Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘politics’


An interesting article about Health Care. The government berates the Insurance companies but what about the drug companies and their high cost for medication and the other health care companies. One of the most liberal representatives in Washington still votes NO on this health care that the democrats are trying to ram down our throats because it won’t do anything to reduce the rampant costs of premiums, medications and every other aspect of the health care industry.

Here is the article:

White House Confronts Insurers on Premiums
Obama Cites Rising Rates in Push for Health Overhaul, as Industry Executives Say Hospitals, Drug Makers Are to Blame

By JANET ADAMY and AVERY JOHNSON

WASHINGTON—The government’s top health official summoned health-insurance chief executives to the White House Thursday and told them they need to disclose more data justifying sharp premium increases.

The dressing-down, part of which was televised, was part of a campaign by the White House to build support for its health overhaul as President Barack Obama presses Congress to deliver final legislation to his desk in the next few weeks.

Mr. Obama met at the White House Thursday with more than a dozen House Democrats to begin his last round of lobbying. Some liberals who have expressed concern that the overhaul doesn’t include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers said they felt better about the bill after hearing the president’s pitch.

However, Dennis Kucinich, one of the House’s most liberal members who voted no when the House passed its version of the overhaul last November, said he is still opposed. The latest version of the legislation would do nothing to “effectively control the pace of increased premiums and increased profits that go with it,” Mr. Kucinich said.

The White House says its bill will rein in private insurers and has been pointing to a series of premium increases as high as 39% in states like California to back its case for an overhaul.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called five insurance company executives, including the heads of UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., to the Roosevelt Room to request explanation on the recent rate increases.

Mr. Obama dropped by and read them a letter from a 50-year-old cancer survivor from Ohio whose premiums rose 40% this year. He told the group that such rate increases are “unjustifiable,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Insurers said the drug makers, medical-device makers, hospitals and other health-care companies are driving up the underlying cost of medical care. They said that trying to lower premiums without addressing those costs was destined to fail.

“The rate is really reflective of our other parts of the health-care delivery system,” Ron Williams, chief executive of Aetna Inc., told the group at the beginning of the meeting. In an interview after the meeting, Mr. Williams said the secretary should have included representatives from those industries.

The day started with gracious exchanges followed by sharper words afterwards

Ms. Sebelius asked the companies to begin posting information online for consumers to explain how much of their revenue goes toward administrative costs, marketing and actual care, along with other details of the rate increases. She called for “greatly increased transparency about what indeed is going on.”

Several executives at the meeting said they didn’t immediately commit to posting the information but were open to the idea. Much of that data is already detailed in filings to state insurance regulators, though they are difficult to access. Publicly traded companies report executive compensation and national cost trends, but keep some other measures under wraps as trade secrets. “There might be more transparency out there than you might realize,” said UnitedHealth Chief Executive Stephen Hemsley.

The two sides couldn’t agree whether insurers are highly profitable or just scraping by. Industry executives rolled out data showing their average profit margin was 2.2% last year, lower than other health industries. Ms. Sebelius cited figures showing that top insurers earned a collective $12 billion in profits last year, a 56% increase from the prior year, but that didn’t account for one-time gains.

The health overhaul, if passed, would require most Americans to carry health coverage or face a fine, meaning insurers would get more business.

However, insurers would be required to accept all applicants, including those who are sick. And they would see tougher restrictions on premium increases, particularly through the new state-based insurance exchanges.

The White House has also proposed a new federal body with power to review premium increases. But that may not end up in a final bill due to procedural regulations that might require it to be jettisoned. That would be a relief for insurance companies, who say the panel would duplicate the rate regulation they already get from individual states. “If you have the rules written in the states and the prices written in Washington, there might be a disconnect,” said Angela F. Braly, chief executive of WellPoint Inc.
—Laura Meckler and and Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com and Avery Johnson at avery.johnson@WSJ.com

Read Full Post »


I am a registered Democrat, however, I do not feel that the Democratic party or the Republican party represent me in congress. I am tired of bigger government, more spending and representatives that do not listen to us.

It is definitely time for meaningful change. Check out the Libertarian party. More Freedom, Less Government

check them out here: LP.org

Read Full Post »


It never ceases to amaze me how our government spends money hand over fist for illegal immigrants. It is a slap in the face to all taxpayers and legal immigrants who have taken the steps needed to stay and live here. Take a look:
===========================================================================================
Links to check out: Cost of Illegal Immigration , Immigration and Welfare and The high cost of cheap labor

A Real Eye Opener

WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?

Informative, and mind boggling!

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts…

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute…org/PDF/deportation..PDF

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14.. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .’

Verify at: http: // http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml http://ww/%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU’RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!

Uncle Sam wants you to Fire Congress !

Read Full Post »


Senator Bayh is my hero for today. I am so sick of Congress and the White House. Everything he said is true. I am a registered democrat (soon to change) and I am ashamed of the democratic party and I am ashamed of the Republican party as well. We, the people, need to think for ourselves for a change and stand up to the business as usual and say that “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore” and vote out them all. I want to see representatives in Washington from the Green Party, The Libertarian party, the Constitution party and independents running our country instead of the Democrats and Republicans who can’t make a simple decision without constant bickering. Neither of these 2 parties care about our country. The Dems/Repubs only care about themselves, about staying in power, about making the other look bad and about making a buck for themselves and their good ole boys. Obama isn’t about change other than making our inept government even bigger with more spending while in the process creating more havoc. There is no transparency in his administration like he promised (closed door meetings) He is just like the rest. He wants a pat on the back from his fellow cronies at the end of the day instead of doing what is good for us and our country. I even voted for the man but will not make that mistake again. I will not vote for a republican either. Senator Bayh hit it on the head about our government in Washington, DC and people will still vote for “their party” or whatever name they saw on a sign last or whatever mudslinging ad they last heard on tv instead of actually doing their homework and finding a candidate that will work for us. We, the people, are to blame as well as Congress and the WH.
Below is the story about Senator Bayh
=========================================================================================
The Newsroom
Disillusioned Bayh advocates electoral “shock” to broken system

In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system “dysfunctional,” riddled with “brain-dead partisanship” and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he’d seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a “shock” to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.

Bayh’s announcement stunned the American political world, as up until just last week he looked to be well on his way to an easy reelection for a third term in the Senate, and his senior staff was aggressively pursuing that goal.

But Bayh had apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate. In this morning’s interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection.

“Sometimes half a loaf is better than none,” Bayh insisted.

It’s no secret that the Senate has struggled to take action this year. With the two major parties unusually far apart in their substantive proposals for the direction of the country, even finding half a loaf to agree on has been difficult. Though the Democrats have had a substantial majority in the Senate for the last year, Republicans have escalated their threats to use filibusters (by forcing a cloture vote, see the graph below) to force Democrats to come up with 60 votes to pass any major legislation. And after Scott Brown’s election to the Senate last month gave Republicans a 41st seat, health-care reform and other Democratic goals were stopped dead in their tracks.

Bayh blamed the current atmosphere of intense partisanship on the need for senators to constantly campaign to be reelected to another six-year term. Citing his father, a popular liberal senator in the ’60s and ’70s, he noted that “back in the day they used to have the saying: ‘You campaign for 2 years and you legislate for 4.’ Now you campaign for 6!” He noted that the need for constant fundraising made it nearly impossible to focus on passing legislation.

Frustration over the increasing amount of money being spent on political campaigns isn’t exactly a new thing, as spending by candidates in the 2008 presidential election nearly quadrupled the amount of money spent by candidates in the 2000 election. Additionally, winners of House races in 2000 spent an average of $849,158 to do so, while House winners in 2008 spent an average of $1,372,591. Enhancing the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country’s existing campaign finance laws. Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations spend money directly on campaigns.

Meanwhile, voter frustration is high, making the fight for campaign cash all the more crucial to politicians hoping to remain in office. A recent poll found that 44% of Americans believe incumbents should be voted out of office.

However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely. There doesn’t appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress’s need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it’s also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation.

Perhaps a “shock” is indeed called for in order to change that.

— Andrew Golis is the Editor of and Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News blog

Read Full Post »


Where do you FIT in? Click the link or picture and find out.

World’s smallest political quiz

What are you ?  Take the Quiz

Read Full Post »


Obama campaign promise broken

The White House has broken a campaign promise to the American people regarding openess and the Democrats are deciding our fate on health care behind closed doors without any input from other parties (Republicans and Independents) As a registered Democrat, I feel ashamed of my party and can only see some shady deals result from this. The American people will ultimately get screwed. Here is the link to the story

————————————————————————————————————-
Here is the story

Obama catches heat over breaking campaign promise of openness
Thu Jan 7, 3:07 pm ET

Earlier this week, we told you about the way that Democratic leaders in Congress plan to use an obscure legislative tactic known as “ping-pong” to bounce the health care reform bill back and forth between the House and the Senate to reconcile their differences. Their goal is to keep the final negotiations between House and Senate leadership (along with the White House), and avoid Republican input and likely delaying tactics. The White House, though, is now catching heat because many see this process as a direct betrayal of President Obama’s oft-repeated promise to broadcast these negotiations live on television.

On Tuesday, Brian Lamb, the CEO of C-SPAN – the political television network that shows full coverage of policymaking in Washington, D.C. – sent a letter to the White House and leaders in Congress imploring them to allow the health care bill’s final negotiations to be broadcast live and in their entirety on his network. Saying that C-SPAN would use the most advanced technology available in order to be “as unobtrusive as possible,” Lamb wrote:

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

Prominent Republicans were quick to praise Lamb for putting the White House on the spot. Saying that “secret deliberations” were a “breeding ground” for “shady deals,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said that he and his fellow House Republicans “strongly endorse” Lamb’s proposal. He added, “Hard-working families won’t stand for having the future of their health care decided behind closed doors.”

Not helping to calm the brewing storm is the fact that the White House has been evasive in responding to Lamb’s letter. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday flatly refused to comment on the letter, claiming he had yet to have the opportunity to read it. When he returned to face the press corps on Wednesday, Gibbs said little more than that the president was doing everything he could to get a bill on his desk “as quickly as possible.” He blew off persistent questioning on the matter by referring reporters to the transcript from the previous day’s exchange, leading one pundit to term the whole thing a “rough day for transparency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

But some are defending the White House by saying that holding the negotiations behind closed doors is simply a necessary evil for getting a bill passed in the current political environment. Commentary’s John Steele Gordon contends that Obama’s main sin in the matter is not breaking the promise of open negotiations, but making such a promise in the first place, something he called a “dumb political move”:

Real negotiations – as opposed to questioning witnesses and debating on the floor – are never held in public. If they were, political opponents and lobbyists would be hanging on every word. The give and take, the thinking out loud, the tentative suggestions, the horse-trading that are so much a part of any negotiation would be impossible when every casual phrase, recorded on C-Span’s camcorders, might be turned into an attack ad for the next election.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emerged from a meeting to face a throng of reporters who were quick to question her about Obama’s broken campaign promise. Pelosi responded with a sarcastic “Really?!” before breaking out into laughter. She then added, “There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.” Pelosi’s implication appeared clear: Sometimes in politics, remaining true to promises is much harder than actually making them.

– Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News blog

Read Full Post »


Reid and company giving us coal for Christmas


As a registered Democrat, I am ashamed of my party. I don’t like the Republican party either. Both parties only care about “political victories” and staying in power. Case in point is this screwing the dems are trying to push thru and calling it health care. I don’t like the government forcing me to do something like they will force so many Americans into taking on health insurance that they may not be able to afford and if they don’t, then fining them a minimum of $750 per year.
I guess that is how Obama and company are going to pay for their “stimulus” bill when it comes due. It is time to revolt and kick both parties out. Where is a viable third party when we need it? Here is an article that says it all. check it out below. Harry Reid is giving us all coal for Christmas while giving the dems a “political victory” gift. They don’t care what’s in the bill, just want to get it passed and rammed down our throats. Ashamed of my government. Who cares what “we the people” think. Plus, a Democrat defects due to this healthcare fiasco. check it out here: Defecting Dem
===========================================================================================

* REVIEW & OUTLOOK
* DECEMBER 21, 2009, 5:13 P.M. ET

Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
————————————————————————————

And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world’s greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new “manager’s amendment” that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what’s in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that “reform” has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.
***

• Health costs. From the outset, the White House’s core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they’re sticking to that story. “Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills,” Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like “community rating” because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.

As for the White House’s line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed “waste,” even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. “The oft-heard promise ‘we will find out what works and what does not’ scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,” the Stanford professor wrote.

• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.
OpinionJournal Related Stories:

John Fund: Rahm’s Fuzzy Math

This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they’ll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.

Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so “substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance” that companies like WellPoint might need to “be considered part of the federal budget.”

With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington’s hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,” as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.

“The Senate isn’t hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day,” Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they’re allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will “destroy over 200 of America’s best and safest hospitals.”

• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost “only” $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.

Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid’s final machinations. Job creation, here we come.

Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn’t start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won’t happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association’s priority was eliminating this “sustainable growth rate” but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.

The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run “exchanges” that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses.

As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.

For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also “a new welfare and tax system” that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into “contractors” or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into “free” health care, taxpayer costs will explode.

• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.

Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.

So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?
***

“After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He’s forced to claim the mandate of “history” because he can’t claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal’s composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.

The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit http://www.djreprints.com

here is the link to this story: Harry Reid and Obamacare

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »