[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

I believe I simply found it ironic.

Oh, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

Huh?

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums.

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction. I think there's a good argument that some of these savings are at the expense of State budgets.

It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

Except for collecting taxes, it doesn't go into effect for four years, and still won't insure all those it was supposed to cover.

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

It is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill.

It certainly is both.

It is unconstitutional.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff.

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue. That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence