Obama’s health-care ‘trust’ fund
Watching President Obama’s health-care speech Wednesday, I wanted to hear what he had taken away from the public back-and-forth of last month. While the only opposition he acknowledged explicitly was that of people using “scare tactics” to “score short-term political points,” his message was clearly crafted to reassure a nervous nation.
And his message of reassurance boiled down to: Trust me.
“I have no interest,” Obama said, “in putting insurance companies out of business.”
“No one would be forced to choose” the public option.
“I will make sure that no…bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”
As you might have guessed, I’m skeptical that these claims will prove true. I still think the public option is a bad, unnecessary policy.
But let’s spend a few moments thinking about trust. Let’s pretend that all Americans did consider Obama a Super President who could fulfill all of these promises. That is, let’s pretend that we could just trust him.
Can we trust his successor?
Can we trust his successor’s successor?
Can we trust current and future members of Congress to make good on Obama’s pledge not to let new health spending add “one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future”? Can we trust them not to avoid health-related deficits with the same kind of accounting shell games that have put Medicare and Social Security in danger of insolvency?
These are not scare tactics. They’re legitimate questions about a new government program which Obama said would cost “only” $900 billion over 10 years. If other Democratic health proposals are any guide, even that 12-digit figure is optimistic.
A man with whom Obama has been contrasted many times, Ronald Reagan, had a phrase about goodwill and good sense that seems appropriate in this debate: “Trust, but verify.”
So, how to verify here?
Obama said Wednesday that he didn’t want to put private insurers out of business, that he valued competition in the health-insurance market. He said a single-payer system, which is exactly what many Americans fear would result from a government-run insurance option, would “represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.”
If having five or fewer companies gobble up 75 percent of a state’s insurance market is a problem, as Obama said it was, then surely he wouldn’t want a public option to take up too much of a market, either.
So if all that’s true, why not cap the market share that the public option could have in any given state? Rather than a “trigger” for launching a public option, why not a “firewall” to keep it from getting out of control?
Obama cited a CBO projection that less than 5 percent of Americans would enroll in a public option. Five percent of Americans is about 15 million people, which happens to be approximately the number of uninsured people that other studies have suggested are the truly tough cases.
That figure excludes illegal immigrants, Americans who qualify for Medicaid but aren’t enrolled, and those who earn at least $50,000 a year but choose not to buy insurance. The remaining 5 percent fall through the cracks.
If covering those 5 percent would suffice, as Obama seemed to suggest, then a 5 percent cap on public-option enrollment sounds about right. Require a supermajority in Congress to lift the cap.
Plenty of Americans remain wary of a public option. If Democrats won’t consider something as conciliatory as a public-option cap, we can’t accept their “trust” fund for health care.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 comments Add your comment
jconservative
September 11th, 2009
6:44 pm
“Can we trust his successor?
Can we trust his successor’s successor.”
The answer is no on both questions. LBJ signed Medicare bill in 1965.
Since then Nixon, Reagan, Clinton & Bush 43 have expanded Medicare/ Medicaid & SCHIP. In Fiscal Year 2010 Medicare will spend $803.1 billion, half of that from the expanded services just noted.
No one can keep their hands off medicare. There are to many special interest & voting blocks.
Gordon
September 11th, 2009
7:39 pm
I want to know more about the language in H.B. 3200 that says it must pay its expenses from the premiums it collects and nothing more. If this is part of the law, can it be ignored? Wouldn’t that be binding? If not, why not?
@@
September 11th, 2009
7:58 pm
What a co-inky-dunk, Kyle. When Obama was “delivering” (laboring) the other night, my mind went the way yours did. “What….does this guy think he’s gonna be president FOREVER?” then it began to wander to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.
Yikes!
Too often I read the leftists on here who say “necessary changes can be made later…”
Say WHAT!!?!!
Yeah! and a hog can be kept from the trough.
Your suggestion to cap the market share for the public option? That would indeed be leveling the playing field but the goal post would have to be moved. That ain’t happenin’.
‘Ya ever hear of a post turtle? That’s what those who support Obama are gonna be lookin’ like….post turtles. Stuck with no place to go.
I left a post for you downstairs. It’s free and disposable.
(ISH) Insert Smile Here
@@
September 11th, 2009
8:27 pm
On second thought, Kyle…you should forward that cap idea to Michael Steele or some noteworthy rep in Washington. It’s an excellent idea. They can add it to their others.
No doubt the dems would reject it just as they did the proposed amendment to assure no illegals are eligible…but to do so WOULD expose their less than noble intentions.
Just a suggestion, mind you.
Kyle? Kyle? Kyle…are you here?
Great
September 11th, 2009
9:27 pm
Our allies will agree to send more (a few) troops to Afghanistan but only on condition a withdrawal date is promised. They’re looking at late 2010. I guess we’ll be going it alone.
Lauren
September 11th, 2009
9:31 pm
How could you trust a man that went behind Americas back and tryed to pass a law so he would be in office forever? And dont we pay enough… we are going to have to pay for all the people who do not have insurance so we lose more money. Good luck getting in a doctors office all our “good” doctors will take hours to get into if they dont already!!!
lapunet
September 11th, 2009
9:54 pm
Let’s just sit and wait until our insurance bill is unbelievably high.
Let’s all support the republican’s in voting No to making insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
Let’s all support them not to do anything so next year when we see the doctor we still need to pay rediculous out of pocket payments bec our insurance companies only covers up to $200.
Let’s all support them in making sure that we give all the insurance companies all our money and yet not be 100% covered.
barney frank
September 11th, 2009
10:02 pm
Please everybody stay calm.
You are in good hands.
Barney [good bottom] Frank
Miller
September 12th, 2009
4:00 am
Good ideas here. If Republicans are smart, they would do well to engage the various bills with a percentage cap on the public option. I suspect that at that point we would be able to flush out some less-than-pure motives for those who may be incrementally trying to get to a single-payer system.
Despite President Obama’s noble intentions, he doesn’t have the last say on budget appropriations. He may suggest but cannot require a budget-neutral bill be passed. In addition, every time Congress has passed a budget pay-as-you-go rule, the Congressional accounting folks simply find a way around it and keep spending. Any bill should also require that our congressional representatives be covered by the bill and yank those folks off of their gold-plated health and retirement benefits.
The timing of this debate couldn’t be worse. Assuming that the Republicans want to engage health care reform, they should simply author a bill to require that private insurers cover pre-existing conditions and that people can’t be cancelled once they become ill and let it go at that. There are innovative ways to control costs that are working out there now.
Our family is in one that incentivizes the insured to find low cost health-care alternatives and avoid co-pays, etc. up to a certain per-year $ cap. We couldn’t be happier and have found multiple ways to reduce our health care dollar-amount consumption per year once we had the same incentive as the health insurer. It’s actually become kind of a fun little game to minimize those costs. Get prescriptions filled at Costco with generics. Buy in bulk etc.
Dwight
September 12th, 2009
5:08 am
Dear Kyle, with all due respect for you, you’re one of the worst writers that I’ve ever seen! Is it possible for you to return to college (if you ever attended in the past) for a couple of years and learn how to write properly?!
Blessings
Dwight
DeborahinAthens
September 12th, 2009
6:16 am
When Dubya was president and he and Cheney were raping the Constitution–illegal wiretaps on American citizens, the USAA Patriot Act( which forces bankers and brokerage firms to “Big Brother” their clients bank accounts, and forces librarians to rat on the people that “look suspicious”), outing a respected and deeply embedded CIA agent (endangering the entire CIA operation that was gathering valuable intelligence), illegal torture, illegal imprisonment without due process, ramming big ticket items like the illegal war in Iraq down our throats, but keeping the cost out of the budget so that his huge deficits looked less huge– the list is absolutely stomach wrenching, I remember thinking the same thing. Do all these Republicans rah-rahing the eviscerating to the Constitution of the United States of America really think that their dumb darling was going to rule forever? Now, when the “ruling” party is going about We The Peoples’ business in a legal and orderly fashion, we hear this BS spewing from every talking head on right wing radio. And y’all just lap it up and regurgitate it back on these blogs verbatim from the same “entertainers” that purport to be journalists. When are you ignorant people going to learn to pick up some books that are not on the Limbaugh/Boortz reading list????
Gerald West
September 12th, 2009
6:37 am
Can we trust insurance companies forever to skim 30% “administrative” costs off our medical insurance premiums?
The only efficient, reliable, and satisfactory health coverage in our country is “run” by the government. Medicare (except for the Advantage and prescription drug features) is the the best claims payment system; it relies entirely on private providers to deliver medical services and on the lowest bidder among insurance companies to handle the clerical functions. TRICARE for military personnel and their families is an outstanding single-payer system, like Britain’s and Canada’s, that employs or contracts for medical care providers directly.
How many aware seniors complain about Medicare? How many career and retired military personnel complain about their government health care?
Kyle, your writing is fine, it’s your failure to study and think that leads you to side with the deceivers, hypocrites, and crazies on health care issues.
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
7:52 am
Uh, Kyle… Looking at the other “Trust Fund” that exist presently you boldly suggest something like a cap will do any real meaningful good? Remember the “Lock Box”? Did you forget the best “Lock Pickers” in the world reside in the Congress and not in the prison system of this country?
A Lock Cap would be just like anything else promised by government that it chooses to ignore.
Year afta year afta year, month afta month afta month, week afta week afta week, lie afta lie afta lie, time afta time afta time. Again, and again and uh… Again!(sic)
Sorry my friend, the government (that is a proven liar) has NOT earned the trust of “We the People”.
NO PUBLIC SINGLE-PAYER-LYING-GOVERNMENT-RAN OPTION!
Howard
September 12th, 2009
8:33 am
Joe Wilson was right on…this man Obama is a first class liar of the n-th degree! Go check his past statements on national health care!! He hides in those taped conversations his desire to stick everyone on one-payer, national health care!! This left wing radical dictator has a threefold plan to destroy this country and rebuild it in his warped idea: Keep as many people out of work as possible so they won’t have a chance at health insurance…pass cap and trade so gas and heating oil prices go up so much people will be clamoring for electric cars and solar panels and windmills (I’ve seen those monstrosities out west and believe me, you don’t want them in your neighborhood!!!)…and finally legalize illegal aliens, therefore ensuring that Hispanics will join blacks in forever voting for the Democrat Party…one of the biggest threats to this country…not al-Qaeda!!! Joe Wilson should have stood up and called that man a liar and then walked out!!Democrats are A-1 hypocrites first of all…ever hear them when Bush used to speak?? Did you hear them howl when his daddy addressed schools kids?? But I still fume at the Bushies!! The elder’s vaccilation and “dignity of the office” ideas got us Bill Clinton for 8 years…W’s “nice guy” demeanor got Obama…and believe me this man is 100 times worse than Clinton!! How’s that hope and change for you morons who believed Obama and for you yellow-dog Democrats who’d have voted for Charles Manson rather than not pull that “D” switch???
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
8:41 am
For a comparative look at the healthcare bills now in process, which includes the gang of six Senate finance committees proposal:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11804-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Health-care-reform-What-are-the-differences-between-the-proposed-bills
The gang of six has moved to close the loophole that would allow illegal aliens to receive healthcare benefits.
“We absolutely assure that those who are here illegally would not get the benefit of any of these initiatives,” Sen. Kent Conrad said.
jconservative
September 12th, 2009
8:53 am
MIller
“Any bill should also require that our congressional representatives be covered by the bill and yank those folks off of their gold-plated health and retirement benefits.”
Miller I like this idea. You run for congress & I will support you.
Trudy
September 12th, 2009
9:00 am
How many more people must die at the hands of the gop…
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
9:34 am
How many more people must die at the hands of the gop…
Probably far less than have died at the hands of the Democrats…
booger
September 12th, 2009
10:00 am
Gerald West,
The only efficient system in the country is Medicare……..
Is this the same Medicare Obama wants to take $500 billion of waste and inefficency out of?
booger
September 12th, 2009
10:06 am
Gordon,
The fact that this plan will be financed by the premiums it collects fails to mention that many of these premiums will be paid by the government. People who cannot afford their premiums will recieve an entitlement from the govt. to cover these cost.
