Here's an interesting commentary by a Conservative pundit about the meaning of the reform bill being passed:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspx David Frum: Obama hands Republicans their Waterloo Posted: March 22, 2010, 10:25 AM by NP Editor David Frum, U.S. Politics Conservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. Its hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that theyll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) Its a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for todays disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clintons 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none. Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise without weighing so heavily on small business without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the doughnut hole and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or more exactly with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother? Ive been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say but what is equally true is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office Rushs listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. So todays defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, its mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, its Waterloo all right: ours. National Post Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspx#ixzz0iv5Bk0in On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > "The overall $940 billion plan is projected to extend insurance coverage to > roughly 32 million additional Americans. It represents a significant step > toward the goal of universal coverage sought by every Democratic president > since Harry Truman. > > Most Americans will now be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. > Larger employers will be required to provide coverage or risk financial > penalties. Total individual out-of-pocket expenses will be capped and > insurers will be barred from denying coverage based on gender or > pre-existing conditions." > > What the Bill does: > > "The plan, according to CBO projections, will cut budget deficits by more > than $1 trillion in its second decade. > > It will subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to about $88,000 > annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level. > > It also creates a series of health insurance exchanges designed to make it > easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool > resources and purchase less expensive coverage. > > Medicaid will be significantly expanded, ensuring coverage to those earning > up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of > four. > > The bill cuts projected Medicare spending by roughly $500 billion, in part > through reductions in the Medicare Advantage program. Democratic leaders > have promised the reductions will not affect service to Medicare recipients. > > The bill hikes Medicare payroll taxes on families making more than $250,000. > > Starting in 2013, it also imposes a 40 percent tax on insurance companies > providing "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals > and $23,000 for families." > > Proponents of the tax on high-end plans say it's one of the most effective > ways to curb medical inflation. However, many Democrats oppose taxing such > policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for > more generous health benefits. > > Ultimately this means less Americans will die due to not being able to > afford health care.I still don't understand why this was such a hard fight > to have passed, the principle seems obvious. It's incredible that not a > single Republican voted for the bill, however. > > A friend of mine was telling me his cousin in the US had to work two jobs, > one of them was just for the health insurance benefits. He's one person who > was probably singing and dancing in his living room on Sunday. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:313622 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
