Rancho Miller

Mona Charen (a white woman, in case the racial opinion profilers are keeping score) hit it on the head with this description of the health care bill efforts.

Actually, it was the sloppiest and most slapdash legislative process ever to accompany a major bill.

via Maximum Achievable Damage by Mona Charen on National Review Online.

She also pointed out this:

The Democrats will create, among others, the following new bureaus: The Grant Program for Health Insurance Cooperatives, the Telehealth Advisory Committee, the Community Based Medical Home Pilot Program, the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, and the Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman. In short, Democrats have done the maximum amount of damage to our system that they could manage under the circumstances.

Yeah, that’s JUST what we need.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa this morning called the earmarks sent to states in order to get senators’ votes on health care “reform” ”small stuff.”

Harkin dismissed deals dubbed vote-buying by GOP senators as “small stuff” that distracted Americans from the primary focus of the overhaul bill.

Which exposes the totally out-of-touch way that pols, both Republican and Democrat, think in Washington. Sen. Harkin, this is tax money paid by U.S. workers, money that we would just as soon have kept ourselves. Don’t tell us that hundreds of millions of dollars is “small stuff” when many working Americans, even those who make a good living, are struggling to make ends meet thanks to failed policies and decisions of both Republicans and Democrats.

He also told interviewers that even if all of the goodies for Iowa, his state, were stripped from the bill, he would still vote for it. So, why doesn’t he practice fiscal responsibility and propose that all those goodies be stripped from the bill if it’s not going to make any difference for his vote?

Markos Moulitsas at The Daily Kos blogs that

My take is that it’s unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status.

Even when he’s right he’s wrong.

Unconscionable to force people to buy a product? Absolutely.

From a private insurer? Absolutely.

That enjoys sanctioned monopoly status? How can one insurer among many enjoy monopoly status? The insurance industry is just that–an industry made up of many corporations. There is no single insurance company dominating the market. They can’t even sell from one state to another one. The insurance industry is dominated by, well, insurance companies. Just like the auto industry is dominated by auto companies, etc.

You want an entity that enjoys “sanctioned monopoly status”? Try the U.S. federal government. If the House health care bill becomes law, there eventually will be a single-payer setup–something Moulitsas supports! That isn’t a “sanctioned monopoly status”? Until recently, that’s what the Senate bill was aiming at. Now it’s aiming at nothing in particular, but can still do considerable damage to the U.S. economy and Americans’ liberties if signed into law.

Yet, it’s good to see that liberals are pointing out the desperate inconsistency of the Senate bill. Unfortunately, they’re being desperately inconsistent themselves and proving themselves incapable of clear thought.

The Associated Press, historically a great news service, tipped its hand Tuesday by letting through a story with wild-eyed inaccuracy, claiming in its lead that Republicans until now haven’t come up with any of their own health care proposals.

The story by Erica Werner says that

After months spent criticizing Democrats’ health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It’s much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans.

Actually, Republicans produced a “draft proposal of their own” as far back as May. That’s when Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Rep. Devin Nunes of California and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin offered their own version of health care reform, “Patients’ Choice Act.” It was introduced in both houses of Congress on May 20, 2009. Another bill was later offered by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

In his Sept. 8 address to a joint session of Congress, Barack Obama claimed that Republicans hadn’t offered any alternatives. He did this while Republicans held up copies of their health care bills. The news media couldn’t ignore this, at least not then. Apparently, they’re back to ignoring it, at least in whatever world Werner and Obama live in.

The AP inaccuracy was a result of one of the following:

• Werner really didn’t know that more than one GOP bill had been introduced, albeit ignored. In that case, what’s she doing writing about national policy debates?
• She knew, but wanted to mislead her readers. Hard to believe, coming from the great AP, but possible.
• The story was rewritten at the editing level and Werner’s name left on it.

At any rate, it’s hard to understand how such an inaccuracy survived the editing process. Everybody makes mistakes, but this is a doozy.

Speakerette of the House Nancy Pelosi says that what Congress is really offering in its health care reform bills is a “consumer option,” not a public option:

“As we’re mandating that people buy insurance we are saying to them, you have leverage, you have another choice. This is your consumer option.” To back up her point, Pelosi said that the program would be self-sustaining and benefits would be paid for by premiums, not taxpayers.

Point 1: She actually managed to say that the government would both mandate insurance and offer a choice. Translation: We will remove your choice to buy insurance and offer you a choice of which insurance to buy. Take with one hand … well, take with one hand.

Point 2: The program will be “self-sustaining” and won’t be paid by taxpayers. Uh-huh, and Social Security will only put out benefits already paid in by the beneficiaries, and so will Medicare. Taxpayers won’t be affected by this at all. Nope, no way. Move on. Nothing to see here. Uh-huh. Liberal Democrats are going to institute a massive public insurance program that won’t affect taxes. And you can set up an ice cream concession in hell, too.

This is a great post by Voddie Baucham on the hypocrisy of people screaming about socialistic health care and then putting their children on a bus that will take them to a socialistic educational facility (i.e., a public school).

Main thoughts from Wednesday’s Big Health Care Speech, in which President 0bama didn’t say anything new but did say some old things in new ways:

1. The Big 0 made references to his “plan” for health care. Which plan is that? The one written by Teddy Kennedy before 0 was even elected president and now under consideration in the Senate? The 1,100-page plan about to make it to the House floor? (No, it can’t be that one; 0 said he doesn’t know what’s in it.) Or is it a secret plan being kept in a vault along with Richard Nixon’s 1968 secret plan to end the war that actually was so secret it didn’t exist?

You’ve got to admit, it’s genius to go before Congress and push a heatlh care plan that hasn’t even been introduced as such. Then, when something else gets passed that looks like health care reform, if people like it, 0 can say, “That’s my plan!” and if they don’t like it he can say, “That wasn’t my plan!”

That’s why it’s been so bizarre that he has claimed his plan has been misrepresented by opponents, when they’ve actually been targeting the details of the Senate and House plans and haven’t been focusing on his plan–because it doesn’t exist. He has just offered repeatedly some general principles about a health care plan with no details.

He even, at one point, said, “As soon as I sign this bill …” WHAT BILL?? WHICH OF THE HALF DOZEN BILLS ARE YOU GOING TO SIGN??? WHICH ONE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

Talk about a moving target.

I’ve never seen such a brazen lack of political leadership in my life. I knew this guy was unfit to govern, but I didn’t think he’d be unfit  even to lead his own party.

2. He talked about an individual mandate to buy insurance, although he didn’t use those words, instead pushing a “requirement.” But he didn’t mention fines at all that I can remember. That’s just cowardice. At least Sen. Max Baucus is honest when he proposes up to a $3,800 fine for those who don’t have insurance. Of course, standing before a joint session of Congress and the American people at the same time and telling them they’re going to be fined for not having health insurance isn’t the kind of thing I’d want to do, either.

3. On individual and employer mandates: “Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.”

We’re all socialists now. 

4. The false argument (different from the false dichotomy that if you’re not for his plan, whatever that is, you’re against health care reform) was brought out once again that the federal government requiring you to buy health insurance is no different than states requiring drivers to buy liability car insurance.

There’s a big difference. 

The states own the highways and streets and give individuals who meet certain criteria a license to drive on those highways and streets. We do not have a “right” to drive; we are granted that privilege by the state by meeting certain standards. The states thus are completely within their rights to require that people who drive on those highways and streets that the state owns carry a certain amount of insurance, most frequently insurance that would pay for damage to another person’s vehicle.

But if you don’t own a car, you don’t have to have liability insurance, although the car you’re driving best have it.

