The Club for Growth has released a new ad attacking Utah Sen. Robert Bennett’s sponsorship of the Healthy Americans Act. View it here.
Among the complaints the club lodges against Bennett’s plan: “job-killing tax increases on employers.” They’re referring of course to the Act’s termination of the present exclusion of health benefits from income tax.
But notice something: These same “job-killing tax increases on employers” are also imposed by the Republican alternative to the president’s health plans, the Coburn-Ryan bill.
The ad warns that Sen. Bennett is offering a plan that “pushes you out of your current plan.” Coburn-Ryan would have exactly the same effect and for the same reason – as the tax exclusion ended, employers would tend to drop health coverage and individuals would shift to buying it for themselves.
Both Coburn-Ryan and the Healthy Americans Act would substitute new tax advantages for the old exclusion: Coburn-Ryan would offer a refundable tax credit of more than $5700, Healthy Americans a tax deduction up to $19,000 plus direct subsidies to families earning up to 400% of the poverty level.
Like Bennett-Wyden, Coburn-Ryan would impose significant new regulations on health insurers, to put an end to some of their most complained-of practices.
So why is one bill Republican orthodoxy while the other is beyond the pale?
Here are three important differences between Coburn-Ryan and Bennett-Wyden.
1) While both plans would overthrow the existing system of health insurance, only Bennett-Wyden takes action to ensure that a new system is ready and waiting to fill the void. Bennett-Wyden would require individuals to buy health insurance, would organize state buying pools to ensure that this insurance is affordable, and would regulate insurance to ensure that coverage is adequate. Coburn-Ryan would trust to the market to provide. That’s normally a good impulse. The trouble is that today’s healthcare market has been so twisted and distorted by state governments that it does not in fact provide – and Coburn-Ryan offers precious few remedies to correct these state-imposed malfunctions.
2) While both plans offer government aid to replace the former tax exemption, Bennett-Wyden’s math adds up and Coburn-Ryan’s does not. A health insurance policy for a typical family costs north of $13,000 and rising. Under Coburn-Ryan, families would pay more in income tax – and recoup not even half the cost of a typical plan. Bennett-Wyden costs more, but that is because it is adequate to the job it sets itself.
3) Bennett-Wyden has won Democratic support and cosponsorship. It could conceivably become law. Coburn-Ryan cannot.
If your priority is to preserve a competitive private-sector health insurance system in the United States, while extending coverage and restraining costs, Bennett-Wyden is thus far literally the only game in town. That does not mean everybody must favor it, or approve all its details. Only that when a group like the Club for Growth dive-bombs Bennett-Wyden, and denounces Sen. Bennett, for helping to draft it, it opens the question: Do you guys have any solutions to offer at all to the practical problems facing Americans?
77 responses so far
1 MFarmer // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:25 am
The question is why should/would they favor either plan? The best competition-enhancing plan, which would restrain cost and give everyone who is not poor an affordable plan, is a free market plan which gives tax breaks to individuals who buy their own policy, allows insurance to be sold across state lines, includes tort reform (at least loser pays, and caps as elements), relaxes licensure requiremants and rolls back irrational regulations.
2 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 7:39 am
And to my mind “The Barker Plan” is the ultimate solution; but I’d go for MFarmer’s politically expedient plan as a stopgap.
BILL
3 Donald Johnson // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:14 am
I think the Club is attacking Bennett in an effort to scare him away from helping Baucus get his health insurance co-op through the finance committee.
Also, if you’re not “pure” in the eyes of the Club, you’re a target.
As for Wyden, are we talking about his original bill or his trimmed down and rewritten one?
The latter looks to me like nothing but an employer mandate dressed up to look like a pro-competition bill that would get consumers more involved in choosing their health plans.
The numbers used by Wyden are only starting points. If Congress became serious about the Wyden plan, it would inflate the fees charged businesses. And over the years, as politically-imposed mandates and operating procedures were forced on insurers, premiums would soar, costing employers and workers even more without really reforming the health insurance markets.
Nevertheless, I think Wyden’s plan deserves to be debated and given it’s chances in Congress.
At this point, I don’t see real reforms as likely outcomes of the current debate. While I’d like to see much of the conservatives’ agenda, I think we have to be realistic about what’s politically possible and about what’s workable.
Neither side seems to be worried about what’s workable. They’re just going for what’s politically possible.
4 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:13 am
Re: Ireign // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:03 am (#5) –
I’ve said it before…
…and I’ll say it again:
We all KNOW what Frum’s game is.
(*SHRUG*)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BILL
5 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:20 am
Bennett-Wyden would require individuals to buy health insurance
I’ve seen this tossed around before – and I still can’t understand how the Federal Government can mandate that individuals buy health insurance.
Incentivize? Yes. Mandate? For everyone who complains about expansion of the “general welfare” clause, where in the hell in the Constitution can anyone find cover for a Federal requirement that individuals buy insurance from private companies?
6 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:40 am
Ireign: We most certainly do NOT mandate that everyone buy auto insurance.
We mandate that people who want to drive their cars on public highways buy auto insurance.
And that is a state requirement, not a federal requirement – which is why Massachussets can come up with a law requiring the citizens of Mass to do something that the Federal Government is not Constitutionally authorized to do.
Meanwhile, in fact, here in Texas you can self-bond in lieu of purchasing insurance from a private company.
And my 85 year old mother, who does not drive a car, most CERTAINLY doesn’t have auto insurance. And I have no doubt that New York City is filled with people who don’t drive, and don’t have auto insurance.
So that’s actually a terrible example. Want to try again?
7 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:48 am
First of all, thank you Mr. Frum for providing the ONLY forum on the right side of the political spectrum where Republicans can discuss different policy ideas, tell the truth about Palin’s shortcoming without being immediately attacked as a plant, RINO, traitor to the cause. I don’t agree with all your policy prescriptions but New Majority is badly needed if we are to EVER pull the GOP out of the political dead end it finds itself.
I don’t know whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate purchasing of health insurance. Also, I really don’t like the idea of government mandating it. However, it is quite clear that as a society we have made the decision that we are not going to deny care to people who don’t have insurance. We are paying for their care and I think it is only right that we demad that they contribute into the system if they can afford it.
8 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:58 am
“We are paying for their care and I think it is only right that we demand that they contribute into the system if they can afford it.
Err … like, by paying taxes?
9 1 September 09 « blueollie // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:06 pm
[...] Health Care I am puzzled why the Bennett-Wyden Health Americans Act didn’t get much support; it was popular with liberals when it was first put forth in 2007 and had some Republican support. Evidently David Frumm is puzzled as well. [...]
10 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Err … like, by paying taxes?
The costs of the insured are being picked up by other patients in the form of higher health care costs. Kinda like the rent control effect on NYC housing.
11 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The costs of the insured are being picked up by other patients in the form of higher health care costs. Kinda like the rent control effect on NYC housing.
Yes, you’re right. All unfunded mandates do is shift costs.
Again, I just don’t see how we can demand contributions to the system from people who routinely go bankrupt as soon as the emergency room bills come in. And again, I have a significant constitutional problem with requiring people to buy insurance from private insurers.
Then again, I don’t see how the Federal Government could require me to contribute to a privatized retirement fund, instead of allowing me to best decide how to spend my own money is spent, once the ideological decision has been made that paying into a larger social insurance program is a bad idea. There are a lot of modern Republican ideas that are attempts to do run-arounds on social programs that we all agree have merit, but that I think create very dangerous precedents for the the removal of personal freedoms which are much worse than government taxation.
12 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm
MFarmer:
Because in practice, a typical health care policy for a family of four costs some $13,000 a year. For the working poor and other lower-income folks, that would be much more than they pay in income tax every year. So each such household would have to get a negative income tax–a tax credit so big that the Government would be paying them thousands of dollars in a tax refund every single year. When Obama proposed a mechanism like that, conservatives called it “welfare.”
13 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm
MFarmer: Do you want health insurers to continue to be able to deny folks coverage for pre-existing conditions or not?
14 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:50 pm
sinz: Do you want health insurers to continue to be able to deny folks coverage for pre-existing conditions or not?
I’m personally uncomfortable with such a mandate, but I can understand it. However, I don’t believe that government should be able to “rate set” in those circumstances … if the risk pool for the pre-existing conditions is such that those conditions cost quadruple the amount to insure, I believe that the insurers have a right to charge as much as needed to stay competitive.
15 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm
balconesfault:
That is a real problem, one that constitutional scholars need to look at–because so far, our Congresscritters seem oblivious to it.
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution cannot be used to mandate changes to an individual’s behavior that is not already affecting interstate commerce.
Clearly, if you don’t already have insurance, you’re not impacting interstate commerce yet because you’re not engaged in any commerce yet. Based on past Supreme Court rulings, the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force you to engage in a given form of commerce (like purchasing a health plan from an insurer).
A Federal mandate to purchase insurance will definitely be in any health care bill that Obama signs into law. And I suspect that it will definitely get challenged in the courts on this basis.
16 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Thank you Sinz. This illustrates the value of this board … you and I clearly sit on different sides of the healthcare debate, but we can agree on something major actors in the debate, that as you say, seem utterly oblivious to.
I’ve got to believe that they have some staffers who are as intelligent as you or I. Personally, I can’t understand a small government sort embracing a federal mandate, because it’s not a slippery slope – it’s a freaking cliff. At the same time I think a liberal politician embracing it must be playing games, knowing that the challenge will come, and that it will fail, and that there will be a public cry to replace it with some other means of guaranteeing universal coverage … and that other means will be …
17 MFarmer // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Well, sinz, if you passed all I suggested, prices for healthcare would drop and coverage costs would likely drop along with the lower care costs, and with added competition, this will put pressure on prices — and with tort reform.
As for pre-exisiting — if individuals begin buying their own policies, they won’t have to change policies if they lose their job, and with more competition, being able to sell nationally, more companies will have better plans to deal pre-exisiting — they already, mostly, restrict pre-existing to a year after getting a new policy to prevent people from waiting to get insurance until they are sick.
18 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I agree with your sentiments and share your concerns. However, we need to find a solution to the ever rising health care costs. Part of it involves how we handle the cost of the uninsured who can afford to purchase insurance but refuse to do so.
19 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Perhaps one way to deal with pre-existing conditions is by requiring people who wait until sick to purchase health insurance to continue their policy for a stated number of years. I don’t like the idea of denying based on pre-existing condition but how do you prevent a situation of people waiting until sick to buy insurance and dropping it as soon as no longer needed?
20 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I don’t like the idea of denying based on pre-existing condition but how do you prevent a situation of people waiting until sick to buy insurance and dropping it as soon as no longer needed?
I don’t know. That sounds like a logical free-market approach for anyone wanting to maximize the utility that insurance provides them while minimizing their expenditures.
And that’s the whole problem I see here. A lot of dancing around desperately trying to appropriately constrain the free market through statism to provide what increasingly everyone is agreeing is a public good.
21 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Balcon
If the insurance industry would adopt it as a matter of standard industry practice (not mandated by government), it could deal with the thorny issue of pre-existing condition. Just thinking out loud.
22 DFL // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm
For those interested, the aged Robert Bennett is being challenged by Utah Attorney general Mark shurtleff in the 2010 Senate primary. Shurtleff is more conservative and much younger than Bennett. Bennett is also an open-borders fanatic while Shurtleff is not. Shurtleff is the man and if the Club for Growth wants to help oust Bennett, all the better.
23 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I am amazed at how many stupid comments about this and others like church and state exist on this blog.
You are talking about yourself, I am sure.
24 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:20 am (#7) –
“…I still can’t understand how the Federal Government can mandate that individuals buy health insurance. Incentivize? Yes. Mandate? For everyone who complains about expansion of the “general welfare” clause, where in the hell in the Constitution can anyone find cover for a Federal requirement that individuals buy insurance…”
Hey… it’s a fair point; I won’t deny that.
The only “answer” I can give you is that if the federal government CAN’T mandate catastrophic insurance then by God we’d better mandate NO FEDERAL BAILOUTS of individuals who choose not to purchase catastrophic insurance if and when the $hit hits the fan for them personally and their own individual resources are gone and they’re still in need of treatment.
Hey… this is what we need to realize; there’s a natural conflict here between the Constitution, pragmatism, justice, and compassion. If we’re not going to FORCE people to “pay their fair share” via premium payments than it’s unfair to expect “society” to “rescue” people from their own bad decisions.
(Btw, I believe the Constitutional requirements would allow the state to mandates the coverage of MINORS even if the Supreme Court ruled that coverage couldn’t be mandates for adults.)
Re: Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:48 am (#10) –
“…the ONLY forum on the right side of the political spectrum where Republicans can discuss different policy ideas, tell the truth about Palin’s shortcoming without being immediately attacked as a plant, RINO, traitor to the cause.”
Chekote. You’re a PLANT! You’re a RINO! You’re a TRAITOR to “the cause!”
(*CHUCKLE*)
(Sorry… just kidding; couldn’t help myself – such a juicy target!) (*GRIN*)
As for the rest of this thread…
(*SHRUG*)
I’ve outlined how we should proceed as a society. End of story.
BILL
25 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm
barker: The only “answer” I can give you is that if the federal government CAN’T mandate catastrophic insurance then by God we’d better mandate NO FEDERAL BAILOUTS of individuals who choose not to purchase catastrophic insurance if and when the $hit hits the fan for them personally and their own individual resources are gone and they’re still in need of treatment.
Barker – I agree with your logic, although I disagree with your first premise.
Personally, I believe that our society is much much stronger if we guarantee some level of healthcare to everyone. You disagree. We’re not going to bridge that gap.
The question is … do these piecemeal solutions that are themselves an abrogation of private liberties – like government mandating everyone purchase insurance from private parties – actually serve anyone’s needs but those of the insurance industry?
Meanwhile, I’m not really going to deal with ireign’s attacks here any longer until we get a substantive argument, rather than cop-outs like “Read what the commerce clause says. Your interpretation of the commerce clause is not correct.”
Even his construct Everyone who wants to drive a car needs auto insurance. Everyone who wants to visit a doctor needs health insurace. is specious, unless the medical industry is owned by the government. For example, it is NOT true that everyone who wants to drive a car needs auto insurance. If you own 10,000 acres, you can drive around it all day without insurance and nobody will stop you. Or you could buy access to someone elses’s 10,000 acres, and drive around it all day. THAT would be the proper analogue to visiting a doctor whose practice is not owned by the government.
26 DFL // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm
ireign, if Kennedy-McCain amnesty is passed, America as a western nation is doomed. Bennett supports Kennedy-McCain and Shurtleff does not. Amnesty is the paramount issue of our times and Bennett is on the enemy side.
27 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Do you even have a job or do you just sit around making bigotted comments about evangelicals?
Like what? Give me an example.
28 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Where is Otto?
29 DFL // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:29 pm
ireign, Obama plans on using Amnesty next year in order to split Republicans in an election year. McCain, Graham and Bennett plan on coming to Obama’s assistance. That is much more important than a minor dust-up for a Utah senate seat which the Republicans will retain whether the candidate is Bennett or Shurtleff.
30 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm
ireign: while not a lawyer, I have significant legal training and professional experience, although primarily in regulatory law and not commerce. I work in an area where jurisdictional questions are often at the heart of my clients concerns, and I wouldn’t be employed today if I didn’t understand them.
” I think it is fair to say that 99.9% who possess a driver’s license go on to someone else’s property during the course of a year. States force those drivers to get insurance. “
You really don’t seem to understand the point, despite my having made it very clearly, so I’m loathe to try again. But I will.
You do not need a license, vehicle registration, or insurance, to drive a vehicle around on private property. You need those things to drive around on public roads.
There is no mandate to have insurance to drive solely on private property. Period. End of discussion. The owner of a property might decide to require insurance before you can drive on his property, but violation of that would be trespass, or a violation of a contract, and not a violation of a state law that you need to own insurance.
Moreover, someone can choose to never drive a car. And the state will not require that person to get insurance.
You are making a claim that the Federal Government can mandate that an individual purchase insurance. This is not akin to requiring someone to own insurance to drive … this is akin to requiring someone to own insurance … in order just to live in America.
What’s your next mandate?
31 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm
ireign: You on the other hand have failed to demonstrate how the GOP can win without social conservatives.
Sadly, I do believe that ireign is correct, barring a major adjustment in the ideology of the GOP. On most ideological issues, the Democrats have captured the center, and the GOP is to the right of center, and without social conservatives who are willing to vote GOP even when that vote harms their economic interests on the promise of some mythical return of America to being a “Christian Nation” the GOP would not have a chance in any national election.
32 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Ireign
Stating that Evangelicals believe that only people who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that salvation comes through grace and not good works is the truth and not a smear. I have said nothing untrue or nasty about Evangelicals. I attended a Southern Baptist Church regularly for a year. I am quite familiar with their belief system.
33 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Sorry to go OT again but is anyone else here aware of what kind of a campaign Kay Bailey Hutchinson is running in Texas for Governor? She is now running against Giuliani:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Fudd7V_js&feature=player_embedded
She is running to the Right of Perry on border security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwFhP2d11Z4&feature=related
Does anyone still doubt that having to play to the current GOP base, destroys the chances of winning in the general election?
34 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Hey… just ran across this:
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=992
…at our old pal Dr. Michael K’s blog.
I’d term it a must read!
BILL
35 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:50 pm
You on the other hand have failed to demonstrate how the GOP can win without social conservatives.
More imporantly, I can easily demonstrate that YOU CAN’T WIN with social conservatives dominating the agenda. Let me give some proof:
Virginia Gov(PPP)
McDonnell 49%
Deeds 42%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_901819.pdf
86% of the interviews for this poll on Friday and Saturday so the numbers don’t fully reflect any fall out from McDonnell thesis story. McDonnell led 50-41 in the two days of polling before the article, Deeds actually led 50-42 in the 83 interviews conducted on Sunday and Monday.
36 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm
ireign: “Do you have a single friend or relative who drives ONLY on private roads? No. The distinction is meaningless. “
It is now you who are showing yourself to be ignorant of the process of legal decision-making. These meaningless distinctions, as you put them, can be the lynchpin of how many a case is decided. But to be clear … yes, when my 13 year old nephew drove around on my sister and her husband’s property, he was not breaking any laws. At that point in time, the distinction was not meaningless.
If I have want to work in this country legally, I have to pay social security taxes.
Exactly. The Federal government has a right to levy taxes.
The Federal government does not have a right to require that I pay money to a private party.
37 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm (#32) –
“Barker – I agree with your logic, although I disagree with your first premise.”
What first premise…??? (*SINCERE QUIZZICAL EXPRESSION*)
“Personally, I believe that our society is much much stronger if we guarantee some level of healthcare to everyone. You disagree.”
Ahh… (Now I get what you meant.)
But you’re WRONG, Balc. (I mean wrong about “what I think.”)
I was dealing with a SPECIFIC theoretical situation – one in which “mandatory” coverage was disallowed as a governmental action and one in which we were using as an example not a person who couldn’t afford coverage, but one who choose not to purchase it.
(*SHRUG*)
Are you with me in terms of UNDERSTANDING what my position is…???
Seriously… I don’t know how many times I’ve made it clear that I’m not against a social safety net per se. That said, I don’t see this thread as focusing on the indigent but rather on the population as a whole – meaning mainly the middle class.
(With me…???)
* Hey… who here likes country music…?!?!
Man… I’m listening to “my” country channel on Pandora as I type and I’ve just gotta say… listening to country music cheers me up – makes me think there’s still some hope for the country. (*WINK*)
Being a New Yorker can be such a bummer at times…
BILL
38 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:54 pm
In essence, what is your point?
My point is that when candidate like KBH who can appeal to the center are having to demonize Giuliani and pretend that Perry is not tough enough on border security becauses he recognizes the reality that you can’t build a wall along the entire border since it would cut off the water supply needed by rancher, the gig is up.
39 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:55 pm
RE: Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm (#37) –
SSSHHH…!!!
BILL
40 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Baptist Church regularly for a year given that you claim to be Jewish
I never said I was Jewish. I am not and never been. A strong secular Zionist for sure. But not of the Jewish faith.
41 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm
#53
LOL!
42 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm (#39) –
“You do not need a license, vehicle registration, or insurance, to drive a vehicle around on private property. You need those things to drive around on public roads.”
(*HEADACHE*)
Skipping to the bottom line…
But you’re not mandated to own – let alone drive – a vehicle.
(*SMILE*)
(*WINK*)
BILL
43 barker13 // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Re: Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm (#42) –
“Stating that Evangelicals believe that only people who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and believe that salvation comes through grace and not good works is the truth and not a smear. I have said nothing untrue or nasty about Evangelicals. I attended a Southern Baptist Church regularly for a year. I am quite familiar with their belief system.”
(*AMUSED CHUCKLE*)
Chekote. You might wanna place a call to the Vatican and ask for the Pope.
(*SMILE*)
My point…???
Ultimately “acceptance of Christ” is at the heart of ALL Christianity.
(*SHRUG*)
Don’t confuse repeats of “7th Heaven” for actual Church doctrines.
BILL
44 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“As an aside, I know plenty of liberals who vote against their economic interests.”
I know many more liberals and progressives who might in some eyes be voting against their economic interests … but who believe that they are voting in their best long-term economic interests.
That is in essence what FDR’s New Deal was about. America was in a world where Marxism was growing, and there was a real fear in America about Marxism here (as opposed to the pseudo-fears being drummed up today for political purposes). The New Dealers viewed limited socialism as the best means to avert any kind of a “workers revolution”, and to keep American streets free of some of the violent clashes between workers and the establishment (business and government) that we’d had too many of in the previous decades.
I laid out elsewhere (first comment in this thread – http://www.newmajority.com/should-republicans-endorse-universal-health-coverage ) a list of economic reasons why I think America would benefit from universal healthcare. It is very possible that the taxes needed to support universal healthcare will in a very narrow sense be against my best interests. However, I firmly believe that that universal healthcare would produce would generate economic benefits to our nation that would be well worth the additional investment.
45 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:04 pm
If you kick out one group, you have to replace it with another. If you are an economic conservative, you don’t have trial lawyers or unions, and thus you need constituencies that will organize for you such as the NRA or right to life groups.
Why not contribute funds so you can hire people to do grassroots work? Do you seriously think that having the NRA and RTL people knocking on doors and being the “face” of the GOP helps win elections on the East or West Coast? The more I think about it. The more I laugh. Sending a RTL drone who will talk about killing babies soliciting votes for GOP from suburban pro-choice housewives is a winning strategy. LOL.
46 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“I am not going to debate again what you said about evangelicals but am incredibly skeptical that you attended a Southern Baptist Church regularly for a year given that you claim to be Jewish.”
Never claimed to be Jewish – although thanks to Halachic law, my kids are. I’d need surgery, and that interests me as little as being “born again” did when I attended FCA meetings in my youth (raised Catholic, I always thought the concept of “born again” to be kind of frivolous).
47 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I am involved in the Jewish community. The biggest obstancle the GOP faces is the perception that it is dominated by evangelical Christians.
True. I am involved with AIPAC (well until the last election when they deeply disappointed me) and I am part of the Republican Jewish Coalition. You don’t have to be Jewish to belong. Jewish groups are not as exclusionary as you seem to think.
48 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:08 pm
raised Catholic, I always thought the concept of “born again” to be kind of frivolous
Me too. It is like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.
49 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm
You, like many liberals, have bought into the myth that somehow any religious conservative would benefit economically from voting for the Democrats.
Not any … many.
50 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:16 pm
ireign
I was part of the GOTV effort in the last two campaign. I don’t believe for one moment that it makes a difference. Look at the results.
51 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:22 pm
ireign
We were talking politically why the Jewish community is not supportive of the GOP. That was the context of my remark as I recall. I am involved in other causes and issues but I don’t feel it is necessary to spell them all out. I never said I practiced the Jewish faith. You jumped to that erroneous conclusion and just can’t admit it.
52 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Bush won in 2004 because of the security issue. That’s how he won the indie/moderate vote. Even so he had little room for error. Obama won because Bush’s approval numbers were in the 30s and Mac couldn’t convince the indies that he wasn’t another Bush.
53 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Bush had a superior get-out-the vote operation to Kerry.
That may be true. Probably is but I was in Ohio and Kerry had a lot of people from NY bused in. They really worked that state. Bush won Ohio because he captured about 17% of the AA vote. May I respectfully suggest that the GOP improving its share among AAs, Jewish and Hispanic voters is a better way to improve its electoral prospects than to rely on RTL and NRA to get the vote out. The NRA went against Obama very hard. He still won PA, OH.
54 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
involved in the “Jewish community
I am.
55 Chekote // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:29 pm
ireign
As things stand, we can’t win and our electoral footprint keeps on shirinking. Certain elements of the platform needs to be modified or removed. In the short term, we may lose by bigger margins but in the long term it will give us a chance to build a new coalition. I am not too concerned about the GOTV efforts since I don’t find them particularly effective. If voters become engaged, they will organize and get themselves to the polls. Just take a look at the current townhall protests, tea parties. No political party is organizing them. The Dems’s effort to organize a counter protest so far has failed because the majority of the voters don’t support Obamacare.
56 mthen // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“Why is the Club for Growth Attacking Senator Bennett?”
Why is KBH running against a sitting Republican governor?
Why doesnt Frum seem to mind?
57 Donald Johnson // Sep 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm
In comment 4, I made a mistake. Bob Bennett is not on the Senate Finance Committee.
So why is the Club for Growth attacking him?
It supports his more conservative primary opponent, apparently.
The Club wants people who agree with it 100%, which should keep the GOP and conservatives in the minority forever.
58 Hounds29 // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Constitutional Law Primer: The commerce clause allows the regulation of activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. The basis of the health care debate is that costs are too high, obviously an industry that receives over $2 billion dollars is affecting interstate commerce. So, that industry and the people who are in it can be regulated under the commerce clause.
Until 1995, nearly anything that results in money changing hands was commerce (in fact the Supreme Court, in Wickard v. Filburn (1938), found that a farmer who grew wheat and used it solely for personal use were taking part in commerce). Post 1995, the Lopez and Morrison cases control and Congress can regulate anything that is channel of commerce, an instrumentality of commerce, or the activity in aggregate has an affect on commerce.
So today, the things that cannot be regulated under the commerce clause are, essentially, actions. (e.g. Congress cannot make a law that says you cannot have a gun within # feet of a school-Lopez; but Congress can enact the Violence Against Women Act because Congress found that domestic violence impacted commerce ). If Congress can ban violence against women (which is surely an individual action) under the Commerce Clause because of the domestic violence then they can surely regulate healthcare.
So, this should really be the end of the debate on whether the Constitution would allow regulation of healthcare. You can disagree that it should, but anyone with a law degree will tell you it can.
59 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:56 pm
So, this should really be the end of the debate on whether the Constitution would allow regulation of healthcare.
Not a question of regulating healthcare.
A question of whether a person will be required, by Federal law, to spend their own money to purchase healthcare from private insurers, as a requirement to live in America.
60 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:03 am
Re: Hounds29 // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:46 pm (#82) –
“Constitutional Law Primer: The commerce clause allows…”
WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT ALLOWS.
Period. End of story.
(*SHRUG*) (*SIGH*)’
“…anyone with a law degree…”
Hmm. Not to burst your bubble, however…
I’m pretty sure all nine members of the current Supreme Court have… er… law degrees.
This doesn’t stop the Court from splitting 5-4 quite regularly.
(*SMILE*) (*SHRUG*)
As for precedent…
(*SHRUG*)
Each Justice to a greater or lesser extent will either accept, overturn, or manipulate precedent as he or she sees fit from case to case.
(Have I missed anything…???) (*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
61 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
Each Justice to a greater or lesser extent will either accept, overturn, or manipulate precedent as he or she sees fit from case to case.
(Have I missed anything…???)
Nope.
62 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:41 am
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:59 am (#85) –
Balc.
Just for what it’s worth… (*GRIN*)
I do by far prefer when we’re in accord as opposed to when we’re… er… not.
(*WINK*)
BILL
63 DFL // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:19 am
ireign is correct. Religious conservatives get scraps from the Republican Party while Wall Street gets the red meat.
64 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm
ireign: “Balconesfault-Give it up! You are incorrect. As mentioned, anyone with a law degree would laugh at the possibility that the healthcare proposal violates the commerce clause.”
So self assured! So expressive! So … wrong!
Illegal Health Reform
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Saturday, August 22, 2009
“The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it. “
The writers are partners in the D.C. office of Baker Hostetler LLP and served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
65 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm
ireign Not really.
Wow. A direct repudiation of your claim that “anyone with a law degree would laugh at the possibility that the healthcare proposal violates the commerce clause”, not only by a couple of guys with law degrees, but by a couple guys who worked in the Reagan and Bush I Justice Departments, and who are now partners in one the pre-eminent corporate law firms in the country.
And you decide that it is I who is playing lawyer for a day”.
Do you realize how much this destroys your basic credibility? You were presented a fact which clearly and directly proved that your claim is false … and you treat it as if it is an irrelevancy.
Anyone reading this exchange could reasonably come to the conclusion that I’m a pompous ass – but by the same token, they could reasonably come to the conclusion that you don’t really give a rats ass about any fact which is inconvenient to your beliefs, even when the fact directly invalidates one of your beliefs.
66 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm
While I might have overstate the position (slightly), the fact is that the vast majority of the legal profession would find that this doesn’t violate the commerce clause notwithstanding two lawyers who think it does.
How do we know that this is a fact? We already know that you … ummm … overstate your position for the purposes of advancing your argument. How do we know that “vast majority” isn’t another … errr … overstatement?
You don’t know enough about the law and have no legal training so this debate is pointless.
First, you are wrong. I do have limited legal training, having passed 6 hours at UT Law School while working on my masters degree in engineering. That notwithstanding, I’m wondering what your legal training is that allows you a broadbrush negation of the arguments of David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey?
In other words, you can’t have it both ways, Ireign. Either legal training trumps any argument from the peanut gallery – in which case you lose to Rivkin and Casey (unless you have directly applicable legal training and experience which I don’t know about) – or we the non-lawyers can actually debate the cases free of the “you’re not a lawyer, so shut up” attack that you’ve been launching.
“Claiming that this proposed plan would violate the commerce clause is not accurate. You are a pompous ass and one who doesn’t have the foggiest clue of what he is talking about. “
I’ll grant that I can be a pompous ass – but you’re now claiming that Rivkin and Casey don’t have the foggiest clue of what (they’re) talking about. I am still wondering how your personal experience and knowledge should lead me to trust your judgement over theirs. To be honest, you’re kind of sounding like a pompous ass as well.
While you mischaracterize what the two lawyers said
Mischaracterize? It’s a direct freaking quote! Do you think that Rivkin and Casey didn’t understand what they meant when they wrote: The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.
Could they have been more clear?
Don’t you think there would be more conservative legislators/lawyers making that argument?
No, I don’t. For the same reason that it was a Republican legislature under Bush that pushed through the Medicare drug benefit in the form that passed. A federal mandate will make a lot of money for insurance companies.
Does that mean that no lawyer will try to challenge the healthcare proposal as a violation of the commerce clause? No. But no one is going to succeed in doing so.
I look forward to hearing your credentials that gives you the authority to make that declaration, given your evident disdain for those who offer legal opinion without having a JD.
67 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Re: Ireign // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:45 am (#87) –
Ireign. Not quite sure if you’re disagreeing with my ultimate point or not.
(*SHRUG*)
(*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Ireign // Sep 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm (#92) –
“While I might have overstate the position (slightly)…”
(*ROFLMAO*)
(*FRIENDLY SLAP ON THE BACK FOR IREIGN*)
(**WINK DIRECTED TO BALC*)
BILL
68 barker13 // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Back to the Club for Growth…
According to the CFG:
Under Bennett’s bill, Congress would set a standard benefits package for all health insurance plans nationwide, and citizens could only buy plans approved by the government. Essentially, every individual would be forced to buy a plan through a government-run “exchange” with premiums automatically taken from their paychecks and sent to the IRS. If they don’t buy the coverage, they would be fined.
S. 391 would also require employers to pay into this new system. Currently, employers voluntarily decide to provide and contribute to their employees’ health insurance. The bill would impose a new job-killing tax as high as 25% of the cost of a basic health benefit.
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote that under Bennett’s bill, “Most health insurance premiums that are now paid privately would flow through the Federal budget, and total Federal outlays for health insurance premiums would be on the order of $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion in 2014.”
Over time, this will lead to more expensive insurance and fewer choices as special interests lobby to have their procedures and services included in federally mandated health benefits.
Many of the features in the Bennett bill were patterned after a health care law adopted in Massachusetts a few years ago, where costs have increased over 60% faster than if the plan had not passed.
Worse, despite “all that additional spending, many Massachusetts residents are finding it harder to see a doctor. One survey of wait times to see a specialist, such as a cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon, reads like a dispatch from Canada. In 2004, specialist wait times in Boston were already among the highest in the nation. Over the next five years, wait times fell in most U.S. cities to an average 21 days, but in Boston they rose to an average of 50 days, even though Massachusetts has more doctors per resident than any other state.”
As a possible delegate to the Utah Republican Convention next year, you are in a unique position to influence the national debate on whether Congress should approve government-run health care.
Sen. Bennett’s bill is the wrong medicine for our health care system. Instead of curing problems, it would create massive new ones. If you disagree with his approach, we urge you to call on Sen. Bennett to drop his proposed government-run health care plan and support alternatives that give more control to patients and doctors. We also urge you to call on all the candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah to strongly oppose the Bennett bill.
* Hey… “buy” it or not; but this is from the “horse’s mouth.” (*SHRUG*)
BILL
69 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Ireign: “So, no conservative legal scholar, television personality, or elected official will make the argument that an individual mandate is unconstitutional because it benefits insurance companies (who donate probably more to the blue dogs in red districts than anyone else)?”
Sure. I just cited a couple very prominent ones who in fact did so. And you blew them off.
70 balconesfault // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:08 am
Here’s another.
Constitutional Implications of an “Individual Mandate” in Health Care Reform
By Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith**
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat (Wickard v. Filmore)12 or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).13 Reliance on the Commerce Clause to justify the constitutionality of an individual mandate might be susceptible to an “as applied” challenge from individuals who (1) never access the health care system or (2) are able to pay for their health care without using insurance, because the government could not claim an impact on interstate commerce of providers and insurers as a result of uncompensated care.
An individual mandate also presents issues under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause. Given the uncertainty with how an individual mandate would comport with religious beliefs regarding health care choices, the Senate Finance Committee policy outline suggests creating an exception to the health insurance mandate for “religious reasons.” It still leaves open, however, the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.