Joan
September 12th, 2009
12:54 pm
Here the liberals go again with the name calling: “deceivers, hypocrites, and crazies on health care issues.” Makes “you lie” sound downright tame. I have an idea about healthcare—require that doctors tell patients who are obese to go home and lose 50-100 pounds, and then come back for treatment. That should cut healthcare costs by about 1/3. By the way, didn’t anyone else hear Obama say that we will pay for the single payer option with collections “OR CUTS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED”. I am assuming that this means rationing.
Joan
September 12th, 2009
12:55 pm
About the thrust–Trust. Anyone who would trust a politician must be insane. There is way too much history of deception to ignore.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 12th, 2009
1:02 pm
Did you forget the best “Lock Pickers” in the world reside in the Congress and not in the prison system of this country?
This is an unfair comparison. Prisoners don’t have the power to pass laws to make their acts legal. They don’t have the tools to compete with Congress when it comes to lock picking.
Hatin'on the stupid
September 12th, 2009
1:40 pm
Joan: “Here the liberals go again with the name calling: “deceivers, hypocrites, and crazies on health care issues”
How amusing that the bullying GOP, that spread a Summer of lies all over the country, would be so thin-skinned and whiny when someone calls them on it. Just like Lindsey Graham saying after big O’s speech that he objected to the tone! Not just hypocrits, but petulant hypocrits. LOL
Hatin'on the stupid
September 12th, 2009
2:06 pm
@@: No doubt the dems would reject it just as they did the proposed amendment to assure no illegals are eligible…but to do so WOULD expose their less than noble intentions.
Yeah, it is so ignoble to try to help sick and dying people have health care, and keep them from going bankrupt for lack of it. Much less noble that say treating health care as just another for profit-no risk commodity like, say, pork futures. You guys want to line Big Insurance’s well endowed breeches, knock yourselves out. Some sort of universal healthcare is long overdue in this country. Give it to me now.
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
2:10 pm
Did you forget the best “Lock Pickers” in the world reside in the Congress and not in the prison system of this country?
This is an unfair comparison. Prisoners don’t have the power to pass laws to make their acts legal. They don’t have the tools to compete with Congress when it comes to lock picking.
It is a very truthful comparison. That is why Congress has the best lock pickers, they are more crooked than the dishonest thieves we have locked up!
9 12 – Don’t tread on me.
http://www.the912project.com/
algonquin J. Calhoun
September 12th, 2009
2:18 pm
There is no doubt the Republinazin party is in the pocket of the insurance companies. Joe, the coward, Wilson’s biggest contributor is the health-care business. You know that lizard practiced his “you lie” line in front of a mirror before he delivered it, while seated, the other night. Like all Republinazis, if his lips are moving, he’s lying! The Republinazis, like their German heroes of the 1930s, think that telling and re-telling a lie will somehow help it morph into truth. This is the party of George W. Hitler, who, with no valid reason, attacked the nation of Iraq. Billions upon billions were spent there and thousands of our people died. I didn’t hear you low-lifes say a thing about any of that. Health care will be reformed! If you don’t like it that’s just too damned bad!
@@
September 12th, 2009
3:32 pm
Hatin’ on the stupid:
Healthcare is one of those issues where government inaction (immigration) has complicated their dream (healthcare) turning it into a nightmare. Not one of the choices from which they can pick will set well with the American people. All they can do is lie about the cost of their incompetence. The people have gotten wise to the lies.
The order in which they address problems is out of sync. I like to compare it to what’s known in special education as a sensory-processing disorder.
Politicians don’t address problems…they shelve them until the next election cycle. Bush tried to address immigration reform but because the flood gates had been left open too long, the public rebelled. I had no problem with comprehensive immigration reform but I’m just one among millions who disagreed with me.
It’s quite entertaining to watch ‘em squirm. They did it to themselves.
@@
September 12th, 2009
3:38 pm
…and what’s really ironic, Hots!!?!!….
is that Ted Kennedy was instrumental in foisting the immigration problem into his own healthcare dream, turning it into a nightmare for his junior, Obama.
Now THAT’S FUNNY!
Rob
September 12th, 2009
3:52 pm
Gerald West, Really? this is one of the most ignorant comments I have seen.
“How many aware seniors complain about Medicare? How many career and retired military personnel complain about their government health care?”
As a veteran I can assure that the care of current and former soldiers is abysmal just ask any vet. However there is an endless supply of motrin.
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
4:20 pm
‘Splian something to me @@: We accept, take in more LEGAL IMMIGRANTS every year than any other nation in this world. The foolish claim of anti-immigrant and xenophobia just does not hold any truth.
Seen a story on the news the other day about an American farmer who hired U.S. Citizens to pick his crops at minimum wages doing the SO-CALLED JOBS Americans just won’t do. He said as long as U.S. citizens are willing to do the job he has for minimum wages (picking the crops in his fields) he will hire ONLY U.S. Citizens. Hoorah!
Obviously, no labor or willing worker shortage is in sight either as the number of unemployed U.S. citizens continues to rise.
With all that said, why should we even consider breaking our own laws or re-writing them just to reward the law breaking illegal aliens?
I say throw them out with the rest of the corrupt bums we have in what is supposed to be our government.
@@
September 12th, 2009
4:21 pm
Another thing Hots.
Give it to me now.
Gallup — A month of town-hall meetings across the country during Congress’ August recess has hardly budged Americans’ views about passing a healthcare reform bill, or helped many more Americans form an opinion. The public is as divided over healthcare reform today as at the beginning of August (37% in favor and 39% opposed), with a large segment (24%) still undecided.
Although the two sides on healthcare reform are about evenly matched numerically, opponents may have a political edge. The 82% of reform opponents saying the issue will be a major factor in their vote for Congress next year eclipses the 62% of reform advocates who say the same.
You’ll have to talk to the other 62%. Obama can get it for you — all he has to do is throw his and the dem’s political future out the window.
Good luck with that!
@@
September 12th, 2009
4:23 pm
63%! I inadvertently gave you one.
My bad.
Obummer the Great ACORN
September 12th, 2009
6:16 pm
Dear Senator,> As a taxpayer and citizen of Georgia, I am outraged over actions by> the “community organization” group ACORN. The recent information (not> provided by mainstream media) about the dishonest and illegal advice> provided to persons who walk in for advice from ACORN, plus the proven> allegations of illegal voter registration in the 2008 Presidential> election,It is past time for immediate action.>> It is a sad state when a government wants to investigate the CIA and their> investigative techniques of KNOWN terrorists the very group that plays a> large responsibility in our safety.. Waterboarding is not> inhumane…killing nearly 3000 Americans is…Our government is “upside> down” like a ship with no rudder. My point is this..the US Census Bureau> has removed it’s ties to ACORN, now it’s Congress’ turn. The stimulus bill> providing ACORN 8 billion dollars is not wise use of taxpayer monies. I> call on you to immediately to not be a partisan legislator. 1. Pull all> taxpayer money support from ACORN.>> 2. Initiate a public congressional investigation of ACORN.>> You of course won’t be popular with the White House since that is a “pet”> organization, but you will be with the very people that send you to> Washington. Please stand up for what is right,initiate this investigation> Today !>> Sincerely,
algonquin J. Calhoun
September 12th, 2009
8:17 pm
Joe Wilson, whose name is actually Addison Graves Wilson, Sr., is a racist hypocrite! In 2000, Wilson was one of seven Republicans in the South Carolina Senate to vote to continue flying the Confederate battle flag over the state house, saying, “The Southern heritage, the Confederate heritage is very honourable.” The Senate voted 36-7 to take down the flag.
Wilson has been a member of the organization Sons of Confederate Veterans, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as having been “taken over in the past decade by radical neo-Confederates who favor secession and defend slavery as a benign institution.
In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams’ revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson’s former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond’s black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because “it’s a smear” on Thurmond’s image and was a way to “diminish” Thurmond’s legacy. After Thurmond’s family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams’ revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.
Wonder why Wilson doesn’t want change in health care? He’s in the pocket of the health care and insurance industry. A detailed breakdown of Mr. Wilson’s 2009-2010 campaign funding provides insight for his outburst against changes in American health care. The CRP’s “Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign” list show Wilson has taken $19,000 from “Health Professionals” for the race next year. Hospitals and nursing homes contributed $9,000, Pharmaceuticals and Health Products added $5,000 to Wilson’s election funds, and “Lobbyists” contributed $9,701 to the campaign. Insurance companies put up $4,750 for the next race.
Like all you other Republinazis, he’s a lying hypocrite!
Chris Salzmann
September 12th, 2009
8:27 pm
Obummer the Great ACORN September 12th, 2009 6:16 pm SAID: ….ACORN, plus the proven> allegations of illegal voter registration in the 2008 Presidential> election,It is past time for immediate action.
CHRIS SAYS: ACORN turned in those phony registrations because they, according to the law, cannot destroy voter registrations, no matter how phony they are. Only elections officials can do that. THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE LAW. This ACORN stuff is ridiculous and tiresome.
Obummer the Great ACORN September 12th, 2009 6:16 pm SAID:. Waterboarding is not> inhumane…
CHRIS SAYS: So why don’t you and Hannity undergo a treatment. Sean Hannity said he would and we’re still waiting. During the Vietnam War, we prosecuted American soldiers for doing exactly that. We also convicted the Japanese for War Crimes with water boarding being one of them.
Do you have a clue, at all?
Chris Salzmann
September 12th, 2009
8:34 pm
Obummer the Great ACORN September 12th, 2009 6:16 pm SAID: …the proven> allegations of illegal voter registration in the 2008 Presidential> election,It is past time for immediate action.>> It is a sad state when a government wants to investigate the CIA and their> investigative techniques of KNOWN terrorists the very group that plays a> large responsibility in our safety.. Waterboarding is not> inhumane…
CHRIS SAYS: Proven allegations? What the heck are you talking about? ACORN was required, BY LAW, to turn in all voter registrations, whether they knew them to be phony or not. THAT IS THE LAW. Under the same law, only election officials can destroy phony voter registrations. WATERBOARDING? If you think it isn’t inhumane, why not undergo a treatment? Heck, Sean Hannity promised viewers he would to prove its not “inhumane” and that was months ago. We prosecuted American soldiers in the Vietnam War for waterboarding prisoners. We also convicted people of War Crimes for charges that included waterboarding.
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
10:51 pm
57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
10:53 pm
Americans’ Trust in Legislative Branch at Record Low
PRINCETON, NJ — At a time when President Obama is asking Congress to develop and pass far-reaching healthcare reform legislation, a record-low 45% of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the legislative branch of government, far fewer than trust the judicial (76%) or executive (61%) branches. Second only to the judicial branch are Americans themselves — 73% trust “the American people as a whole” to make judgments about the issues facing the country.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122897/Americans-Trust-Legislative-Branch-Record-Low.aspx
Michael H. Smith
September 12th, 2009
10:59 pm
Yes, yes, Comrade Cynthia, those old Tea Partiers are just a fringe bunch uttering right-wing drivel fed to them by GOP extremists cranks.
Uh… Comrade Cynthia, you might want to lay-off drinking that left-wing socialist’s Kool Aid. Your extremists inebriation is unaccepted and is being rejected by the political mainstream of America.
Don’t tread on me.
TJ
September 12th, 2009
11:22 pm
The current administration has given us no reason to trust them. They have lied, they have marginalized, they have demonized their detractors.The fact that they are ignoring half of this country’s citizens will lead to the demise of the president and his administration. The government should always fear its citizens, that’s the only way they will remain honest.
Bozo the clown
September 13th, 2009
7:18 am
Kyle, no more on health care until your willing to say who pays yours and what if any portion comes from your pocket. I’m tired of people with no skin in the game trying to make the rules.
@@
September 13th, 2009
8:19 am
Michael H. Smith:
I’m no good at splainin’ things. I will say this…they write the legislation (making themselves look useful) just to ignore the laws they wrote. There was a poster at Wooten’s, jbmlaw, who used to put forth the argument that for every new law they write, they should be required to rescind two previous laws.
I say, rescind five. What they’ve been doing can be compared to layering in winter — polka dots, covered by stripes, covered by checks.
polka dots = WE THE PEOPLE
stripes = POLITICAL PARTIES
checks = OUR MONEY MISMANAGED IN THEIR INTEREST
An unsightly mismatch to keep our eyes out of focus. It gives me a headache.
Michael H. Smith
September 13th, 2009
8:47 am
Drinking the Tea Party Tea
Watch out GOP. If you think the recent demonstrations are rallying cries to rescue you from your failures: It won’t be.
No one issue other than a confirmation of what is reflected in the Rasmussen Reports and the Gallop Poll can be claimed as a Tea Party theme: The trust deficit.
Cutting taxes and tax reform is of less importance than cutting spending and appropriations reform: The national credit card is foolishly overdrawn.
The old party touts of less government will only be met with a furious disruptive cry: YOU LIE!
Excerpt from Politico
“I’m a recovering alcoholic,” said Beck, “and I can tell you the moment I said ‘enough. I have to change my life or I will die.’ And I have not seen that from the Republican Party.”
Americans, Beck said, believe that Republicans have lost their way and that – even when they oppose Obama’s plans – they are doing so for political motivations, not philosophical ones.
“I don’t care who you vote for. I really don’t,” Beck said in introducing DeMint and Pence. “Vote for Republicans, Vote for a Democrat. I think, quite frankly, you vote for either of them right now, and you still haven’t gotten it. And, they are both taking us into a land of gigantic government where they control everything through corruption and everything else.”
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the difficulty Republicans will have in winning over the Tea Party activists than their adulation of Beck, whose fiery populist rhetoric often attracts controversy.
At Saturday’s rally, some waved “Glenn Beck for President” signs and many activists attribute the idea for – and energy behind – the marches to Beck. During a March broadcast, he unveiled what he called The 9-12 Project in which he urged viewers to try to recreate the united America that emerged the day after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
“It’s not about politics,” Beck said during the March broadcast. “You actually believe in something. And you thought for a while there your politicians did as well. And now you kind of realize well, maybe they don’t.”
As they marched today, the activists — who chanted, “We own the dome,” while pointing at the Capitol — sounded that same note.
“We used to be Republicans,” said Helen Benson of Jacksonville, Florida. “We didn’t like John McCain. The media liked John McCain.”
“They’re certainly not listening – Democrats or Republicans,” said Steve Cobb, who made it to Washington from Cordelle, Georgia with his wife, Sylvia.
Michael H. Smith
September 13th, 2009
8:56 am
Perhaps we are on a different page @@? Please see my September 12th, 2009
4:20 pm comment and reply in respects to supporting granting amnesty and U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens under a phony claim of immigration reform.
@@
September 13th, 2009
9:31 am
O.K., Michael. Having grown up in California, I can tell you there are those latinos (legal immigrants) who can be a great asset to America. They were the local entrepreneurs who launched local businesses thereby driving the economy of my small community. They really DID see America as the land of opportunity, not just a means to and “END”. THEY would probably be among the ones who resent their own illegals that followed. Unfortunately, the dems have snatched them up convincing them that they owe their amigos the same opportunity/political protection. That’s sad….it in no way serves the latino community.
The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens as existing statutes demand and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants. This would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries. Instead, with President Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, an amnesty for the country’s 13 million illegal immigrants may be soon to come.
The poor economy has sent many packing. That told me a lot about their allegiances or lack thereof.
NOW IS THE TIME to uproot the weeds. Should be easy enough to identify if they’re receiving aide. Close the borders. Lower the quota and pick the best among the crop. The ones who view America as the land of opportunity to achieve, not degenerate under dem leadership.
Michael H. Smith
September 13th, 2009
11:03 am
I understand what you are saying @@ or meaning to say. However, using words like Latino and Hispanic, neither of which is of a certain national identity, as Latino applies to the Spanish speaking and Hispanic to the Spanish culture, these terms are mostly used for the purpose of advancing the illegal alien agenda more often than not, given the empirical facts.
Furthermore any “legal immigrant” can be of a great asset to America no matter their language or culture, again, given the empirical facts. That is why we have the constitutional mandate found in Article one Section eight Clause four of the U.S. Constitution. As noted from that Article our immigration is to be “a uniform process” and not a dichotomy or plurality of means and methods: Straightforwardly a system or process either by design or default allowing or using illegal immigration and legal immigration is a violation of this Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution. Least of all to mention empirically a humiliating insult of the most demeaning nature to the “legal immigrant” who played by the rule of law in respecting this Representative Republic.
As any legal immigrant should resent any of their own illegal immigrant linage or former countrymen that may follow, this soul sentiment of resentment is not only understandable, it is laudable, it is American thoroughly and serves as testament to their naturalization in full displaying their oath of loyalty. If it were otherwise their Americanism would be questionable, as is the contrary of the native born suspect, who embrace illegal aliens demanding an amnesty and willingly contrive establishing the use of an illegal detour to gain access to the uniform legal pathway to citizenship that has been long established.
Our immigration is meant to serve the country not the productivity or profitable of commerce, which wrongly has been the notion from the very beginning of the nation. If commerce is the true intended purpose underlying of our immigration policy to obtain the hardest working cheapest labor possible as a means test for what immigrant is acceptable or deserving of any preference where none of any nature should exist i.e. for profit, for political gain or for love or loyalty to ancestry, then we have no morals or compassion. At some point the citizens of this country must assert we can no longer wrong the wrong in a belief a moral right has been done and the injustice undone. This corruption of our immigration policy can only be cleansed by a thorough purge of all the unlawful participants: The illegal aliens, those who support them and the employers that hire them, which another amnesty of any form cannot do.
StevenCee
September 13th, 2009
11:40 am
Kyle, maybe you forgot that we still have some vestige of a representative government, which last time I looked, did not grant the president dictatorial powers. So why the whole “can we trust his successor”, “can we trust current & future members of Congress” rhetoric, as if this is some kind of argument against any real healthcare reform?
Kyle, you & Reagan are 100% correct, we absolutely need to “Trust, but verify”!
Therefore, it doesn’t matter who is president, or in congress, in the future, because if we are doing our jobs as citizens, keeping an eye on what is done in Washington, then we can support whatever legislation sounds good, & if down the line, it begins to veer off-course, then we make our wishes known & adjust, correct, or rescind the program.
Unless you believe we are fine with healthcare the way it is, SOMETHING has to be done, and quick. So, instead of tossing out parisan-tinged canards, how about, as an “opinion” writer, tell us your opinion as to what we SHOULD do. Simply being contrary to anything Obama proposes ain’t gonna head us in the right direction, as I hopefully assume you have some sense as to what that is, no?
TheFiredUpPeach
September 13th, 2009
1:10 pm
The fact still remains that there is not one U.S. Citizen who knows 100% what is in this proposed legislation. Which means that we have every right to be concerned about how this reform policy will affect all of our lives, even the most valuable part of that being our health, health care, and health coverage. So any one person who states they fully support this proposal has been completely jaded by Obamas intent to impress on all of us that HE is the one who will fix America. People want to claim that those marching on Washington yesterday are ‘jumping on the band wagon’ and asking where were we 8 or even 16 years ago. We were shouting then too. We were writing our Senators and Congressmen. But they’ve continued to not listen the American voice. Moreover they are each more concerned with asserting their personal agendas rather than what is good for We the People. It is not a crime when Americans want their voices heard and take action. Why does government need to be in every aspect of our lives. We need more regulation of the insurance industry. Hospitals and physicians should not have to battle insurance companies nor the government to be reimbursed for the care they provide to often save our lives. Do any of you have any inkling of the magnitude of a person receiving the necessary education to care for something as complex and miraculous as the human body? We need to continue to develop new treatments and new technology to find cures for diseases and prevent life threatening and life altering illness. That is not a cheap business by any means. And insurance companies and the government should not be allowed to tell a doctor “NO. We won’t approve the test to determine if your patient is going to die.”
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 13th, 2009
4:29 pm
Our immigration is meant to serve the country not the productivity or profitable of commerce, which wrongly has been the notion from the very beginning of the nation.
Well said. The two people that I personally know who are most opposed to illegal immigration are legal immigrants.
hryder
September 13th, 2009
5:19 pm
The Big O is basically in La-La land regarding any reasonable concept of handling money. Any other enity in this country, besides the federal government, would have been legally forced into bankruptcy prior to current times and likely forced to liquidate assets and pay creditors pennies on the dollar. He wishes to, and all ready has, added to the national nightmare(debt) and wants to add even greater amounts. Obviously, Congress is just as ignorant of sane fiscal policy as the Big O and those members who agree with his past and proposed spending expenditures should be sacked as early as possible and stymied completely until the sacking occurs.
Michael H. Smith
September 13th, 2009
6:14 pm
With regrets it must be brought to fore: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010
Switzerland tops the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010. The United States falls one place to second position, with weakening in its financial markets and macroeconomic stability.
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global Competitiveness Report/index.htm
@@
September 13th, 2009
7:37 pm
Lawd ah mercy, Michael, your 11:03 was wordy. You said it a lot better than I did or could have.
You’re right when you say the use of the term latino is too vague. Since I’m unable to break the number of illegals down to Spaniards, Guatemalans or Puerto Ricans, I just use latino.
Could you wait till Saturday to shoot me? I’ve got a full week coming up….little people are depending on me.
Michael H. Smith
September 13th, 2009
8:16 pm
It is very easy to break down the numbers by nationality @@. Basically 56% or 57% are Mexican nationals. Around 27% are of Central American nationalities. The remainder is from around the world South America, Asia, Europe etc., which rounds out the count. Our biggest illegal immigration problem is coming from next door neighbor Mexico.
My apologies for the wordiness, some subjects as with this one cannot be addressed in 25 words or less and possibly make any sense. Let alone speak truthfully to the issue objectively, which many are not willing to do. Of course, as with all strange bedfellows, when the Unions are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce, Republicans are in bed with corporations and the Democrats are in the ethnocentric bed pimping votes for political power it kinda ‘Splains everythin’ from border insecurity, to the illegal drug trade and trafficking in human cargo.
Oops, that only requires one word now doesn’t it: Corruption.
Hope your week go well.
Nick
September 14th, 2009
1:03 am
We? Don’t bunch the public in with your thoughts. I for one trust the man. Maybe you need to battle your own demons but I am for the plan. REFORM NOW!
Barbara
September 14th, 2009
7:59 am
Hear Hear Kyle. It’s about time this newspaper added a conservative writer. We could go with the Public Option is congress would indeed give up their gold plated private healthcare and retirement. How in the world can they vote so strongly on something they will never participate in?
And speaking of that, I can’t wait to see one of their mothers needing healthcare for cervical cancer or their father for prostate cancer and not being able to get it with their government plan.
And all of this nonsense about what Social Security is costing drives me to distraction. If the government had not been stealing from this plan since it’s inception, there would be plenty of money in it to last for several generations.
As far as the “demigogues” go, there is only one that I know of and his name is Obama.
Don’t you find it a little scary that Obama is carrying around a bookmarked copy of “The POST-America”? Post as in After-America? Would that be Obamerica?
JackLeg
September 14th, 2009
9:34 am
Hatin’on the stupid,
it is sad that you hate your self, please seek some counseling. Maybe even some math classes, but don’t take those classes at an Ivy League school. It is obvious that they don’t teach math well. I like how stupid people love to be lied to, and then repeat the lies as fact. Obozo lied many times during his pep rally; more people should have called him out on the lies.
Your morning jolt: Tom Graves and the photo op of a lifetime | Political Insider
September 14th, 2009
10:01 am
[...] Kyle Wingfield on Obama’s health-care ‘trust’ fund. [...]
cranky old man
September 14th, 2009
10:33 am
Oh, please. All these people who are screaming about “socialism” are the same people who would scream to their congressman if they caught wind that the Pentagon was planning to close an unnecessary military base located down the street from their businesses.
Kyle Wingfield
September 14th, 2009
11:32 am
Bozo the clown: So what exactly would qualify me as having “skin in the game”? Do you think newspapers are so rich these days as to pay 100 percent of their employees’ health-insurance premiums? Or so poor as to not offer insurance at all?
I’ve heard a lot of attempts to silence debate about this topic, but a paycheck-deduction litmus test is, ahem, original.
Kyle Wingfield
September 14th, 2009
11:38 am
StevenCee, Nick and others: The “trust the successors” bit matters, because President Obama is making promises about his plan that future presidents and members of Congress would have to uphold. So it’s not enough to trust Obama. He would only be in a position to keep his promises for another seven years, max.
A cap on public-option enrollment, with a very large obstacle (congressional supermajority) to raising or removing it, would be one way for Democrats to show they can be trusted. Or maybe their talk about a limited public option that wouldn’t grow into a single-payer system is just bluffing…
@@
September 14th, 2009
12:18 pm
Does gov’t have the will to whittle down Big Banking?
No! If they did, they’d have done so when given the opportunity letting the banks go through the natural process selling off parts.
Bush’s TARP, Obama’s bailouts, the salacious though non-climactic stimulus….all governmental efforts to convince the public that they’re worth what we pay ‘em. Indispensable so to speak.
Heck! I haven’t figured out whether the government owns Goldman Sachs or Goldman Sachs owns the government. The consequences remain….WE THE PEOPLE should have stopped the train before they put our children on board to suffer the impending wreck. But no-o-o, too many of us were eager to help them aboard, shutting the doors behind them.
@@
September 14th, 2009
12:24 pm
Whoops! Wrong site.
TaxPayer
September 14th, 2009
12:54 pm
So, Kyle, tell me how you feel about the ‘trust me’ that we the people got from the Bush Administration and other Republicans with respect to why we went to war or Laffer’s theory on tax revenues or de-regulation of the derivatives market or the health benefits of coal-fired power plants or global climate change or… Or, perhaps, is it that you only trust certain people and not others. How about something like, “trust me, we’re (the GOP, that is, in case you have been Rip Van Winkled) the party of no, and we mean it.” Now, there’s something one can truly place one’s trust in. By the way, Kyle, what do you think about that GOP legislation to replace Medicare with a voucher in a set of field trials. Are you familiar with it and if so how many of the Republican party members are anxiously awaiting their chance to sign up for it, wherever those trials are scheduled to begin next year. I sure would like to see some GOP press conferences on the subject. Wouldn’t you.
Kyle Wingfield
September 14th, 2009
3:11 pm
TaxPayer: I wouldn’t trust either party with a plan that flies in the face of all available evidence the way this one does. Until I see a fiscal score for President Obama’s plan from the Congressional Budget Office or some other reasonably independent outfit, I’m not going to take his or any other politician’s word for it. Even with a relatively low CBO score there will be plenty of reason for skepticism, since CBO has a history of underestimating the effects of new spending programs.
Derivatives deregulation was done in 2000, with a GOP Congress and a Democratic president. I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that coal-fired power plants have health benefits. You may have a point about Iraq, though I’d point out that credulity about Saddam’s WMD programs was hardly a one-party thing.
The Laffer reference is funny to me. I don’t know why people get so hung up about the Laffer curve; it’s true on its face. If tax rates are zero, you get zero tax revenue. If tax rates are 100 percent, you also get zero tax revenue — because no one would work if all of their earnings went to pay taxes. Somewhere in between zero and 100 is the point at which tax revenues would be maximized. As far as I know, Laffer has never claimed to know where that point is. Robert Mundell, one of Laffer’s fellow supply-siders and a Nobel laureate, once told me about optimum exchange rates that “you have to grope” to find that level. So too with tax rates, I’d say…assuming that maximizing tax revenues is the goal, but that’s a whole other discussion entirely…
As for the field trials, I’d support some sort of field trials for just about any major health-policy change…the better to know what the consequences would be for the experiment writ large. Kind of like the state program in Massachusetts, whose results so far are not a ringing endorsement for government intervention.
TaxPayer
September 14th, 2009
6:17 pm
Kyle,
Thank you for your response to my 12:54 post. To begin with, I must say that you delivered more than I was expecting. My listing of a
few of the many past transgressions of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration were more rhetorical in nature and intended more
as an overview of why I have an even greater dis-trust of all things GOP than you likely do of all things Obama (noting that you chose
to focus your lack of trust with respect to healthcare reform on what he has identified as his expectations rather than what has
ultimately been delivered and accepted). In contrast, I have the distinct advantage of hindsight with respect to the ‘accomplishments’
of the Republican Party over the past eight years (and even earlier if one traces the Laffer curve, for example, to its roots) and that
history leaves me with very little, if any, ability to trust hardly anything from the Republican party any more. By the way, I do also
note that you even leave yourself open to accept or decline the feedback from the CBO. Is that something that you did just in case the
CBO came back with results that favor Obama’s plan? Anyway, I may as well lay that issue aside for now and wait to see what Obama is
able to deliver on healthcare reform rather than speculate. It is, as you say, a matter of trust.
On to some of the other comments in your response.
First, as I recall, the derivatives de-regulation came to us in December of 2000 right before the session was ending in the wee hours of
the night as an attachment to a ‘must-pass’ government funding via Phil Gramm. Now, if this attachment had gone through a little light
of day and had been thoroughly scrutinized rather than being slipped through when the outgoing folks were literally packing their bags
and making room for the new administration… In summary, not a move by Mr. and Mrs. UBEnronS Gramm that instills trust.
Then, there is the Laffer curve. There are several points that need to be raised here. First, the Laffer curve’s initial point of
(0,0) certainly holds true since you clearly can have no tax revenue without taxes. However, the endpoint of (100,0) hinges on one key
assumption — that people will not hand over all their earnings, as taxes, under any circumstances. Clearly, that is debatable. I can
envision a world where everything one wants, needs, etc., is provided in exchange for one’s paycheck. In fact, didn’t some guy named
Pullman try something that approached such a world at one time. Granted, his vision of Utopia was a failure but that’s not to say that
it could not have worked. Now, what if one’s assumption for the endpoint were true, what does that tell us. Well, mathematically
speaking, it doesn’t really tell us as much as one might be mis-led into believing. One must first decide whether or not a continuously
differentiable function is defined between said endpoints or whether a set of discontinuous functions are more appropriate. In the first case, the simplest function would be a simple parabola with shifted origin. I believe this is the scenario that is likely assumed by most people given that the common assumption is that once you reach some magic level of taxation, you crest and then revenues decay
after that point. In reality, that case has never been proven to exist and I seriously doubt that it would apply to the general
population, regardless. I would be glad to talk in more detail on this matter if you like however, I find myself unable to trust the claims that are derived from this simplistic view of taxation and resulting revenues.
Finally, regarding the Republican legislation that defined these field trials in six metro areas in 2010, I would really like to see you
dig into that one and give us a good article to review. After all, Ive heard virtually nothing from the Republican party on this item. Do you think that they just don’t trust us taxpayers on such issues.
Thank you,
Just another TaxPayer.