The individual mandate or mandatory insurance is a different cat altogether. Just by existing, you are required to have health insurance under the proposals out there, as well as under, apparently, 0’s “plan.” That’s like requiring the person who has never had a driver’s license or owned a car to have liability insurance for their vehicle. Everybody will have to be covered in one way or another or they will face a fine which, under Sen. Baucus’ new proposal, could range up to $3,800 for a family.

Plus, it’s up to the states to decide what they want to do regarding car insurance requirements, but 0 wants to make it a national requirement that we all have health insurance.

Now, I’m not that bright of a guy, but even I can figure out the difference between mandatory health insurance and mandatory car insurance. But our president can’t? Oy.

Or is 0 trying to subtly tell us that the government owns our bodies like the states own the streets? Ah … crazy like a fox, this 0ne.

5. This was one of the more entertaining speeches to a joint session of Congress that I’ve seen. A couple times, I thought 0 was going to come down from the podium and take on some of the Republicans who were jeering him. That would have been more interesting than seeing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Biden stand up and sit down a lot. At one point, somebody from Obama’s left yelled something and briefly caught his attention. And I loved the laughter when 0 admitted that, well, some details needed to be “ironed out.” Not that he was looking for laughs, but he got them anyway.

6. I counted at least twice that he dumped responsibility for the current health care problems, or some kind of problems, on the Bush administration.

Hey, 0, LET IT GO, dude. You won. Now it’s your deal. Live with it. Forget the past; it is prologue. Or something like that.

Honestly.

I wasn’t that fond of Bush II. Voted for him once, didn’t twice. I think he messed up a lot of things. But 0 has been president for eight months now. Does he have to beat that particular dead horse all the time?

And pointing out the cost of his health care plan–whichever one it is–is less than the cost of the Iraq war makes the point that … what? That it’s OK to spend more billions of dollars foolishly? Didn’t he just get done chastising Bush II for doing just that?

Note to 0: Review logic class notes.

7. Oh, and he said that abortion wouldn’t be paid for under his plan, whichever one that is, apparently even if it’s the plan with abortion coverage in it. Actually, he maneuvered that one nicely. He said that abortions wouldn’t be paid for by “federal dollars.” Didn’t say anything about the premiums paid into the public option paying for them, though. Maybe he considers the premiums and federal dollars to be the same things.

While listening to President Obama’s speech on health care to Congress Wednesday night and reading reaction to it, I kept on going back to the past eight years of inactivity during the Bush II administration.

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, for instance, said this, according to National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog:

“When it comes to health care, Americans don’t want the government to tear down the system we have and build an even bigger, government-run system that adds massive spending and debt. They want us to repair it. Republicans have offered many specific plans to do just that—commonsense proposals that could attract strong bipartisan support in Congress and overwhelming support from the American people. It’s not too late for the White House to join us in using these ideas as the basis of reforms that Americans actually want.” (Ital mine.)

Well, fine and dandy, summer sandy, but why didn’t you do that eight years ago when you had control of Congress and the White House?!? Sure, Obama’s being as partisan as can be while claiming that he isn’t, but congressional Republicans coming up now with “many specific plans … commonsense proposals” just looks like what it is–reactionary. If Obama’s and the Democrats’ victories last fall hadn’t set up their control of the WH and Congress and opened the door for the Ted Kennedy-Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Health Care Bill, then I doubt very much the Republicans would be doing anything with this.

Not that some of their proposals aren’t valuable; they are. But they’re late, and voters aren’t going to take them seriously.

And congressional Democrats sure aren’t going to take them seriously.

David Axelrod of the White House sent out an e-mail today in which he says that

we’ve launched a new online resource — WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck — to help you separate fact from fiction and share the truth about health insurance reform.

That’s good that there will be a more unified White House approach to defining what health care insurance reform looks like to the Obama admin.

However, it’s also pretty presumptive.

It assumes what a bill that arrives on the president’s desk to sign or veto will look like. What if a bill arrives that does mess with veterans’ benefits or obviously will limit the type of insurance or coverage or what have you? Does that mean Obama will veto it?

With his track record of keeping to promises, I doubt it.