Conservative objections to ObamaCare: More than just money
The feeling this summer was that the right was winning the health-care debate. With each week, it seemed, came damning new information about the Democrats’ various plans. A nation willing, even eager, to modify this crucial component of our economy grew increasingly skeptical that the ruling liberals knew what they were doing.
Now all that has supposedly changed. Budget crunchers estimated this week that the health plan pushed by Sen. Max Baucus would cost “only” $829 billion from 2010 to 2019. Most helpful to the left, though, was a projection that the Montana Democrat’s plan would trim the federal budget deficit by a cumulative $81 billion in the coming decade.
Yet if these projections alone spell the end of debate over government’s role in health care, conservatism is in more trouble than we thought.
There are of course significant holes in the estimates: The deficit would fall over 10 years chiefly because taxes would rise a few years before the new spending begins. There would be ample incentive for employers to tweak generous health benefits so that they don’t qualify as “Cadillac” plans subject to a new 40 percent tax. The Baucus plan depends on $404 billion in savings from Medicare and other federal health programs that probably won’t materialize; even if it did, future Congresses would spend the money elsewhere. New entitlement spending comes in over budget without fail.
There’s also the fact that the text of the Baucus bill still is not final. Once it is, the bill still must be merged with other, more costly Senate proposals and then mashed together with a House version that is sure to be even more liberal. The Baucus bill’s fiscal score merely represents the bottom of the range for any new health spending. This is shell-game politics at its worst.
But set all that aside for now. There is something fundamentally amiss for conservatism if its case against government expansion into private life hinges on a cost estimate for this or any bill.
Fiscal responsibility is everything to conservatism (if not always to the Republican Party) but it’s not the only thing.
In other words, even if an $829 billion government program could be “budget neutral,” it would still be an $829 billion shift from the productive sector to the public sector. It would still be outside the scope of the Constitution and a practically irreversible decision affecting Americans yet unborn. This kind of action, not any inaction, is how we violate the intergenerational compact.
More broadly, conservatives often explain that it’s counterproductive to take property from one group of citizens — even if it’s just “the rich,” which it’s not. But we’ve made less of a case that this taking is immoral, that two injustices don’t make justice, that there’s no liberty in transferring people from the chains of insecurity to the yoke of government.
Republican politicians in particular have too often failed to distinguish between what’s good for certain businesses and what liberates the broader marketplace. Health care is but one example of this myopia.
Particularly galling is that conservatives risk losing such an old argument, one that by our opponents’ own admission has been circulating more than 70 years.
Writing in last Sunday’s Washington Post, Steven F. Hayward called for conservatives to rededicate ourselves to the intellectualism of men like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley.
Whatever the result of the health debate — and it’s not time to fold yet — Hayward’s advice is sound. Liberalism has built its resurgence on conservatives’ failure at times not only to act on what we say, but to understand fully why we say it. The latter is the greater danger.
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
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
76 comments Add your comment
@@
October 9th, 2009
8:58 pm
I’ve read Buckley. I listened to Friedman. If it’s all the same to Mr. Hayward, I’ll take Bill Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell and Newt Gingrich. I also like Tammy Bruce.
Intellectuals? I don’t know, but what they have to say makes perfectly good sense.
So that’s two white guys, one Jewish guy, a black guy and a gay female. All conservatives.
There are others but they’re too many to mention.
I find Hannity redundant, Beck over the top, O’Reilly? he’s all over the place. Rush Limbaugh? I may have heard the guy…it’s hard to tell. My husband tunes into Boortz on the car radio so sometimes I may mistakenly think it’s Rush – their voices sound so much alike. When it comes to financial matters I’ll take Ramsey over Howard. I have no idea which side of the fence they’re on.
Base
October 9th, 2009
10:36 pm
You are an idiot who thinks he knows something. You must have been the cheap hire for the AJC.
vuduchld
October 9th, 2009
10:38 pm
You conservatives don’t understand what you’re saying because you’re hypocrites. In your article you did not state one idea for possible solutions, just like your politiical buddies haven’t. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEAS THAT’S WHY!! It’s the same warmed over crap like every other snake oil scam you folks have proposed. I have been without health care twice in my lifetime and I consider myself lucky because I was able to find another job that had it. To folks out there who presently have health care, DON’T ASSUME YOU”LL HAVE IT! And by all means, don’t pay attention to this idiot because he doesn’t have a clue!!
Jessica
October 9th, 2009
10:41 pm
This is a very good point that a lot of people are missing. The fact that the United States can’t afford government-controlled healthcare is only a tiny part of the argument against it. Robbing some Americans and making others dependent on the government in this way takes away part of their dignity and freedom.
It also undermines our political system because, once these benefits are in place, people will be afraid of having them taken away and will vote accordingly. It’s a legal way for Democrats to buy future votes.
Almost everyone, including conservatives, would like to see health care become more accessible and affordable. There are ways to make this happen without imposing intrusive and unfair government policies on ourselves and our children.
Cutty
October 9th, 2009
11:10 pm
If fiscal responsibility is everything to conservatism, then conservatism has nothing. Judging by the performance of ‘conservatives’ when they were in charge of all three branches of government, this proves my point. It’s sort of like the guy who hitches a ride with you out in the desert complaining about the A/C. For the amount of money we spent on Iraq, every American could have health care. Name one thing that the war in Iraq accomplished? All the money, all the blood for what? What is so different in the world that is due to that war. Until you ‘fiscal conservatives’ can truthfully answer those questions, go sit in a corner.
Your calling democrats your ‘opponents’ blatantly represents that goal of ‘conservatives.’ You win, your ‘opponent’ loses. The productive sector is gouging the public with high premiums and poorer service than years past. Your party ignores that completely and believes buying Blue Cross insurance in another state and the false notion that tort reform is costing billions as the panacea to this whole problem.
Michael H. Smith
October 9th, 2009
11:12 pm
An interesting article from Michael Medved on LBJ deliberately misleading the public on the cost of Medicare and Robert Reich admiringly insisted: An honest economic forecast would most likely have sunk Medicare.
Top Liberal Agrees: Cost of Health Reform Could Wreck Economy
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/09/30/top_liberal_agrees_cost_of_health_reform_could_wreck_economy
Tall
October 9th, 2009
11:12 pm
Vuduchild: What do you propose?
Michael H. Smith
October 9th, 2009
11:27 pm
What is hysterically oxymoronic in this “take from the rich and redistribute the wealth” scheme of these socialist liberals is their sanctimonious reversal in a core belief of protecting the rights of a minority, as in this case the rich.
Ahem… suppose some minorities in this country are exempt from equal rights and equal protections, aye Libs?
artatlarge
October 9th, 2009
11:28 pm
Earlier this summer, the only damning “evidence” against the Democratic plan came from the lies, hysteria, fear, and misinformation spread by the Republicans, e.g. death panels, a gov’t “take-over” of health care, gov’t interference concerning medical options, the mandatory enrollment in the gov’t plan, and the “death” of private, for-profit health insurance companies.
This is not to mention Michelle Bachmann’s elementary-school sex clinics, a claim which was never refuted or denied by the Right.
THIS was shell-game politics at its worst, and the Republican lies just keep on comin’. Rep. John Boehner claims that he has never heard from a single supporter of the public option, although 63% of his own constituents polled in favor of it.
Your whining about “government expansion into private life” would be funny if it weren’t so disingenuous and hypocritical…the Right is all for having the government run the reproductive destinies of all women and pushing creationism into textbooks and classrooms.
If that is not “government expansion into private life,” I don’t know what would be.
And as for the “intergenerational compact,” Republicans are happy to gut environmental laws, begin illegal wars, turn a Federal Budget surplus into a record-level deficit, eliminate consumer-protection laws and Federal banking regulations, forgo alternative-energy sources in exchange for a continued dependency upon foreign theocracies’ oil fields, and reduce government revenues by cutting taxes for the wealthiest of all Americans.
Additionally, it is the Republican inaction concerning health-care that has landed us in this mess, with 122 people dying every day due to a lack of affordable health insurance.
So much for your concern about the “intergenerational compact.”
It would be typical of a Republican to consider the public option to be “the yoke of government.” I suppose you also consider Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to be the “yoke of government” as well, given that there are in fact rules and requirements concerning eligibility, and that they are run by the Federal Government.
You neglect to mention that the resurgence of Liberalism is also the result of 8 years of Republican lawlessness (Iraq), Republican corruption (KBR, Halliburton, Plame-gate, Tom DeLay), Republican theocracy (anti-abortion terrorists), Republican hypocrisy (the intervention in the Terry Schiavo case), Republican insensitivity (Bush’s refusal to extend unemployment benefits for people suffering from his economy), Republican free-market disaster (housing and banking crises), and plain ol’ Republican arrogance (George Bush’s unilateral actions).
Don’t you ever get tired of calling Black, White and Up, Down?
Tall
October 9th, 2009
11:33 pm
” Name one thing that the war in Iraq accomplished? All the money, all the blood for what? What is so different in the world that is due to that war.”
1. A vile and inhumane dictator who kept his people hostage was removed
from power. That same dictator paid the families of Palestinian
suicide bombers $25,000 after an attack. That same dictator was
provided refuge for another despicable human being known as Abu
Abbas and helped “Carlos the Jackal” elude capture. Don’t forget
about the game he played with some of our friend in Paris, Moscow,
Berlin and Bejing called “Food for oil”.
2. That war took the fight to al-Qaida and weakend them substantially.
If you’re familiar with the history of Iran and Iraq, you’ll also
know that it helped to keep Iraqi oil out of Iranian hands. Thus
foiling Iranian attempts to raise increased revenue to wage more
mischief in the region.
3. The war was also an attempt to establish a modern state with a
market economy fueled byoil revenues. An economy that could support
a functioning and prosperous middle class. A populace that might be
receptive to a modern lifestyle with the rest of the western world.
I could go on and on, but I urge you to think a little bit.
Tall
October 9th, 2009
11:37 pm
Art at Large:
Explain to me how the Clinton administration generated surpluses.
I suspect your answer will be interesting. However, I don’t have all night.
Tall
October 9th, 2009
11:42 pm
“Additionally, it is the Republican inaction concerning health-care that has landed us in this mess, with 122 people dying every day due to a lack of affordable health insurance.” Add this one to your case studies as well. My wife is a nurse at one of the larger hospitals in town as are many of her friends. Over the 15 or so years I have know them, not one of them has ever corroborated that statement.
Richard
October 10th, 2009
12:14 am
Why do we keep calling this isue “health care reform”? It is not!! It is health care payment reform. If it were health care reform, we would be talking about weight control, and other healthy life style choices.
Oh wait – I forgot. We can only dictate lifestyle choices that pertain to climate change
Michael H. Smith
October 10th, 2009
12:14 am
Heartless Medicare Bureaucrats Deny More Claims than Top Providers
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15507
artatlarge
October 10th, 2009
12:42 am
Tall:
Of course your wife the nurse can’t corroborate…how would she know about people who don’t go to the hospital at all, or wait until it’s too late? Has she got so little to do that she concerns herself over the insurance status of patients?
As for the Clinton administration’s budget surplus, it is a matter of record. I imagine he did it by not giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, by not beginning an illegal war, by not throwing money away on abstinence-only sex-ed programs, by not paying “journalists” to write amenable stories for him, and by not cutting government revenue intake. He also balanced his budgets, instead of spending money like an intellectually shallow, arrogant know-nothing like our former chimp-in-chief.
If my comments are too long for you, don’t read them.
Democrat
October 10th, 2009
1:31 am
For the common good of all americans we must have an expansion of government power. We must:
1. Make all private schools illegal. The government, and only the government, should dictate where children go to school and what they learn. At a very very early age children shall be instructed by a teacher who is an employee of the government.
2. Create government run day care. The children will not relinquish their individuality to the collective unless we start early.
3. Ban guns. Only the government shall have guns, not individual citizens.
4. Raise taxes. More economic activity shall be tied to governmental spending decisions, not individual spending decisions.
5. Make all private interactions and/or exchanges that are associated with personal healthcare illegal. The government, and only the government, shall provide healthcare.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
4:29 am
Bill
October 10th, 2009
2:42 am
He raised taxes and cut spending. And all the spending cuts over five years were realized again in the 6th and each subsequent year. Welfare reform produced more savings.
Intellectual is a dirty word among most Southern conservatives.
There are certainly many reasons to object to “ObamaCare”, without mischaracterizing it as socialism. He’s trying to expand the current system, like Hillary did in 1993.
Medicare is expensive, but those of us that receive it pay a considerable amount as well. Since it is already in place, why not extend it to everyone? It would be less expensive for younger, healthier people and would be less costly than what employers and employees are paying now for health insurance.
UT Fan!!
October 10th, 2009
7:27 am
A dam springs a leak, all of the villagers downstream from the dam form a committee to develop a plan to start sand bagging so that the city will not be flooded by the increased water from the river.
The committee employed the BHO sand company to furnish the sand, BHO to supply the bags, shovels, heavy equipment for the sand. 100’s of workers were employed by BHO temp agency.
One day a handsome young UT graduate walks up and ask “why doesn’t someone just plug the leak at the dam”? OMG says BHO enterprises, do you know how many people would be out of job?
Free healthcare, welfare, unemployment benefits and bailouts are all sand bags!!! Fix the LEAK!!!
Go Vols!!!
Moon lover!
October 10th, 2009
7:33 am
So we’re not happy bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, now we gotta bomb the moon? What’s the moon ever done to us? Jeeeze…must be oil there!!!
Yesterday's News
October 10th, 2009
7:37 am
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is the latest Democrat to blast the GOP’s reaction to Obama’s Nobel win — invoking the anti-patriotism meme.
From her Twitter page:
“I feel that I’m in an alternative universe. For eight years some people called anyone who disagreed with the President’s foreign policy or war in Iraq unpatriotic. Then in the course of two weeks, those same people cheer when the United States does not get selected for the Olympics and boo when our President is the unanimous choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.”
Peace Lover
October 10th, 2009
7:53 am
Yesterday’s News….
I guess the GOP and anyone else that’s tired of the media making Barack into some type of demi-god, having school children signing religious songs with Jesus name replaced with Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peach Prizes, Olympics, Beer summits….
Unless he actually improves our situation, I view him just like all the other politicians in the past, a lying, cheating, conniving talking head. Mulatto…..not black! This is not a racist statement, just a clarification for those that keep referring to him as black.
DirtyDawg
October 10th, 2009
8:51 am
Suspect Mr. Wingfield is pretty much like Limbaugh…he’s in it for the money…although I also suspect he probably believes more of what he says than not. Certainly, since a couple of the syndicated right-wing columnists have ‘passed on’, the AJC had to add one more for ‘balance’. Mission accomplished, we can certainly count on a gathering of intolerance, greed and bigotry here daily…makes you proud to know Georgia is holding up her reputation.
catlady
October 10th, 2009
9:15 am
People who don’t have any say-so on health care reform: those who get government sponsored health care (like Senators, and Medicaid recipients, and Medicare recipients, and ex-military, and employees of insurance companies). The REST of us, WE should be calling the shots on this.
WE ARE ALREADY PAYING THE BILL ON THIS, WITHOUT THE BENEFITS. If you take into account the amounts insurance companies make, the amounts the bills are jacked up for the nonpayers, the lost work hours, the lost productivity, the costs of welfare and SSI for kids left either withou parents or with parents who are now disabled, you will see that we (taxpayers) are already paying the tab. And part of the tab is to enrich the insurance companies while they routinely deny coverage.
I especially have trouble with the seniors who have never worked outside the home but feel free to complain about “their” benefits (earned by virtue of their spouse working). These “Medicare mamas” who protest the extension of healh care to ohers are particularly galling.
@@
October 10th, 2009
9:22 am
I was just reading an article over at The Telegraph-UK, they are concerned with the same things we are.
The bureaucratic waste within their healthcare. They’re wanting to contract it out to the private sector.
The unsustainable cost of their healthcare.
The cost of welfare benefits for people who can work but choose not to due to the taxes they would have to pay should they.
The negative impact of welfare benefits on the culture within society.
I did not know. I thought all was well across the pond.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
9:28 am
Peace Lover & Yesterday’s News
What difference does it make if he is black OR mulatto? Despite your logic, it still sounds racist to this white man.
I am so proud that Americans are once again bringing hope to and assuming a leadership role at the world stage. This award was an honor and Americans should be grateful. Republicans are simply angry because this time they can’t point their fingers at the Democrats so their argument is what do we care what the rest of the world thinks? Sounds eerily like the unilateralism agenda of the former administration.
Even though we have so much support from around the world, it seems that half of this country does not even support an American victory. This logic is really quite sad and will ultimately lead to our demise.
Kyle
I’m really not sure what you are trying to convey here. Maybe it’s because I’ve only had one cup of coffee this morning. The title of your editorial is misleading because it seems that you are still trying to poke holes in the financing of the bill. Significant progress has been made and even claims to have the possibility of reducing spending.
Is your point that conservatives need to introduce more intellectualism into their arguments? I think I can agree with this but, the current elected officials don’t seem capable.
Why do politicians seem to be losing sight of what Americans want? It’s quite simple actually and the rest of the industrialized world has already found solutions. Americans want affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans!
Bob In Winder
October 10th, 2009
9:31 am
Where are the moderate Republicans? All we hear from are the far right wing crazies that have ruined the party.
@@
October 10th, 2009
9:32 am
This administration has gone from calling it health care reform to insurance reform, then back to healthcare reform once again.
Is it any wonder everyone is so confused? Is it their objective to keep us that way?
Another volatile situation where Obama has brought confusion – Israel and Palestine. Flashpoint central.
Think before you speak, Mr. President. Commit yourself to SOMETHING and follow through. Regardless of your NPP, you’re igniting a tinderbox with all your mindless bumbling.
@@
October 10th, 2009
9:47 am
…and then there’s this:
CBO: Medical Malpractice Reforms Could Save Up to $54 Billion
New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
But before coming to ^^^ that conclusion, they had reached this one:
The CBO had previously concluded that legal reforms would have a less significant impact on health spending. But “on the basis of newly available research,” Elmendorf wrote, “CBO has updated its analysis of the effects of tort reform to include not only direct savings from lower premiums for medical liability insurance but also indirect savings from reduced utilization of health care services….
Does ANYBODY in Washington know what they’re doing?
They should take all 5 (is it now?) bills and trash ‘em. Start over from scratch. It’s the democrats who have said reform won’t kick in until 2013. That’s plenty of time to come up with some kinda reform that makes sense.
DebbieDoRight
October 10th, 2009
9:50 am
Kye: n other words, even if an $829 billion government program could be “budget neutral,” it would still be an $829 billion shift from the productive sector to the public sector. It would still be outside the scope of the Constitution and a practically irreversible decision affecting Americans yet unborn.
First off, show me where it states in the Constitution ANYTHING about American businesses. Secondly show me in the constitution where it states the scope of the government in regards to American Businesses.
Then after you’ve done all that show me how “productive” the Health Insurance business is towards it’s OWN employees. Here’s a little something that may surprise you: WellPoint health insurance company, which has encouraged its employees to lobby against health care reform, is now cutting their benefits. The insurance giant plans to raise deductibles and premiums for some of its employee health benefits. “Your cost per paycheck will probably increase,” said a memo to Wellpoint employees that was obtained by Bloomberg News. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/wellpoint-cuts-workers-he_n_309716.html
Wellpoint cut their employees benefits, saying it was because of the recession, THEN gave their CEO a $10M bonus!! But THEY, the insurance companies, are in danger? Of What? An over abundance of Hubris, Gall, Arrogance? I bet their CEO doesn’t have to worry about Health Care costs, just their workers. Product sector indeed. It seems the only ones to benefit from their “productivity” are the CEOs and the stock holders, not the “everyday people” who are sick and dying.
You repubs talk a good game Kyle; but it’s still just shucking and jiving, lying and stealing; and only thinking about themselves.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/wellpoint-cuts-workers-he_n_309716.html
Daedalus
October 10th, 2009
9:58 am
The GOP returning to intellectualism?
They only spent a nanosecond there.
With Glenn Beck, Rush, et al., leading the charge, the GOP will never go back.
GOP = Building a Bridge to the 18th Century.
Ga Values
October 10th, 2009
9:59 am
Bob In Winder
9:31 am
Where have the Republican Conservatives gone? All we have are big spending, big government, pro amnesty LIBERALS in the party.
DebbieDoRight
October 10th, 2009
10:05 am
You guys voted the Conservative repubs out of office and installed whack jobs instead — you had your chance and you BLEW it!!
Just for grins and giggles, let’s post the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA again!! You remember the CONTRACT don’t you? It was supposed to be the Reichs promise to the American people about how they were going to CHANGE the atomosphere in congress/senate and bring about a BETTER USA. Gee…….I wonder what happened?
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
* FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
* SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.
Ga Values
October 10th, 2009
10:20 am
DebbieDoRight
10:05 am
THANKS
KW (not Kyle Wingfield)
October 10th, 2009
10:50 am
There are several states, Nevada being one of them, who have complained so much about how the cuts in Medicare are going to hurt them, that an ammendment has been added to the Baucus bill (I believe it’s the Baucus bill – too many too keep track of) for the government to pay the shortfall to these states for five years. So the “lower” than expected cost of this bill is already going up. Wonder what other little “incentives” will be added?
Dignity at what cost?
October 10th, 2009
10:50 am
We would not be in this mess if our leaders had not monitored the insurance companies form teh get-go to insure that they were not simply trading people’s lives for profit. Until you feel the sting of watching someone die because you do not have the tens of thousands of dollars required to save their life, then you will not get it. Hopefully that will not happen to you Kyle, but if it does, you will change your mind. That is if you have a heart..
Bob In Winder
October 10th, 2009
11:00 am
@@ –Georgia has had “tort reform” for several years, yet malpractice insurance rates have not gone down because the insurance companies took the profit.
It is good to read Newt’s contract with America, if he could have kept his zipper up and got it passed the country would be so much better off but he couldn’t so DeLay transformed the Republican party into the Pay For Play Party. As things sit now on the health bill we have 2 parties, the insurance (Republican) party and the trial lawyer (Democrat) party. What passes will be a mess but hopefully less bad than the mess we have now.
Michael H. Smith
October 10th, 2009
11:17 am
Why is Japan paying its’ people to have babies?
Japan has “socialized medicine”, the very thing these socialist liberals are trying and if allowed, they will have in America too.
Liberals, socialists, the democrats idea of government socialized medicine in America is already running into the exact problem Japan now confronts with its’ socialized “ponzi scheme” – an aging population.
Baby Bundle: Japan’s Cash Incentive for Parenthood
….With a worried eye on declining birth rates and an aging population, Japan’s new leaders propose offering new parents monthly payments totaling about $3,300 a year for every new child until the age of 15.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125495746062571927.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel
Michael H. Smith
October 10th, 2009
11:25 am
Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit
….Congress’ budget scorekeeper ruled that limiting medical malpractice lawsuits would reduce the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/10/health-care-tort-reform-a-savings/
Michael H. Smith
October 10th, 2009
11:41 am
More on pay-for-play: SEUI spent $60 million to elect Obama.
So what does $60 million buy for you? Hmm… Let’s ask Andy Stern.
…Stern estimates he visits the White House once a week. SEIU officials talk to senior Obama adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle about health care — a top priority for Stern — and to Obama aide Celia Munoz about Immigration, Stern said.
“We get heard,” Stern said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-sternjun28,0,5918169.story
Don’t forget that SEIU and ACORN are joined at the corrupt hip.
Aine Kee
October 10th, 2009
1:56 pm
Uvduchld: Read your American History, WE have fought battles and Won, We have conquered diseases, overcome hazardousness Weather conditions and epidemic, depressions and yet we made it to the Moon..We Don’t need the goverment hand out with Taxpayers money that they WORKED for.
Stimulas did not work and above all Socialism will not work with the Freedom
loving country. Too many fought and die so you can have the right to state your lack of Understand the American fortiude.
Kevin
October 10th, 2009
2:45 pm
Vuduchild-
You want an alternative “solution”? Here’s a solution for you–
Get off your asp and don’t expect others to give you something for free. There’s a solution for you.
Marc
October 10th, 2009
3:19 pm
artatlarge your comments aren’t to long just you can’t substantiate any of them. You must need someone to take care of you and make your decisions because you sure like the idea of the government doing everything you rattle of numbers but do you really know those number. There was a report the pollution over all dropped more during the Bush administation than any administration before!!! But you didn’t know about because you would miss your intravenous feeding of liberalism from NBC or CNN. Which is not bad in and of itself but not doing further research to see if what they are feeding you is real.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
3:24 pm
Aine Kee:
Wow, I’m almost dizzy trying to decipher your poor grammar and spelling errors, not to mention the clarity of your statements and logic.
You must be one of the intellectual conservatives Kyle says should be more vocal.
Gerald West
October 10th, 2009
4:19 pm
When did fiscal responsibility become important to “conservatives”? The conservative administrations of President Reagan and the 2 Bushes ran up a national debt of $12 trillion, with nothing to show for it but a financial meltdown.
What a lot of hypocrits you folks are: quibbling over a few billion that would actually benefit the American people!
atlshirt.com
October 10th, 2009
6:17 pm
Health Care Reform puts your right to bear arms in danger.. This is why they want to pass it so quickly.. The baucus bill states that the insurance companies can charge you more money in premiums if you lead an unhealthy lifestyle.. they say that owning guns is unhealthy for you, therefor you could be charged more, or denied coverage if you own a gun.. If you are denied coverage, then you will face a penalty for not being covered, which could get you into trouble with the IRS, and charged with Tax Evasion, which will constitute a 25,000 fine and a minimum 1 year in jail.. oh yeah, Tax Evasion is a Felony, if convicted of a Felony, you are no longer allowed to own a gun.. Sounds to me, that the government has already overstepped its power given to them by the constitution.. any attorney’s out there ??? Contact me at admin@atlshirt.com
Churchill's MOM
October 10th, 2009
6:19 pm
Wingboy, please list the Conservatives opposing the health bill, mostly what I am seeing are a bunch of big spenders who are trying to protect the insurance compainy’s profits.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
8:13 pm
atlshirt.com
That’s absolutely ridiculous and it sounds to me like further scare tactics…good try. The bill will include healthcare for everyone (hopefully) so how could they deny coverage? Another of the intentions of reform is to reduce healthcare costs so why, as you suggest, would they be increased for the majority. Most Americans lead an unhealthy lifestyle to some extent if you include the overweight, smokers and gun owners.
As I said, good try wingnut.
Joan
October 10th, 2009
8:34 pm
There is no way this will stay within the parameters of the bill that the CBO looked at–there will be lots of pork, and costs will probably triple their estimate. Right now 5% of the people pay 95% of the taxes, what the heck more does the government want? They are going to drive that 5% right out of the country, and then the rest can “eat cake”.
Joan
October 10th, 2009
8:36 pm
It is all well and good to say we want to help out disadvantaged brothers, but for heaven’s sake we have to look at the practicalities. If you destroy our manufacturing capabilities, tax entrepreneurs out of existence, penalize those who do succeed, you are going to kill the golden goose–in fact, it is this that people are complaining about. It is not just conservative wingnuts at these teaparties and townhalls. These are people who know they are going to have to pay for all this mess. And Congress will just enjoy their bribes and get on with their lives.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
8:38 pm
atlshirt.com
Sounds like more scare tactics. Your arguments are completely implausible.
Please spare us your rhetoric.
Joan
October 10th, 2009
8:38 pm
Somebody spoke of Japan’s paying for babies, and I gather there is some talk of that here. Well, it won’t do any good to have babies that will never enter the work force. So, let’s just pay for the babies who have at least a 50% chance of doing that based upon their parental history.
atlshirt.com
October 10th, 2009
8:54 pm
reason,
I have read the bill, seems to me that you dumycrats will go along with whatever that MONKEY in the white house proposes because you too are a MONKEY!!
Michael H. Smith
October 10th, 2009
9:29 pm
No, there is no talk – at least currently – of America paying its’ people to have babies. (Besides it would probably infuriate the liberal Pro-Death crowd of the left if such talk surfaced, as they would likely claim such a policy is ani- abortion and would discriminate against homosexuality in its’ underlying intent)
So the inquiry of contemplation, given the comparative that was drawn or pointed to, should have been why isn’t the U.S. at least considering taking like similar actions?
Obvious answer, we don’t need to. Unlike Russia and Japan – which are relatively closed societies – who are willing to pay their citizens to have babies in order to assure national survival in every imaginable manner of speaking, the U.S. has and always had a constitutional mandate – Article one Section eight Clause four – to provide augmentations to our population independent of native procreation.
Fact: The driving force today behind population increases in the U.S. is attributable to our immigrant population.
Fact: The U.S. receives more LEGAL immigrants every year than any other nation on the face of this earth.
However, the suggestion of a more selective immigration policy based on receiving the most productive, most economically beneficial immigrants to the U.S. GDP certainly has been raised in the debate.
Nevertheless, given the numbers of baby boomers soon to retire, boosting the burden on the entitlement programs into what will be heretofore unseen deficits via consuming the entire federal budget as projected, arguments for a selective immigration policy conclusive to receiving only immigrants of the highest possible earnings contributing the most in revenues to the national coffers is a valid one.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
9:33 pm
altshirt.com
Spoken like a true republican. If all else fails, such as most policies under republican administrations, resort to name calling.
Sounds like you missed Kyle’s reference for the call to bring conservative intellectualism to the debate.
Reason
October 10th, 2009
9:55 pm
And now you’ve admitted that you are a racist. That should definitely add credence to your contrived theories.
FYI, several of my colleagues are tax attorneys. Their lack of similar concerns further disproves your bogus interpretations.
Michael H. Smith
October 11th, 2009
8:37 am
Some old tattered insight perhaps long forgotten or worse taken for granted as too trivial for making the intellectual distinction that continues to exist unto this day between Conservatives and Liberals.
From The Conscience of a Conservative – Barry Goldwater
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for “human beings”—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
…Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom? I suggest we examine some of the critical issues facing us today with this question in mind.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8388.html
Given what so many Conservatives realize are bogus figures in terms of money and empty promises in terms of efficacy, the central objection to this so-called ObamaCare is its’ failure to answer satisfactorily the ultimate question in the minds of every Conservative, as well it should be the same quest in the minds of every American: Is ObamaCare maximizing freedom?
The answer is no.
Karl Marx
October 11th, 2009
8:42 am
VuduChild says conservatives have no ideas. Here’s a good one Vuduchile, but it will never see the light of day, even though it is sensible, cost effective, and would go a long way toward solving what in theory, everyone is concerned about. Why? Not enough government control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100703048.html
Dale
October 11th, 2009
10:13 am
These dog-gone liberals: Next thing is they will want socialized highways and roads for us to run around our gas gusslers on. I mean, why should the people that stay home be robbed for these “cowboys” to run around in things that go budn budn?
booger
October 11th, 2009
10:50 am
$129 billion of the projected revenue in the plan is to come from increased taxes on health insurance companies, medical equipment and supply industries, hospitals, and basically anyone in the medical business. Besides the obvious folly of raising cost on the medical industry in order to lower medical cost, is ignoring the fact that all of these cost will be passed to the consumer. I know that in theory these taxes will come from profits, but that just will not happen. And by the way, these huge profits insurance companies are supposed to make. I looked a few of the larger health insurers up. 2008 profits as a percent of revenue are:
CIGNA…..1.52%
Aetna…..3.99%
United….3.96%
Wellpoint.4.49%
Humana….3.55%
I know many here either refuse or can’t understand how a company works, but these are small profit numbers. The whole idea of insurance companies swimming in money is a myth in order to create a boogy man the dems could blame all the ills of the system on.
Matt Erwin
October 11th, 2009
3:02 pm
Productive Sector? That’s a good one. I suppose that is a good moniker for the business community at large. At least until market failures occur (couple of those lately) and sectors no longer produce.
Jerry Lee Mayeux
October 11th, 2009
4:17 pm
No one should die because they can not afford health care,
and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Search 4 me:
CTC123GREEN
saywhat?
October 11th, 2009
5:16 pm
Michael Smith and Barry Goldwater both apparently are on board with the Republican health care reform plan; You are FREE to not get sick, but if you do get sick, feel FREE to die quickly.
number1ninja
October 11th, 2009
6:44 pm
Hey Kyle, “conservatism” was dead in the sixties when Nixon traded in Burke for racism and greed. Congratulations, you’re whipping a horse skeleton at this point.
Michael H. Smith
October 11th, 2009
7:33 pm
Say anything you want: Liberalism is an immoral terminal disease.
Karl Marx
October 11th, 2009
7:43 pm
Dale, your attempts at sarcasm are extremely puerile, leave it to the adults. Contrary to what i’m sure you believe, you don’t have a “gotcha” here.
Nobody, with the possible exception of the folks hiding out in a bunker somewhere in Montana, thinks that there is no role whatsoever for government. Infrastructure is an example of a proper application of tax payer dollars. Health care, however,,,
Michael H. Smith
October 11th, 2009
8:08 pm
Of course liberals are extremely puerile. It explains the unintelligible display of liberal outbursts due to acute colic caused by the liberal inability to live without a Nanny State to wet-nurse them from the big socialist government bosoms.
Michael H. Smith
October 11th, 2009
8:40 pm
ObamaCare properly defined: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
Algonquin J. Calhoun
October 11th, 2009
9:42 pm
ObamaCare properly defined: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
You got a problem with that Mikey? Don’t you chump fascists ever get tired of trying to brand Obama? H’e not a communist, Muslim or the king of Kenya. He’s the president of the united States dirtbag!
Michael H. Smith
October 11th, 2009
10:13 pm
Yeah Obama clone, I got a problem with socialist chumps. Obama’s agenda is socialist. His own words and actions brand him to the point, Obama has communist dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castor worried they will soon be seen as right-wingers by the rest of the world. As such this Re-distributor n Chief will be a one term president of the United States.
ObamaCare properly defined: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
Like all other liberal socialist agendas based on this Marxist principle, his too will fail to deliver on the promises as made. Et al the implosion of that old evil empire of the U.S.S.R., Comrade.
Time for that Change promised
October 11th, 2009
10:32 pm
Have Americans lost faith in the ability to take care of your own? Why is it my obligation to work every day to provide you with healthcare, money to buy your drugs, money to buy your lottery tickets. money to buy your food, money to ride the marta to shops to spend your welfare checks. When did Americans get so lazy?
My answer, it is againt the constitution to take money from any American except for roads, militia, and border security. Thats all thats allowed. It is against the constitution to take money from one group and give it to another private party group. Go look up what the consitution says, why it was written. Do they even teach it in school anymore.
This democratic congress has taken over private baning industry, private companies (GM), fired the CEO’s, limited pay? What are you allowing the government to do. Dont you know that if you allow government take over of the health insurance industry then the government will be in control of over 65% of our economy. We will never get that back. And you want to see job loss then. Doctors offices will close their doors, the good doctors will retire, and the doctors left will not speak english or be controled by the government. Yea thats the way to run America into the ground. I for one am glad I have doctors in my family. American doctors do not want this, they are 100% against it, but to hear washington talk they all want it. NOT IN THIS LIFETIME THEY DONT. They are going to retire. Better ask you family physician what he think and what he is planning. You might get a real eye opening shocker if he tells you the truth. At this time, I bet hes going to tell you I dont know, but he knows, hes going to shut down and retire.
StevenCee
October 12th, 2009
8:07 am
Sowell, “making perfectly good sense”? “Lack of healthcare not the end of the world”? Are you KIDDING ME?
And Kyle parroting the tired “government expansion into personal life”, in this most recent column of yet more objections, with not a single solution or positive step, don’t you guys get tired of this contrariness & head in the sand nonsense???
Our health care “system” is terminal, and going down fast! Do you not see your bills rising faster than everything but an Apollo rocket? Do you not hear all the doctors & nurses & millions who’s lives were ruined by medical bills, or the tens of thousands EVERY YEAR who DIE, due to lack of access to health care???
We have to do SOMETHING, so to sit there, month after month, simply throwing rocks, wet blankets, & hyperbole-filled fear-mongering talking points, ain’t gonna help, not even a little!
People, we have greedy, profit-driven mega-corporations “BETWEEN US & OUR DOCTORS”, with ten times the administrative costs as the government, & totally motivated by doing as little as possible, since their profits are derived by just that formula, that, and keeping out any who may actually have to seek the care of medical personnel!
When you finally get that ideological, partisan stick out of your you-know-what, and realize this is NOT about politics, but is about the LIVES of AMERICANS, maybe we can actually work out some sort of way out of this mess…… ya think?
Road Scholar
October 12th, 2009
8:18 am
So UT Fan, are you still standing there with your finger in the dam?
“Writing in last Sunday’s Washington Post, Steven F. Hayward called for conservatives to rededicate ourselves to the intellectualism of men like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley.” Yeah, sure. Isn’t intellectualism akin to Elitist? I thought that the conserves railed against that, which is apparent by the extent (or lack thereof) of their healthcare ideas and positive solutions?
Fix-It
October 12th, 2009
8:24 am
Vuduchild,
The reason you have not heard anything from the conservatives is because in true liberal fashion you were not listening or looking for it. HR 3400 has been in the hands of our leftist idiot Princess Pelosi since April, so why has it not been brought up? Well as the speaker of the house SHE gets to decide what comes to a vote, so in true bipartisan fashion she has not let one conservative bill make it off of her desk. What a disgrace she is. What a bummer that people like vuduchild is kept in the dark and seem to like it, and even repeat lies by the liberal left.
Lord Acton
October 12th, 2009
8:58 am
And StevenCee, parroting the tired “tired…”
Your morning jolt: Think about Mary Norwood winning without a runoff | Political Insider
October 12th, 2009
9:35 am
[...] Kyle Wingfield says conservative objections to ObamaCare about more than money. [...]
Left wing management
October 12th, 2009
11:25 am
Kyle Wingfield: “More broadly, conservatives often explain that it’s counterproductive to take property from one group of citizens — even if it’s just “the rich,” which it’s not. But we’ve made less of a case that this taking is immoral, THAT TWO INJUSTICES DON’T MAKE JUSTICE,”
But wait a minute. Why do you even admit that there’s an “injustice” involved here at all? Where IS this injustice exactly? If you subtly concede there IS injustice and imbalance in the system somewhere to be addressed, WHERE is it and HOW do you as a conservative propose it be redressed?
This is the main weakness of your position, as I see it. Fundamentally, conservatism rests on the flawed notion of a state of justice as adjudicated by the market and that liberal do-gooders come along to redistribute and muck up that basic equilibrium. I do not buy that argument and that’s one of the main reasons I’m not a conservative and find your arguments weak.