TaxPayer
September 14th, 2009
6:19 pm
Dang Notepad and it’s wordwrap. Sorry about that weird looking post.
Michael Honohan
September 14th, 2009
8:36 pm
You saw it here first folks. A conservative endorsing a public option. Perhaps you missed it. He suggested a cap and why suggest something unless you approve of (endorse) the result? And I completly agree with a cap, though not a static one. You apply the same standard we do for most government assistance. A percentage of the poverty level and payments on a sliding scale. Of course you may need a cap on that percentage, but in any event you have a more dynamic model and you can still be sure its kept to a signficant minimum.
Consider a community based health plan, locally administered by the health care providers, paid for largely by shifting the expensive emergency treatment cost to lower cost community health clinics. There may be some need for federal assitance, but the payoff of a healthy community is increased productivity in the workplace and more revenue witout raising taxes.
A public option does not have to a gold plated insurance policy. A public option is the basic health care keeps poor people’s children from having damaged brain functions and the burden of violence and crime that results – billions saved on prison and courts. A public option is the basic health care so when people you may not like have sick children, they go to a clinic instead of the school to breath death on your children. A public option is the place where the least of us have a place to get some basic humanitarian treatment, as Jesus would have wanted a Christian society to provide. A public option is the regular checkups for early detection and treatment instead of expensive treatments to be paid for later by government funds. Who do you think pays the bills for “indigent patients”? Perhaps you think the churches are still in the healing business? Tax money!
You see the money really is there and you have paying for it all along. But instead putting your money into efficient and effective clinics, it all goes to expensive emergency room visits! I do not expect that a public option is going to cover every treatment available. Now calm yourself down there Patriot! A public option is for those who would otherwise have nothing. Subsidized housing doesn’t provide a mansion and food stamps don’t yield steak and lobster! And for those of you who have been fooled, rationing goes on every day. There are only so many doctors and only so much equipment; we can’t cure everyone. Today it is rationed economically, those who can pay do, those who can’t die. In America we let the market choose who lives and dies. Perhaps that is better than the government. That doesn’t mean we can’t provide a measure of healthcare to in all and in a way the benefits the health of those who can see a doctor,
At this point, no government enitity has proclaimed what a public option is. It is imperative to the general welfare of the nation that we reform the healthcare industry to perform fully to the benefit of those who are paying for healthcare and for the savings to be used to more effectively provide healthcare to the meager 15% who are without it. Cut 15% of the waste in the industry and your basic community-based health clinics can easily be paid for without a dime of tax money and run without federal control. Just the federal mandate for its implementation. Now there is a sensible compromise on a public option, merely a more effective way to use the money we already spend.
Rather than listen to tin-plated prophets of doom, use your God-given brains and figure out the insurance industry has no love anyone getting a cure without them having a piece of the action. They are fighting hard to get you to believe some socialist plot. Put forth the demand for a something sensible, and yes, conservative, for the public option and the let them move forward. Whenever there is a crisis in America, its always the Democrats who “come through” for the People, but they get it wrong. For once ,the conservatives should show the Democrats how to properly design and implement a social program. Too many of you conservatives are so Jeffersonian. However, when Jefferson was in office, Jefferson followed, and yea expanded, the Hamiltonian mode of Government. Jefferson prove government can work if it is done honestly and pragmatically.
Kyle Wingfield
September 15th, 2009
10:23 am
Michael Honohan: I don’t see how I endorsed a public option when I wrote “I still think the public option is a bad, unnecessary policy.”
What I said is that, if President Obama and the Democrats are sincere about this being a limited policy that wouldn’t swallow up those people who don’t want to be swallowed, then they should include something like a cap that would put some teeth into their promise.
If they capped it as low as 5 percent (keep in mind, this is on top of Medicaid for people at a certain percentage of the poverty level and Medicare for retirees…so we’re talking about something approaching half of Americans being on a government insurance policy) then they could make a decent case that they tried to address the concerns of Americans who are worried about government getting too large. I wouldn’t agree that this was a case of limited government — a conservative would approach this problem with vouchers or tax credits or by freeing up the market to act more rationally — but we’d have something other than their word.
Of course, none of this is actually going to come to pass…imo because the left has no interest in a limited public option.
Michael Honohan
September 15th, 2009
3:23 pm
Kyle,
Literarary license. Point being is that you have at least ventured into a rational discussion of the issue. However, tax vouchers and tax credits still amount to a form of government handout, not an orthodox conservatism. Conservztive need to start to realize that “the market” is not the answer to everything. Privatization that has crept into our military has not helped a bit. I costs way more and delivers less and you would be hard-pressed to find a soldier who is happy with it. We certainly would not let “the market” replace the Army or the Marines!
And I hope you haven’t missed the these local “conservative” municipalities have found “the market” does not work to provide government services and are cancelling those contracts. That is the problem with idealogues, they can’t see that ideology does not apply in every case.
If you read past my “exageration” of your position, you would have seen that my proposal fits within the market and the existing taxpayer burden, but is not technically a market solution. It is however, conservative in that is does not expand government or increase taxes and it does allow private enterprise to provide the end services.
Michael Honohan
September 15th, 2009
3:26 pm
One more thing, I don’t really care what the left or the right cares about, they just two versions of the same kind of idiot. It is the pragamatic independent thinkers who are on the rise in this country. The 100th Monkey Theory is our favor.
TheFiredUpPeach
September 19th, 2009
1:04 pm
Nick…I guess since you don’t want anyone using the word WE then you must disagree with the Constitution. I did mention reform with respect to changing the insurance industry. However, for anyone to completely trust any politician deserves fully whatever they dish out. You might as well trust a stranger with your 401K. No matter what politician I voted for in the past, did I ever trust completely. That’s just idiotic. I do agree there needs to be reform, as millions of Americans do. However, you don’t reform a system in a matter of months with vague political speak and expect to get full support from colleagues and the American people. If your boss comes in and makes changes to how you do your job don’t you think you should have some say or have the right to voice your input since you’re the one reaping the benefits, suffering the consequences, or doing the work? Just logical sense. Trying to keep others from voicing their opinions and valid concerns is pushing your political agenda. This mess with America’s health system did not happen in a matter of months, and will not be fixed with hasty legislation. And if you agree with BO’s health reform bill 100% you just committed a crime of integrity against yourself.