Political correctness is any doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, that holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.
2011-02-11
2011-02-03
How To Repeal ObamaCare
How to repeal ObamaCare
Posted By kbh On February 2, 2011 @ 10:39 am
Senate Minority Leader McConnell will offer an amendment to repeal the health care laws. Senate Democratic leaders and the White House are taking a “Move it along, nothing to see here” approach. They correctly point out that, even if Senator McConnell holds all 47 Republicans, as appears likely, he cannot reach the 60 vote threshold he would need to waive a budget point of order that will be raised against his amendment by Democrats. If such a point of order did not exist, Republicans would still need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of a repeal amendment, and there’s no way they can get to 60.
Is Senate Majority Whip Durbin therefore correct, when he dismisses the McConnell amendment [1] as a meaningless political stunt?
At the moment Democrats are hanging their hat on the CBO-scored deficit reduction associated with the two laws. This CBO score means that a straight repeal amendment faces a Budget Act point of order and therefore needs 60 votes to succeed. If Republicans were in 2013 to try to repeal the laws as-is, CBO would score them with increasing the deficit. That’s not impossible to do through reconciliation, but it’s a trickier path.
Still, this is a solvable problem. The best policy way to address this would be to leave some (most?) of the Medicare savings in place, and not repeal them. I’d also favor leaving the “Cadillac tax” on high cost health plans in place.
I think Republicans would be unlikely to choose this path, because it would disrupt their clean policy message and legislative strategy to repeal all of ObamaCare. If I’m right, they could include in the reconciliation bill other spending cuts that more than offset the CBO-scored deficit increase. Technically, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman could also overrule CBO scoring, but why give Democrats the rhetorical advantage of a perceived process abuse? Republicans correctly insist that we need to slow spending growth, and they could here turn a tactical disadvantage into a legislative opportunity to further cut spending.
DC Democrats are right that repeal won’t happen this week, even with a Republican House. They should worry, though, because there is a clear and achievable path to repeal just two years from now, and the McConnell amendment moves down that path.
Is Senate Majority Whip Durbin therefore correct, when he dismisses the McConnell amendment [1] as a meaningless political stunt?
“These Republicans are duty-bound to offer this repeal amendment,” Durbin told reporters. “They did it in the House; they’re going to do it in the Senate; and we’ll just deal with it.”Leader McConnell is undoubtedly thinking longer term. The path to repeal is straightforward and, while difficult, achievable:
- Keep up the pressure in 2011 and 2012:
- maintain and strengthen Republican unity toward full repeal;
- repeatedly attack the bill legislatively on all fronts, knowing that most votes will pass the House and fail in the Senate;
- continue legal pressure through the courts; and
- tee up repeal as a key partisan difference in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections;
- In 2012 win the White House, hold the House majority, and pick up a net 3 Republican Senate seats to retake the majority there; and
- In 2013, use reconciliation to repeal ObamaCare, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate.
At the moment Democrats are hanging their hat on the CBO-scored deficit reduction associated with the two laws. This CBO score means that a straight repeal amendment faces a Budget Act point of order and therefore needs 60 votes to succeed. If Republicans were in 2013 to try to repeal the laws as-is, CBO would score them with increasing the deficit. That’s not impossible to do through reconciliation, but it’s a trickier path.
Still, this is a solvable problem. The best policy way to address this would be to leave some (most?) of the Medicare savings in place, and not repeal them. I’d also favor leaving the “Cadillac tax” on high cost health plans in place.
I think Republicans would be unlikely to choose this path, because it would disrupt their clean policy message and legislative strategy to repeal all of ObamaCare. If I’m right, they could include in the reconciliation bill other spending cuts that more than offset the CBO-scored deficit increase. Technically, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman could also overrule CBO scoring, but why give Democrats the rhetorical advantage of a perceived process abuse? Republicans correctly insist that we need to slow spending growth, and they could here turn a tactical disadvantage into a legislative opportunity to further cut spending.
DC Democrats are right that repeal won’t happen this week, even with a Republican House. They should worry, though, because there is a clear and achievable path to repeal just two years from now, and the McConnell amendment moves down that path.
Repeal ObamaCare
Senate Democrats Block ObamaCare Repeal, Concede on 1099 Repeal
The Senate Democrats voted in a bloc against the repeal of ObamaCare, putting those members up for reelection in 2012 in a more vulnerable position politically. In an attempt at political cover, the Democrats voted in favor of repealing the law’s 1099 provision, which has overburdened small businesses.
The “McConnell Amendment,” which is the House-passed legislation for ObamaCare repeal, failed by a vote of 47 to 51 this evening. Senators Mark Warner (D.-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) did not vote.
“We promised the American people we would have a vote in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare. We just had that vote. Every single Republican voted to repeal. Every single Democrat voted to retain to the 2,700-page Washington takeover of our health care,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) at a press conference after the vote.
During much of the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and McConnell stood alone in the center aisle talking. McConnell’s arms were crossed during most of their conversation, and Reid attempted to walk away several times.
Immediately following the vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) sent out 12 separate press releases targeting the the most vulnerable Democrats in 2012 for their vote against repealing ObamaCare.
“As they prepare to face voters in 2012, Senate Democrats will have a very tough time explaining why they once again chose to prioritize President Obama’s costly, unpopular health care overhaul over the best interests of seniors and small businesses in their states,” said NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh.
The press releases were sent to the media and grassroots groups in the states of these Democrats: Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.).
The releases were similar to this one sent to groups in Missouri. “Just two days after a second federal judge struck down the Democrats’ costly, unpopular health care overhaul as ‘unconstitutional,’ liberal U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) voted to oppose repealing the law, preserving its individual mandate, $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and $570 billion in tax hikes.”
Walsh also said, “Whatever election-cycle posture they adopt in the wake of this vote, it’s clear that voters will hold these and other Democrats accountable at the polls next year.”
Reid surrendered to McConnell’s demand that the Senate vote on ObamaCare repeal only after a Florida court ruled on Monday that the health care law was unconstitutional.
McConnell took to the Senate floor this morning to put pressure on the Democrats—who jammed the bill through on Christmas Eve a year ago—to now vote to repeal it.
“The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea, that it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so. Job creators say so,” said McConnell. “It's time for those who passed this bill to show that they've noticed.”
The Democrats spent the day on the Senate floor trying to defend their beloved health care law, saying it does everything from lowering the deficit (by not spending $1.2 trillion?) to improving patient care (by the government taking over your health care?).
At one point, Reid spoke on the floor using fictitious poll numbers. “Republicans are fighting to repeal the health reform law, ignoring the 80% of Americans who want them to leave it alone,” he said.
Reid did not cite the source for his 80% statistic, but other polls put the number of Americans who are against repealing at 40% (Gallup) to 42% (CNN).
Also this evening, the Senate passed a repeal of the section of ObamaCare that burdens small businesses with filing excessive 1099 tax forms. The vote for the amendment, sponsored by Stabenow, was 81 to 17. The House Ways and Means Committee will craft a similar bill, then the two chambers will work out a coordinated resolution to send to President Obama.
Although Reid scheduled the 1099 repeal passage as political cover for the vulnerable Democrats who were going to vote against full repeal, the vote was indicative of the larger failure of the law.
Less than a year after it went into effect, the Democrats have been forced to pass legislation to fix the job-killing bill that they jammed through.
“There is a victory today that we celebrate—to get rid of the 1099 requirement,” said McConnell after the vote. “So we’ve at least rolled back one of the egregious features of many in a 2,700 page law.”
The Democrats’ insincerity in wanting to repeal the 1099 burden was evident in that they actually stole their legislation from the Republicans.
Sen. Mike Johanns (R.-Neb.) spent almost a year pushing for repeal of the 1099 tax paperwork mandate. Last week, he announced that he had finally gotten 60 co-sponsors, enough to ensure passage of his bill.
Then this week, the Democrats took Johnanns’ amendment, changed six words, and introduced it as the “Stabenow Amendment.”
“It really is the same amendment,” Johanns said at a press conference after the vote. “I’m actually kinda flattered.”
