Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bravo Jake Tapper: Pushing President Obama On His Absurd Assurances About “Keeping Your Plan”
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


President Obama is selling snake oil. The “government option” at the heart of his proposed radical restructuring of American medicine –now renamed the “public plan” to ease its acceptance by a public rightly wary of government-run anything much less the health care system they depend upon for life itself-- is a giant time-bomb intended to level the health insurance system in America.

The president and his allies in Congress know that the vast majority of Americans like their health insurance and will resist any attempt by the government to interfere with it.

Special offer: Hugh Hewitt's book free when you subscribe to Townhall Magazine

So the president blandly assures everyone who will listen that the “government option/public plan” will not interfere with their current health insurance if they don’t want it to.

President Obama made that assurance last Monday before the AMA.

And he made it again in his press conference yesterday, assuring a reporter and the White House press corps assembled that “the public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies.”

“What we've said is,” he continued, “under our proposal, let's have a system, the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where we call it an exchange, but you can call it a marketplace, where, essentially, you've got a whole bunch of different plans.”

And then the kicker:

“If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer's providing you good health insurance, terrific. We're not going to mess with it.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper has been doing his homework, and when his turn came he first asked if the government option/public plan was “non-negotiable, and after the president did a bit of deflection, Tapper came right back to the core issue. The exchange is very important, so it is reproduced here at length:

TAPPER: And, while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan and the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans, and may, possibly, benefit from some government subsidies, who knows.

And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you're promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.

So...

MR. OBAMA: OK. You're pitching; I'm catching.

TAPPER: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

MR. OBAMA: I got the question.

First of all, was the reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: No.

MR. OBAMA: All right. I just wanted to make sure. No?

TAPPER: Never make fun of you (inaudible).

MR. OBAMA: In answer to David's question, which you co-opted, we are still early in this process. So, you know, we have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are under-insured. You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed.

There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say that.

Right now, I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.

Now, let me go to the -- the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete.

If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we?

And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that.

Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we've suggested is that, if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we're going to have some different rules for all insurance companies, one of them being that you can't preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. You can't cherry-pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies. Because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there; health care is there when families need it.

But, you know, I'm confident that, if -- you know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families.

And if that's the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case, then I think that that's something that the American people should know.

TAPPER: I'm sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won't have to change plans even if employers...

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: Well, all right -- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan -- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, "Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can't afford it. It's too complicated. Let's take our time," et cetera.

So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.

Margaret from McClatchy? Where's Margaret? There you go.

Note that the president cut Tapper off when Tapper got down to the core issue, then the president dissembled, and then the president called on someone else.

Tapper was trying to raise the most obvious question of all: The president has promised the American people over and over again that they can keep their health insurance if they like it, but it is quite simply enormously and purposely deceptive of him to do so.

The president has to change the subject, has to dissemble and deflect, because the truth, if understood by Americans, will doom the centerpiece of his takeover of American medicine.

Tapper pointed out that employers provide insurance to most Americans, and if the federal government offers employers a cheaper way to provide health insurance, vast numbers of those employers will dump their employees into that government system.

The government won’t force the employers to switch, but employers will switch, and the president’s promise will be as bogus as a three dollar bill. When this massive disruption occurs, President Obama will stand back and say he had nothing to do with it –that employers made the switch.

Even if Americans then see through this giant bait-and-switch and blame the president, it will be too late. Once leveled the health insurance industry will be too crippled to reconstitute itself as a competitor to the government option/public plan. Millions of Americans and their premiums will have been transferred by their employers to the government rolls, including millions of Americans in the public sector whose local governments will not be able to resist the lure of the savings that comes from off-loading the teachers, cops and firefighters onto the federal plan.

This is not what federal employees and Congress have right now, by the way –another practiced bit of deceptive rhetoric regularly rolled out by the president. What they have is the FEHB –the Federal Employees Health Benefits system, which is a very nice fringe benefit but which is definitely not a government insurance plan but rather a collective of hundreds of private sector plans from which federal employees can chose. This crucial distinction is apparently lost on the MSM which never questions this sleight of hand either.

As many times as the president repeats these deceptions, members of the press corps should press him on it.

When he dodges, they ought to double down as Tapper did today.

When he cuts them off, the next reporter should not facilitate the deception but should continue the line of questioning until the president is forced to explain how the he can back a radical plan that will force millions of Americans to lose their current health plan and see it replaced with an inferior plan and yet not admit to what he is pushing.

The American people will not support this plan if they understand it. The MSM’s job is to bring attention to this deception. The fact that the president is doing the best he can to avoid answering the question would have been an irresistible cue to White House press corps of old.

Sadly for Americans in danger of getting head-faked out of their existing health insurance plans which they value, this new president has thus far charmed or intimidated almost all of the media into acquiescing in the enormous whopper which is his description of the government option/public plan. We have to hope that Jake Tapper’s push-back was the first of many and from many sources.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Truth
Thanks for getting the truth out. Now help get more of the truth out by giving us some more information. Of course the government will undercut the private plans and employers will jump at the savings. Remember if the public plan falls short of funds there is always a new tax they can impose or an existing one they can raise. Private insurance has no such option. This all plays into Obama's hand. He has always wanted a single payer system controlled by the government. He will surely achieve this in no time. We are being manipulated again. This time it is too important to overlook.

No public option
The congress and president sound like they have a plan identical to the one Obama is proposing, without the interference of the "public option", subsidized by tax payers. How convenient for them.

How long will it be before Obama is talking about the number of people who are newly insured or have been saved from losing their insurance (saved or created, part II?).

Too little, too late
As we can see by his answer, Obama is duplicitious and a liar. This would have been evident during the Democrat primaries had Tapper done his job a year ago. Now we have a radical socialist in the WH, and Tapper has finally decided be a credible reporter. Whoop-de-friggin'-doo.

"F" them all.

Bravo:
Kudos to Jake Tapper, the only honest reporter left in the mainstream media today. Keep up the good work, Jakie!!!!

absolute truth
Obama is playing smoke and mirrors. This is why he is pushing all his plans through so fast one "crisis" after another. While the MSM is still on a honeymoon with him and he has the support of a democratic congress to push these problematic agendas through without any oversight.
This health care bill will drive out all private insurance, provide less care because it will be based upon "cost effectiveness" vs patients rights. You can't sue the government.
Already they have destroyed Medicare and cut back on elderly benefits. when the boomers start collecting it will really crash.
not to mention the 20 million aliens that he is trying to get covered. Another bill is trying to give them all amnistey and allow them to become citizens. who will pay for them?
We will that is who.

Split Screen for Obama Press Conferences
Obama's press conferences are predictable and boring.

What would make it much more interesting would be to show a split screen with Obama, and the audience--aka "news reporters" and "journalists".

That way we the viewers--instead of just hearing the constant roars of applause, laughter, and praise--could see the individual media faces of tears, joy, and awe--as they question and collect their hard-hitting news stories for the day.

not so cheap
If the so called "public Plan" can cut administrative costs it will be the first time in the history of the U.S that the Federal Govt has been able to do so...with all the extra baggage to be carried, I find this incredibly unbelieveable.

Who says?
I bristle everytime I hear this. Who put him in charge? I've had health insurance all my life without any president's permission.

Rallies at ABC
There are rallies at most ABC affiliates across the country today to protest the collusion of the media and socialized healthcare.

I'm going along with several others to Denver. Anybody else? We stand together now, or we hang separately.

Jake is the Man
Fresh air, as good as it gets, american journalism. Often maligned, not dead yet.

Thank you Jake
At least somebody is asking sustantive questions.He is at least showing some semblance of objectivity.How long until Barry O.bans him from the White house or ABC exiles him to a beat in Siberia?

Another "crisis" gov can't waste
I am SICK of hearing people talk about the healthcare "crisis" in America.

THERE IS NO CRISIS. THERE IS NO CRISIS. Yes, there are challenges, but every problem or challenge does not make a crisis.

If you want to see a REAL crisis, not one manufactured by politicians to advance their agenda, go to Patients United Now and watch the videos of those in Europe and Canada who are dying or would have died because of their nationalized health care. NOW THAT IS A REAL CRISIS.

It is absolutely shocking that those running the health care systems in these countries can sleep at night. It's shocking and it's sickening.

I don't want any stinking government running my medical care. You can keep it!!

Obama's Hellcare...
Obama's Hellcare...just say NO!

i

Are you still shilling for american
intervention in Iran now, Hewitt?

You are a freaking dangerous neo-con, Hewitt. STAY THE FREAK OUT OF THE IRAN DISCUSSION. You'd have every one of those brave protesters dead if it meant the neo-con agenda were pushed forward.