**Peter Urbanowicz is an attorney and health care management consultant in Washington, D.C. He
previously served as Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services. Dennis G. Smith is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Care Reform at the Heritage
Foundation. He previously served as Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services and served as Acting Administrator for the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
71 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:40 am
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:08 am (#98) –
Beyond this…
* Ireign – this is directed to you!
Let’s look at the BIG picture – from a conservative constitutionalist’s point of view:
Precedence be damned!
Jeez, Ireign (and my fellow constitutionalists), who here doesn’t believe the Supreme Court (plural – decisions in a time-line continuum) hasn’t stretched the original meaning and intent of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause being recognition…???
Com’on… originalists FIXATE upon the Commerce Clause when they cite example after example of various Supreme Courts running off the rails.
(*SNORT*)
I mean… hey… I APPRECIATE Balc’s fact-based, citation based defense of the concept I first touched upon in my post #84… but to see Ireign take the “short” view on this question as it relates to trying to win a back and forth debate on a single blog thread…
(*SIGH*)
Ireign. Com’on! (*GRIN*) Can’t you see that from a certain perspective – the “long” view, the “big” picture – that you’re actually “defending” the LIBERAL view of judicial activism while Balc is… er… wearing a white hat on this one…!?
(*WINK*)
BILL
72 balconesfault // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:06 am
Bill … I understand why Ireign is doing so.
Because there is a very strong sentiment for universal health care in America – and the proposal of a mandate is a way to short circuit the OTHER way of ensuring it.
OK, there’s the other possibility, that he is being funded by big insurance to support a mandate, like a number of politicians, think tanks, and conservative media outlets are, but I seriously doubt that.
Strange to some though it may seem, I am very concerned about decisions that create new precedents for government intrusion into people’s lives. They have to be weighed very carefully against the supposed benefits, and unintended consequences have to be considered. This was enough to make me very leery of the surveillance powers granted government in the Patriot Act … it is not enough to scare me off publicly funded healthcare.
It certainly worries the hell out of me when suddenly there would be a mandate for the Federal Government to direct me to put my money not into the pockets of Government (which then distributes it to private corporations to get stuff done) but directly into the hands of Corporations … just as a price to be paid to live in America. Because I see a whole lot of nasties flowing from that precedent, once established.
73 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:17 am
Re: Balconesfault // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:06 am (#100) –
“OK, there’s the other possibility, that he is being funded by big insurance to support a mandate, like a number of politicians, think tanks, and conservative media outlets are, but I seriously doubt that.”
(*ROFLMAO*)
(*FRIENDLY PUNCH TO IREIGN’S SHOULDER*)
Com’on, Ireign… (*STILL LAUGHING*)… ya gotta laugh with me at that one! After all, we’re both “jolly” conservatives who appreciate a good laugh – even when it’s at our own expense!
(*WINK*)
“It certainly worries the hell out of me when suddenly there would be a mandate for the Federal Government to direct me to put my money not into the pockets of Government (which then distributes it to private corporations to get stuff done) but directly into the hands of Corporations … just as a price to be paid to live in America. Because I see a whole lot of nasties flowing from that precedent, once established.”
(*SOBER NOD*)
BILL
74 balconesfault // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Balc-Seems to be unable to differentiate between what one believes and what the law is. Hence, the same problem most liberal judges have:-)
And in this case, corporate lawyers who were in political level appointees during the Reagan and Bush I Administration, and the Federalist Society.
You have avoided the implicit question from Bill as to why you defend the idea of a Federal Mandate.
75 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Re: Ireign // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm (#102) –
“Bill, I can only wish I was being paid by insurance companies. I will gladly sell my services to the highest bidder:-)”
(*GRIN*)
You know… speaking of getting paid… Frum should pay US – me, you, Balc, and the other regulars – for making this site as successful as it is.
(*WINK*)
David… if you send a check to: Bill – 10926-3030 I’ll get it!
BILL
76 barker13 // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Re: Ireign // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm (#105) –
“I didn’t defend the federal mandate. I defended the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a Federal Mandate.”
(*SIGH*)
You couldn’t leave well enough alone, Ireign.
(*SHRUG*)
OK, It seems as if I must further flesh out my post #99:
Ireign. You’re obviously referring to “constitutionality” based upon precedent – NOT the Constitution itself… NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers, the authors and signers of the Constitution.
Or am I wrong…??? Do you HONESTLY believe that the Founding Fathers or ANY Supreme Court existing within the lifespan on ANY of the Founding Fathers would have viewed the proposition that the federal government has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to FORCE individual American citizens to buy health insurance with favor…???
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… understand… I’m all for “forced” insurance purchases also! It’s a foundation of my own plan!
(*PAUSE*)
Still… just because *I* favor something doesn’t make that something automatically constitutional.
Do you get what I’m saying – where I’m coming from?
Anyway…
BILL
77 Rational Arguments » The Wyden Amendment // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm
[...] number of Republican co-sponsors. It also has the support of a number of knowledgeable people all over the ideological [...]
You must log in to post a comment.