“It turns out Sen. Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own,” said McConnell, mocking the Democrats’ plagiarism. “It’s not a bad precedent actually. We’ve got a lot of other good ideas that we’d be happy to share.”
McConnell also said after the vote that “this is just the beginning” of the Republicans efforts to repeal, defund, and replace ObamaCare.
Posted 02/02/2011 ET
The Senate Democrats voted in a bloc against the repeal of ObamaCare, putting those members up for reelection in 2012 in a more vulnerable position politically. In an attempt at political cover, the Democrats voted in favor of repealing the law’s 1099 provision, which has overburdened small businesses.The “McConnell Amendment,” which is the House-passed legislation for ObamaCare repeal, failed by a vote of 47 to 51 this evening. Senators Mark Warner (D.-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) did not vote.
“We promised the American people we would have a vote in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare. We just had that vote. Every single Republican voted to repeal. Every single Democrat voted to retain to the 2,700-page Washington takeover of our health care,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) at a press conference after the vote.
During much of the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and McConnell stood alone in the center aisle talking. McConnell’s arms were crossed during most of their conversation, and Reid attempted to walk away several times.
Immediately following the vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) sent out 12 separate press releases targeting the the most vulnerable Democrats in 2012 for their vote against repealing ObamaCare.
“As they prepare to face voters in 2012, Senate Democrats will have a very tough time explaining why they once again chose to prioritize President Obama’s costly, unpopular health care overhaul over the best interests of seniors and small businesses in their states,” said NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh.
The press releases were sent to the media and grassroots groups in the states of these Democrats: Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.).
The releases were similar to this one sent to groups in Missouri. “Just two days after a second federal judge struck down the Democrats’ costly, unpopular health care overhaul as ‘unconstitutional,’ liberal U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) voted to oppose repealing the law, preserving its individual mandate, $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and $570 billion in tax hikes.”
Walsh also said, “Whatever election-cycle posture they adopt in the wake of this vote, it’s clear that voters will hold these and other Democrats accountable at the polls next year.”
Reid surrendered to McConnell’s demand that the Senate vote on ObamaCare repeal only after a Florida court ruled on Monday that the health care law was unconstitutional.
McConnell took to the Senate floor this morning to put pressure on the Democrats—who jammed the bill through on Christmas Eve a year ago—to now vote to repeal it.
“The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea, that it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so. Job creators say so,” said McConnell. “It's time for those who passed this bill to show that they've noticed.”
The Democrats spent the day on the Senate floor trying to defend their beloved health care law, saying it does everything from lowering the deficit (by not spending $1.2 trillion?) to improving patient care (by the government taking over your health care?).
At one point, Reid spoke on the floor using fictitious poll numbers. “Republicans are fighting to repeal the health reform law, ignoring the 80% of Americans who want them to leave it alone,” he said.
Reid did not cite the source for his 80% statistic, but other polls put the number of Americans who are against repealing at 40% (Gallup) to 42% (CNN).
Also this evening, the Senate passed a repeal of the section of ObamaCare that burdens small businesses with filing excessive 1099 tax forms. The vote for the amendment, sponsored by Stabenow, was 81 to 17. The House Ways and Means Committee will craft a similar bill, then the two chambers will work out a coordinated resolution to send to President Obama.
Although Reid scheduled the 1099 repeal passage as political cover for the vulnerable Democrats who were going to vote against full repeal, the vote was indicative of the larger failure of the law.
Less than a year after it went into effect, the Democrats have been forced to pass legislation to fix the job-killing bill that they jammed through.
“There is a victory today that we celebrate—to get rid of the 1099 requirement,” said McConnell after the vote. “So we’ve at least rolled back one of the egregious features of many in a 2,700 page law.”
The Democrats’ insincerity in wanting to repeal the 1099 burden was evident in that they actually stole their legislation from the Republicans.
Sen. Mike Johanns (R.-Neb.) spent almost a year pushing for repeal of the 1099 tax paperwork mandate. Last week, he announced that he had finally gotten 60 co-sponsors, enough to ensure passage of his bill.
Then this week, the Democrats took Johnanns’ amendment, changed six words, and introduced it as the “Stabenow Amendment.”
“It really is the same amendment,” Johanns said at a press conference after the vote. “I’m actually kinda flattered.”
“It turns out Sen. Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own,” said McConnell, mocking the Democrats’ plagiarism. “It’s not a bad precedent actually. We’ve got a lot of other good ideas that we’d be happy to share.”
McConnell also said after the vote that “this is just the beginning” of the Republicans efforts to repeal, defund, and replace ObamaCare.
Why ObamaCare is a Really Bad Idea
Obamacare In Serious Condition
Posted By Brian Darling On February 2, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
A large number of Senators went on record tonight opposing ObamaCare. The House spoke on a bipartisan basis on a measure to fully repeal the President’s health care law by 56 votes last month. Just yesterday, a Florida federal court issued a decision declaring the individual mandate, and the whole law, unconstitutional. If one of the many cases challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare makes it to the Supreme Court, move the President’s health care reform law into critical condition.
Tonight, the Senate voted 47-51 on an amendment to repeal ObamaCare that was offered to S. 223 [1], the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. The amendment was offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The McConnell Amendment, SA 13 [2], would have repealed both the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-148) and the reconciliation measure containing provisions modifying the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-152). Both laws constitute the whole of ObamaCare.
The text of the McConnell repeal language in the amendment is below:
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) argued that this bill is tragically flawed because at the core of this law is an unconstitutional mandate that all Americans be forced to buy a product.
The judicial branch of the federal government is having their say and two federal courts have concluded that the individual mandate within ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida struck down ObamaCare because of the individual mandate yesterday.
Judge Vinson wrote [9] the following:
Conn Carroll [10] of The Foundry argues that this idea needs to be expunged from the law books.
Tonight, the Senate voted 47-51 on an amendment to repeal ObamaCare that was offered to S. 223 [1], the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. The amendment was offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The McConnell Amendment, SA 13 [2], would have repealed both the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-148) and the reconciliation measure containing provisions modifying the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-152). Both laws constitute the whole of ObamaCare.
The text of the McConnell repeal language in the amendment is below:
SEC. X02. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.The Senate debate on this amendment touched on the subjects of the unconstitutional individual mandate [3], growing discontent [4] with the law and massive new regulations authorized by the law. Other Senators discussed free market alternatives to ObamaCare and the fact that companies with the best lobbyists are securingwaivers [5] for specific companies. The debate was an excellent view into the developing arguments for a full repeal of the President’s health care law.
(a) Job-Killing Health Care Law.–Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.–Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) argued that this bill is tragically flawed because at the core of this law is an unconstitutional mandate that all Americans be forced to buy a product.
We want full repeal of Obamacare for a very simple reason: the big problems with the bill, the big problems with the plan aren’t at the margin, they’re at the core. The big problems can’t be fixed with a perfecting amendment, the changing of a comma, changing punctuation, revising one or two or five or ten sentences. The big problems are at the core of the plan, starting with the mandate from the federal government, unprecedented, that every man, woman, and child in America needs to go into the market and buy a particular product. That’s why we demand repeal.Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it [6].” Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) responded to that point that now people are finding out what is in the bill, they don’t like it.
Since the passage and signing of the law by President Obama, the American people are finding out something new that is in the bill that they don’t like, and as a matter of fact, it turns out that members of the House and Senate who voted for Obamacare also did not know precisely what was in the bill and certainly did not anticipate the ramifications of this massive, ill-advised law.Senator John Ensign (R-NV) argued that the regulations are already overburdening the American people and have exploded to over six thousand pages.
I’ve printed off many of the regulations in the bill here before us today. Look at the size of this thing, and they’re not even close to being done writing the regulations. I challenge anybody with any company or any American to try to understand this bill and its regulations. It’s virtually impossible. It takes a team of lawyers and health care experts to even come close to understanding all the implications of this bill, according to my staff’s calculations, so far about 6,200 pages in regulations. This could go to at least 26,000 pages. I think it is safe to say the devil really is in the details with this health bill. The American people are going to learn more about the unintended consequences of this legislation as more and more of these regulations roll out.Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) argued for free market health care reform and discussed how Lasik eye surgery and the cost of contacts have gone down because of competition.
With regard to the specifics of the health care bill, there are some problems in health care. As a physician, I’ve seen some of the problems. You know what the number-one complaint I got? It was the expense of health insurance, the rising expenses. The federal takeover of health care did nothing for that; in fact it has increased expenses, you see premiums rising. When you see problems there are two directions to go…You could say: do we need more government or less government? From my perspective as a physician, I saw that we already had too much government involvement in health care. I saw that what we had going on limited competition. You need more competition in health care if you want to drive prices down. You need to allow insurance to be sold across state lines. You need to allow competition in prices. One of the surgeries that I did was lasik surgery, where you correct someone’s eyes so they don’t have to wear glasses. No insurance covers it. You think maybe this body will get together and force people to buy insurance for lasik surgery? You know what? Without government getting involved competition drove the prices down on lasik. The prices were driven down because the consumer was involved. The same way with contact lenses, you can buy a contact lens for $4, maybe $3. It used to be $20 or $30. Competition works.Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out that the Obama Administration has doled out 733 waivers for friends of the Obama Administration. DeMint argues that repeal would be a waiver for all Americans.
Many Americans will lose their health plans with Obamacare, but you can keep your health care plan if your union or company got one of the 733 Obamacare waivers so far. The waivers cover almost 2.2 million people. You can get your health care or you can keep it if you’re a member of the six chapters of the Service Employees International Union who got waivers and whose political action committee spent more than $27 million helping Barack Obama get elected, or if you’re one of the 8,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that got waivers. Their PAC spent millions in helping Obama and Democrats get elected. These are unions who supported cramming Obamacare down the throat of the rest of Americans. Even though labor unions represent less than 7% of the private work force, they have received 40% of the waivers. They don’t want the health care, they want other Americans to have it; they don’t want the health care that other Americans have to accept. Most Americans don’t play these political games. They don’t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ‘the great American waiver.’ Every Republican in the Senate is committed to repealing this bill. Every American gets a waiver when we repeal this billThe House passed H.R. 2 [7] on January 19, 2011 by a 245–189 vote. This bill is still on the Senate’s calendar after Senator McConnell used the provisions Rule 14 [8]to put the bill on the Senate’s calendar. McConnell still can move to proceed to that measure at anytime during this Congress. The vote today was not the last vote the Senate will have on a full repeal of ObamaCare.
The judicial branch of the federal government is having their say and two federal courts have concluded that the individual mandate within ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida struck down ObamaCare because of the individual mandate yesterday.
Judge Vinson wrote [9] the following:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.Judge Vinson sided with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming to hold that “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is unconstitutional.
Conn Carroll [10] of The Foundry argues that this idea needs to be expunged from the law books.
The United States economy, and the American people, cannot wait for the Supreme Court to render a final decision. Obamacare is not just a judicial question. It is a fundamental question about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want an America of limited government and vibrant economic growth? Or do we want to move toward an unlimited European-style welfare state?Mike Franc [11], Vice President for Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation argues that the Obama Administration should listen to the Florida court and suspend ObamaCare.
Now, the White House faces a simple and straightforward choice: Will President Obama abide by a decision arrived at by a federal district court judge pursuant to all applicable federal procedural niceties, or, unilaterally ignore the rule of law, as he has done in the past? [12]Any way you look at the issue, ObamaCare is in serious condition with the American people, the federal judiciary and Congress. If President Obama does not take the many legal and political challenges to his unconstitutional health care law seriously, he may force the federal Courts and the Congress to take extraordinary measures to erase ObamaCare from the Federal Code. Hopefully cooler heads prevail on the President to do the right thing, listen to the American people, the courts and Congress – repeal ObamaCare right now.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/02/obamacare-in-serious-condition/
URLs in this post:
[1] S. 223: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.223:
[2] SA 13: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/%7Er112sPuOYI:e16665:
[3] unconstitutional individual mandate: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional
[4] discontent: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
[5] waivers: http://blog.heritage.org../?p=48101
[6] we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it: http://blog.heritage.org../2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
[7] H.R. 2: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2:
[8] Rule 14: http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIV
[9] wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion%20-%202.pdf
[10] Conn Carroll: http://blog.heritage.org../2011/02/01/morning-bell-another-victory-on-the-road-to-repeal-3/
[11] Mike Franc: http://blog.heritage.org../2011/02/02/will-president-obama-abide-by-courts-decision-and-suspend-obamacare/
[12] as he has done in the past?: http://blog.heritage.org../2010/07/08/gulf-spill-update-gulf-states-suffer-under-de-facto-drilling-ban/
A Better Way To Do Healthcare
February 3, 2011
The Politics of Saving 'Granny'
Alice Rivlin and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan.
