Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care
Surprisingly, there has been little discussion about health care reform on OccObs. I'm not sure if that's because of the mind-numbing boredom brought on by health policy debates, or sheer depression about the way the Dems are steering us, but in either case I offer this uplifting link: At least 9 state AGs will be banding together to sue the federal government if the health care bill as currently voted on becomes law. I think they will have a very strong case that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require individual citizens to buy health insurance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
5 comments:
Looks like it's up to 12 states now.
Well, I can't speak for all the contributors, but I'll speak for myself. Since the earliest stages of the debate in '09, I've stayed out of the weeds, because separating the wheat from the chaff has been difficult, at best.
When Dem Senators are freely admitting they're voting "yea" on a bill they haven't read (as Sen. Whitehouse did), and in all fairnees, couldn't have been expected to read with the Speaker jamming 36 hr vote timelines down their throats, I'm unclear what I'm objecting too.
That, of course, was the point of what the Dem leadership was up to. So while I recoiled at a public option or takeover of the health care sector, it has been unclear for sometime if the Dems were even reaching for that goal.
Instead, my opposition has been largely procedural. The arm-twisting and backroom deals were clearly violations of Pelosi's promises for the "most ethical Congress in history." No transparency at all, and that was by design.
You had the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, and plenty of other deals (Dodd's university perks, etc.).
The American people were on to this one. They know BS payoffs when they see them, even if they have no idea if closing the "doughnut hole" is a good idea or spoiling their morning snack.
About the 10th iteration of this bill finally passed the Senate last year. The House managed to enact it into law while avoiding sending it to conference by use of the reconciliation process, which, from what I can gather, was not made for this purpose in any way. Their parliamentary tactics may cost them this fall, especially since the benefits of this bill will not be enacted, but the tax hikes will be.
That said, this bill is not quite the calamity it could have been. The Dems desire for political victory caused them to water down the original version to the point where the GOP could have claimed major portions of the bill as their own, even if their votes in opposition were unanimous.
Frum repeated the point today: even if they could (which they can't and never will be able to), would the GOP be wise to repeal this bill?
If the bill can be overturned on legal grounds (to get the point of this post), so much the better. That states are leading the charge is political hit to the President just as much as losing the case would be a policy hit to liberals.
I've largely stayed away from the topic here because of the tidal wave of media coverage. I have no doubt it will be challenged in the Supreme Court before long by individuals in states that aren't suing. I can't believe that a law requiring citizens to purchase a product from a private company is in any way constitutional. But then again, many things have occurred that are beyond belief in Washington lately.
I agree, luckily the final bill is a much watered down version of what the libs originally wanted. I too am more outraged by the process than the actual bill contents.
However, what I also find frustrating is that they are passing this off as "health care reform" when all it is is health care expansion. This bill does nothing to reduce premiums, improve quality of service, reduce wait times, lower our deficit, or lower our long-term health-care costs.
In fact, premiums will be going up, taxes will be going up, and wait times will be going up.
I would like to see real health care reform, that actually made a significant reduction in the long-term costs of health care.