access to healthcare is a bad thing. For someone to actually suggest that more people shouldn’t be given access to proper healthcare because costs will go up (or at least not go down) … it blows me away that someone could actually think that way. And I don’t honestly think you would be suggesting that. So I must have got lost somewhere?
As I understand it (but I admit I don’t really know) it will be mandatory for most people, at least, to purhcase insurance. It’s not about waiting until they get sick and then deciding to opt in. Although I haven’t heard anything about how they will do decide who will be ‘forced’ and who won’t.
I’m all for expanding access to health care, and like many on the left I wish that everyone had everything. But the core problem with health care in America is that it costs too much. Employers and the marginally employed are both being priced out of the market. This bill has very little to do with cost control.
But, if you can’t trust a retired naval officer on such weighty issues, I can always refer you to the American left.
Did you sign their petition, Lex?
Michelle, according to the Manager’s Amendment to this monstrosity, the penalty for not having insurance is the greater of either a) 2% of gross household income or b) $495 for each family member not covered (to a maximum of $1,980).
From what I understand, my husband’s small business payroll taxes are going to go up to help pay for this. He provides full medical for all his employees, to a tune of a sum of money that is staggering as is. Now we are hearing his payroll taxes are going to go up to help bankroll this new plan. If you think that small businesses aren’t taxed enough, sit down and have a heart to heart with any small businessman and he will tell you otherwise… with numbers.
And if in fact my personal taxes go up to help pay for this, then my husband pays for this TWICE, does he not? This a man who provides his employees the best care he can afford… is now going to pay for others as well… twice.
I have issues with that. I hope it’s all hearsay and none of it comes to fruition, but if not, it does beg the question, “Where exactly IS the money coming from to pay for this?”
Michelle,
The answer is we do not know what the final bill will be. There are a lot of details loaded in the sub-paragraphs that will not help the general population.
If the bill pushes the US towards UK style healthcare, then millions of American will die earlier deaths. Each senatorial signature would average out to 100,000 premature deaths a year once UK levels of care are established.
Congressional conference action to homogenize the House and Senate versions can alter many of the current details we do know about. From what I’ve read, the bill maps on control vice reform.
IMHO, it’s best for America to have no health care bill than this one. Tort reform and opening up all states to national insurance firms would be much more preferable.
Tort reform alone would make an immense difference, but as long as the Trail Lawyers give as much as they do to the DNC, we won’t see it. Cross state insurance purchasing might stand a chance, but I won’t get my hopes up.
Not even touched upon by the MSM and only avail. if one reads various versions of the House and Senate Bills in the blogosphere are the numerous panels, boards and commissions est. in these bills that read: “to be funded at a later date sufficient to carry out the intent.” In short an entire constellation of mini black holes/blank checks to go along with the one major one that is the main bill proper. Talk about giant sucking sounds…..
Easy enough to solve.
Use the power of the vote and remove them from office. The Federalist Papers – specifically number 51 by Madison – discusses the legislative branch being able to control diverse groups with differing opinions, but as important as that the legislative branch must be able TO CONTROL ITSELF. Clearly that has not occurred. We got 3-4 years to get his back under control before it is so seriously in-bred we’ll never be able to tell family from foe.
You can tell how awful a piece of legislation it is when you have the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Howard Dean both agree that the bill should be killed, albeit for much different reasons.
The process behind the effort in the House and Senate have gotten so bad that I can no longer accept any words from the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader as true. If they were to comment it was light outside at noon, I would be forced to go outside to verify their comment.
Actually it strikes me that if both Limbaugh and Dean oppose it … it might just be a good sign. As opposed to if any one of those on the extreme edges actually endorsed it. But that’s just my way of looking at the world.
Remember your support for this bill Michelle, and re-evaluate where we are as a country in five years. Whatever the changes, good or bad, just know it was people like you who were responsible.
Prowler, I think Michelle is a Canadian.
Huh . . . crap
This whole healthcare business has caused such unrest in this country – no matter which side you are on – that I believe some kind of revolution may be upon us soon.
2010 is coming for those politicians who have saddled this nation with this travesty.
Two thoughts.. probably my limit for the week but I will spend both here.
1) The simple fact that the bills (House and Senate) are so d@$m huge is a problem. How many contradictions, mis-statements and simple typos are in there? I heard on the news that the Omnibus Spending Bill had a paragraph concerning Amtrak passengers who have CCW permits bringing their guns on the trains. Those passengers, say the bill, must make the trip in a locked box which is supervised by the train crew. Can only imagine what surprises are in the health bills.
2) The legislatures have always had a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” in terms of getting compromises, but this flat out extortion by Senators Landrieu, Nelson and probably others takes it to new levels. I intend to ask my senators why how they can allow such extortion. And the answer better not be “We’ll get something for Michigan next time.”
This is not leadership, this is not legislation. These people are jackals and hyenas, fighting over the carcass of a dying elephant. The elephant is the economy of the United States of America, once the most powerful in the world. They have pushed it and starved it to the point of collapse and now they fight over it’s bleeding flesh, taking from the mouths of others to stuff themselves while the beast cries in the throes of death.
I have been disgusted by antics in Congress before, but not like this. We truly are not the nation we were.
Anyway, my 2 cents…
George V.
George, the correctness of your “you scrtach my back, I’ll scratch yours” comment is born out in the Manager’s Amendment which:
1. carves out the construction industry form the rest of the employer-responsibility requirement,
2. expands Medicaid funding for the states of Vermont and Massachusetts,
3. appropriates $100 million for an unnamed hospital somewhere in the U.S.
4. provides protections against Medicare Advantage benefit cuts to residents of New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida,
5. includes longshoremen on the list of industries protected from the federal excise tax penalty on high-cost health plans,
6. replaces the 5% excise tax on plastic surgery with a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning…
the list goes on and on.
I thought that “Haggling over the price” story was Churchill…
It may have been, I learned it from a contemporary.
Except that gentleman used his own money to purchase the whore. Senator Reid just used our money to purchase his.
George, you have merely scratched the surface of the problem.
You take the 2000+ pages (plus cross references) of the House version, then the slightly different 2000+ pages (plus cross references) of the Senate version. Stir together behind closed doors to hammer out what will likely be about 5000 pages of mind numbing burro-cratic (sic) drivel and goo, then rush it through before anyone has a really good chance to study it, chart out everything, and decide what it will actually do, and you have the formula for problems.
On the other hand, we may not be looking at this in the right light. I think most of us here have been on the case of the former junior senator from IL, and his former associates the the American Congressional Debate Club, for not providing the jobs that were promised.
Well, the House version will create over 180 New and Improved offices, departments, bureaus, and so on. And like as not the Senate version will be good for at least another 100 or so. So, we are looking at close to half a million jobs right there.
Now, for the private sector – each one of the New and Improved Offices etc. will have its own forms, information papers (each in 6 or 7 [dozen] different languages), plus report forms, form report forms, etc. This will save jobs in the paper, print, and related industries.
So, rather than having a unitasking boondoggle, we have a promise fulfilling multitasker.
Aren’t you glad you have me to explain these things to you? ;-P
“Access to healthcare”
Who does not have “access” to it?
That is a straw man; the argument is not about access, it is about the compulsory power of government to forcibly take from those who labor and give it to its special interest groups while ensuring a large cut for itself. Government cannot “give” anything unless it first takes from someone.