ObamaCare has recently been dealt three body blows. Speaker John Boehner pushed a bill to repeal it through the House. GOP leader Mitch McConnell will get to put Senate Democrats on record with a vote on repeal as well. And this week, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson declared the law unconstitutional.
The White House's reaction is dismissive. The nation doesn't want to "re-litigate" ObamaCare, we're told. So long as Mr. Obama sits in the Oval Office, repeal is going nowhere. The Supreme Court will uphold the law. And by 2012, health care will be a winning issue for Democrats.
I'm not so sure. Take the question of Granny. In a speech last Friday defending his health-care law's effect on seniors against GOP attacks, Mr. Obama said, "I can report that Granny is safe." She may not feel that way if she's one of the 700,000 seniors whose private Medicare Advantage insurance policy was not renewed last year because her insurance provider quit the business.
There will be more nonrenewals in 2011. This year's funding cuts to Medicare Advantage will be $2 billion; next year's will be $6 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate that half of those with Medicare Advantage policies—seven million seniors—will lose their coverage eventually. And 60% the doctors surveyed by the nonprofit Physicians Foundation said health-care reform would "compel them to close or significantly restrict" the number of patients in their practices, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid.
Granny's daughter, son and grandchildren are not all that safe, either. Providers such as Guardian Life and the Principal Financial Group are dropping their health-insurance businesses. And companies will be tempted to drop coverage for their employees and dump them onto the government's tab.
No taxpayer is safe, either. Last week Richard Foster, CMS's chief actuary, confirmed to Congress that ObamaCare's Medicare cuts couldn't be used to reduce both Medicare's unfunded liability and to pay for ObamaCare's expense. Since the Obama administration is relying on this double counting to rig the numbers, Mr. Foster's testimony was particularly damaging.
What the country most needs—and what the GOP must now advocate—is a fundamentally new approach to containing health-care costs.
The most promising model for Medicare comes from Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). Under their plan, starting in 2021 those turning 65 and going on Medicare would get a fixed contribution to use to purchase insurance, allowing them in many instances to keep their existing coverage. Consumers will be in charge.
Annual support would grow at the same yearly rate as the economy plus 1%. Medicare payments would be adjusted by income, geography and health risk. Poor seniors would get extra help for out-of-pocket expenses.
This bipartisan model builds on the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2003. This market- and competition-oriented experiment gave seniors a fixed sum they could use to purchase drug insurance coverage. In response, drug companies and insurance providers flooded the market with options that drove prices for consumers down.
Though more seniors signed up for the benefit, signed up quicker and used it more than expected, the program costs much less than estimated (the original Congressional Budget Office estimate was $552 billion for the first 10 years, but the estimated cost is now $385 billion). Competition and consumer choice are far more effective in containing costs than is bureaucratic price-setting.
We're at an unprecedented moment. The huge historic advantage Democrats have enjoyed on the health-care issue has evaporated. ObamaCare is increasingly less popular. Its unpopularity is up nine points in the last month, to 50%, in a Kaiser/Harvard survey. The public is now taking a close look at what the Republican Party might have to offer.
The Rivlin-Ryan alternative plan is bold and not without risk. Past efforts at entitlement reform haven't been successful. Having worked in the Bush White House during the 2005 Social Security battle, I know of what I speak. Still, the Rivlin-Ryan plan is right on substance. And unlike 2005, it may also be the right moment.
Thanks in good measure to Mr. Obama's profligacy, the entitlement crisis is no longer a vague, abstract concern. More and more Americans understand the current course leads to a disaster for the nation's finances. And so the public may be willing to go places and do things that in the past it may not have.
This is an unusual and fluid moment. My hunch is voters are more inclined than ever to reward the political party that addresses entitlement reform—and more inclined than ever to punish the one that fiddles while America's fiscal house burns.
The White House's reaction is dismissive. The nation doesn't want to "re-litigate" ObamaCare, we're told. So long as Mr. Obama sits in the Oval Office, repeal is going nowhere. The Supreme Court will uphold the law. And by 2012, health care will be a winning issue for Democrats.
I'm not so sure. Take the question of Granny. In a speech last Friday defending his health-care law's effect on seniors against GOP attacks, Mr. Obama said, "I can report that Granny is safe." She may not feel that way if she's one of the 700,000 seniors whose private Medicare Advantage insurance policy was not renewed last year because her insurance provider quit the business.
There will be more nonrenewals in 2011. This year's funding cuts to Medicare Advantage will be $2 billion; next year's will be $6 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate that half of those with Medicare Advantage policies—seven million seniors—will lose their coverage eventually. And 60% the doctors surveyed by the nonprofit Physicians Foundation said health-care reform would "compel them to close or significantly restrict" the number of patients in their practices, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid.
Granny's daughter, son and grandchildren are not all that safe, either. Providers such as Guardian Life and the Principal Financial Group are dropping their health-insurance businesses. And companies will be tempted to drop coverage for their employees and dump them onto the government's tab.
No taxpayer is safe, either. Last week Richard Foster, CMS's chief actuary, confirmed to Congress that ObamaCare's Medicare cuts couldn't be used to reduce both Medicare's unfunded liability and to pay for ObamaCare's expense. Since the Obama administration is relying on this double counting to rig the numbers, Mr. Foster's testimony was particularly damaging.
What the country most needs—and what the GOP must now advocate—is a fundamentally new approach to containing health-care costs.
The most promising model for Medicare comes from Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). Under their plan, starting in 2021 those turning 65 and going on Medicare would get a fixed contribution to use to purchase insurance, allowing them in many instances to keep their existing coverage. Consumers will be in charge.
Annual support would grow at the same yearly rate as the economy plus 1%. Medicare payments would be adjusted by income, geography and health risk. Poor seniors would get extra help for out-of-pocket expenses.
This bipartisan model builds on the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2003. This market- and competition-oriented experiment gave seniors a fixed sum they could use to purchase drug insurance coverage. In response, drug companies and insurance providers flooded the market with options that drove prices for consumers down.
Though more seniors signed up for the benefit, signed up quicker and used it more than expected, the program costs much less than estimated (the original Congressional Budget Office estimate was $552 billion for the first 10 years, but the estimated cost is now $385 billion). Competition and consumer choice are far more effective in containing costs than is bureaucratic price-setting.
We're at an unprecedented moment. The huge historic advantage Democrats have enjoyed on the health-care issue has evaporated. ObamaCare is increasingly less popular. Its unpopularity is up nine points in the last month, to 50%, in a Kaiser/Harvard survey. The public is now taking a close look at what the Republican Party might have to offer.
The Rivlin-Ryan alternative plan is bold and not without risk. Past efforts at entitlement reform haven't been successful. Having worked in the Bush White House during the 2005 Social Security battle, I know of what I speak. Still, the Rivlin-Ryan plan is right on substance. And unlike 2005, it may also be the right moment.
Thanks in good measure to Mr. Obama's profligacy, the entitlement crisis is no longer a vague, abstract concern. More and more Americans understand the current course leads to a disaster for the nation's finances. And so the public may be willing to go places and do things that in the past it may not have.
This is an unusual and fluid moment. My hunch is voters are more inclined than ever to reward the political party that addresses entitlement reform—and more inclined than ever to punish the one that fiddles while America's fiscal house burns.
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, February 3, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)