You're a dangerous partisan, Hugh, verging on anti-americanism

And the way you unscrupulously go after the President ON PRACTICALLY EVERY ISSUE.


Your career deserves to tank, Hugh.

You've turned your radio show into a fast-taliking sleasy propoganda machine. You help to poison the country's political dialogue.

will
The only thing you are really lacking is the slightest bit of intelligence. The fact that you love Obama so much that you want to marry him does not mean that he is right. The fact that everyone who disagrees with your beloved god should not be able to voice their opinions shows how little you care about democracy or freedom. There are places for you to go live where you will feel much more comfortable. Try N Korea, or Iran, or Cuba.

Support Tapper
I agree that Tapper is Johnny-Come-Lately in pressing oBUMa, however, we should all encourage him to do more of it... for as long as he can until oBUMa bans him from the people's White House.

Take a minute and send Tapper an e-mail letting him know you appreciate his work on exposing oBUMa's lies and deceptions about single-payer socialist health care.

snake oil selling
One of our major problems with the MSM and the President is that they believe that they can become elite and help the president "rule" this country. Its sickening to watch and I (an average guy and taxpayer) hope that they all go belly up and everybody that works for them are out of a job. I see no useful purpose of such a biased organization. Wait until the public gets a wiff of the MSM wanting to get TARP money because their business has failed. Could be kind of messy but its definitely coming!

HEY, BIG SPENDER
I have voted for eight different Presidents in my life and have never seen such spending as this president and congress are doing.

Questions to all Liberals and Democrats: Do you care about the financial condition you are putting this country in? Do you even look at the facts and figures or is it just your vision of Utopia?

Hewitt missed it
Obama did not dodge the point, he answered it effectively.

What Tapper is pointing to is a feature of the current system, namely that since most people get their health insurance through their employer, their health insurance can change if their employer decides to change it. As Obama points out in his response, one of the options that employers currently have is to drop coverage altogether on the grounds that it is too expensive.

Companies that want to retain employees will be limited in how much they can cut the quantity and quality of insurance. But the public option only represents a new problem if it is better than the private options and so the private companies cannot compete. But the private insurance market can offer cheaper plans that do not cover as much if they like. And companies can insist that their employees take those plans if they want (or get another job) under the current system.

Obama's answer is very much to the point, and shows that Hewitt has not really thought his objection through.

First deflect to "me" then dont answer
First Obama asks if the Spock comment is about his ears. Very clever way to try to knock Tapper down. Did not work.

Then he rambles on about nonsense. Obama is a liar, and a bad one at that when he is off prompter.

Wake up America, NO GOVT HEALTHCARE OPTION.

Obama said
"you're pitching and I'm catching". Is that a reference similar to tea-bagging?

LON - PA @ 10:31
Your remarks prove the very point why so many oppose Obama's Healthcare Plan:
"As Obama points out in his response, one of the options that employers currently have is to drop coverage altogether on the grounds that it is too expensive."

Right Lon, The government undercuts premiums and in two years our healthcare system becomes a one payer system, the US government dictates what and when we receive treatment.

"Companies that want to retain employees will be limited in how much they can cut the quantity and quality of insurance."

Great plan Lon, who wants a plan, public or private, that is considering how much to cut the quantity and quality of health insurance.?

"But the private insurance market can offer cheaper plans that do not cover as much if they like."

Of course Lon, No one will want cheaper plans that do not cover all of their healthcare needs. Another reason that people will be forced to move to the public healthcare system with rationed healthcare.

"And companies can insist that their employees take those plans if they want (or get another job) under the current system."

Great idea Lon, when unemployment is expected to reach over 10%.

You have to agree with Obama even when it is a contradiction.

Lon in PA
I don't think you've thought it through either.

You can't keep the health insurance and the doctor you like... if your employer changes to the "Public Plan"... and they will.

The only way people will actually keep their current health care plan and their preferred doctor is if they can afford private insurance... regardless of their employer... e.g., the rich.

And those elderly on strictly on Social Security and Medicare will automatically go on this plan because they can't afford anything else.

And they call Bill Clinton, "slick Willie". Obama is more than slick, he's cunning.

Its actually quite simple
Ill give them my health care after they Fix

Social Security
VA
Medicare
Medicade
PostOffice
Amtrack
Tax System
so on and so on....
*****
Why would anyone give the GOV more control, when every single thing it runs, it runs poorly?

*******

Also what ever plan they decide on, it should require all members of the Congress and Executive branch use or resign (i prefer jail time actually). Given that its a great option, they should be forced to use it.


"You Know,....You Know..."

JAKE TAPPER?! I am stunned and amazed.

And very happy about it.

GO! Jake Tapper. Finally. Expose that truth!

"...bogus as a three dollar bill"
more like a three trillion dollar bill.

btw LON: "But the private insurance market can offer cheaper plans that do not cover as much if they like." Not necessarily. You'd be amazed at how much insurance companies are REQUIRED to cover. Case in point: about 20 yrs ago, a friend and I had a two-person company and we decided to get a small group plan. Two single MEN. No carrier was legally allowed to sell us a plan that excluded pregnancy/maternity benefits! Somehow I seriously doubt that state legislators have cut back on their meddling in recent years...

Competitive solution?
I think we are all in favor of decreasing health care costs but we fear the inevitable hidden cost of an inefficient government provider backed by the seizure of taxes from its constituency. There is an easy solution that will never be thought of, let alone enacted, in our legislature - no tax revenues may be used in the running of the government- sponsored insurance provider. Set up the "company" as a not-for-profit entity and allow it to compete for customers. Use the ultra-large set of government employees (Congress included, that you very much) as an automatic base of customers to eliminate the slow burn-in period of attracting clients. The competition will force the govt provider to provide real service while allowing free-market firms to be more creative about how they offer their own services in the midst of a low cost provider. Everyone wins and we don't had over additional debt to our (grand) children.

Reba
Your response suggests a confusion on your part. All of the things that you were portraying as an evil of the Obama plan are actually things that are allowed under the current system.

The one exception is that you think that the public plan will uniquely be able to undercut the private ones in a way that private plans cannot do now, but you do not give any reason for this. Why should a government plan be so much more efficient than a private plan? After all efficiency is supposed to be one of the pluses of the free market.

Right now, if you are employed, your employer is comparing different health care plans that are offered and deciding what is the cheapest one that offers enough coverage to keep employers happy. If a public plan is added, employers will do the same thing only with this one other choice available. Why do you think this public plan will be so much better than the private ones, and if it is so much better why do you not want to have it?

Note that one difference is that with the health care plans being proposed, one actually would have more portability with health care which means one would not lose as much by switching jobs, so you would benefit greatly in that respect as well.

Patricia
As I mentioned Obama answers your point in the exchange above. Currently if your employer switches to a plan that does not include your doctor, then you cannot keep your current plan and your current doctor either. So what you are pointing to as a feature of the public plan already currently exists.

The proposals for a public plan currently being considered are insurance plans rather than medical systems (Medicare rather than the VA) so the situation will be the same. If your doctor is signed up with the public plan and your employer switches to the public plan then you will be able to keep your doctor.

Maybe the public plan will be one that does not include your doctor. But maybe doing nothing while the cost of health insurance increases will lead your company to go with a cheaper plan that does not include your doctor.

But the point is that there is nothing in the inclusion of a public plan that makes you more likely to have to change your doctor than under the do nothing plan, or the plan without a public plan.

I can understand why someone who gets their information from Hewitt would be scared in this way, which is what makes his breathless, but misleading, reporting unfortunate. But there is no greater threat from a public plan than from the status quo or a system with no public plan. There is likely to be significant savings in health care which allows for more people to be covered at a higher level.

DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!!
I was shocked at how few answers Obama had for Obama-care on June 24! It was as if he had decreed a new health care program for the US, and that was it!! What really disturbed me was his rather unemotional discussion of ceasing tests and treatments for those who are elderly and ‘terminal’. He even had the audacity to use his own grandmother as an example!! Are we seeing an Obama
Euthanasia program in the plans – a plan by which he can save MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY payments with ‘one stone’??

Is this the kind of medical care you want in the future – from your ‘Friendly Government’??
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-va -hospital-error,0,2658719.story

I can now understand why many doctors – true to the
Hippocratic Oath – are looking to change careers.

FOLKS, WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED!! WHERE IS AARP??


Lon - Naive or dishonest?
Your assessment of the government/public plan is almost silly. A plan that is backed with taxpayer money and is run by the same people who will regulate the entire health insurance industry will sink real health insurers that employ hundreds of thousands of people. And it won't be because the govt plan won on a level playing field - it will be because the government put them out of business intentionally. Do you really believe what you're saying?

Liberal DEMs & Public Option
An under reported story in the public option debate is the LIB/DEM base is not enthused about the public option because it would be an option. These folks ( the Obama "net roots") are expecting a Euro/Canadian style single payer nationalized healthcare program that eliminates all private healthcare. They are furious that the proposed public option plans will still leave many people without health care. They are livid that BHO is seeming to back away from universal coverage and only interested in containing cost of private care via a public option. For the LIB DEMs, the public option is not an acceptable option. I expect these folks to assert themselves any day now by demanding a single payer program in the face of the Senate dead lock on the public option. MoveOn and DailyKos not withstanding. Ironically the forum for the LIB DEMs wil be the DNC Organizing for America organization which was created to build support for BHO policies.

Very Very Good Article
Thanks Hugh for writing up this article. It opened up my eyes to what is really going on.

I must admit it is easy to get smoke screened by Obama's words. I am glad there are people like Hugh who clear things up.

What do you expect
from Obama, the liar and thief.

Remeber;
OBAMA = (O)ne (B)ig (A)$$ (M)istake (A)merica

Lon come on...
Lon,

Your quote:
"As I mentioned Obama answers your point in the exchange above. Currently if your employer switches to a plan that does not include your doctor, then you cannot keep your current plan and your current doctor either. So what you are pointing to as a feature of the public plan already currently exists."

No, I go buy a plan that does cover my current doctor as they are available from other insurance providers.

Ever heard of the free market, i.e. the place that gives you more than one option.

Nice try.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place...
Being one of the millions of Americans without Health Insurance... I'm frustrated by all the double-talk... What's needed isn't a new "Plan " for health-care... But strict regualtions on rates... c'mon the insurance companies have been raking us over the coals for years... which is why my employer bailed on health-insurance in the first palce... unless you have a certain amount of hours per week... which they promptly cut to avoid paying-up... The flip-side of that is I live in a State where health-insurance is required by all residents... whithout which you are fined for being between the rock of a mandate and the hard-place of limited funds. So do I go for the free ride the State offers... or do I keep my dignity and refuse to be a ward of the State... I'll pay the fines... but I'd rather have affordable health-insurance... and that's where a lot of us live on this issue... we don't want "Big Brother" taking care of us, thank you... we simply want the crooks held accountable... is that too much to ask... Mike

reeves
You are right that under the current system if your employer switches to a new plan that does not include your doctor you could buy a different insurance plan that does include your doctor.

Under the Obama plan your option would isntead be to buy a diffent insurance plan that does include your doctor.

If you want to show that things would get worse under the Obama plan you need to point to something that is possible under the current system that would not be possible under the Obama plan. I kind of took it for granted that that was obvious and so did not point out other options that would exist either way.

MJ
How will the public plan do what you say it will? Certainly government can do things like you say, but what is it about the Obama proposal that would make that happen?

Is the argument just premised on the idea that Obama is evil? There is nothing in his actual proposal that would have the consequences that you suggests. In fact it is unlikely that the same people would be administering the regulations that are running the public plan. But certainly if what you are advocating is some kind of separation of the two functions, then that seems like a good idea.

CRISIS! CRISIS! CRISIS!
Everytime the government mentions the word "crisis," I hold onto my wallet with both hands. You would be wise to do the same. When the government mentions the word 'crisis,' the crisis is that they are after more of our money.

The "public option" is a smokescreen
The fundamental issue is that health care, like public education, is a 3-party system. Instead of the direct accountability built into the 2-party system involving only the buy and seller to each transaction, a third party middleman is injected into the mix. In "govspeak" the 3rd party is the "payer" and the buyer and seller are renamed consumer and provider.
The interference of the 3rd party allows for shenanigans to enter the equation. Pols are bribed with support during elections so that their votes will benefit one party or the other, thereby disrupting the normal accountability inherent in any 2-party system.
In health care, the 3rd party is employer paid insurance. In education it is government via local property taxpayers. In housing, it has been the transforming of mortgages into securities, thus killing any possiblity of holding anyone directly accountable - as was heretofore the case when local banks held the mortgage. And in energy, it will be the "crap and trade" hustlers.
Obama's "public option" is simply a way for his pols to get in on the act, though he claims it is only "logical" for the consumer to have a choice.
Well, then let him agree that a "private option" (vouchers) in education is logical also.
It's time to say, "No public option in health care without a private option in education.

Health care FINANCING problem
One of the main reasons health care is so expensive, besides cost-shifting, is frivolous lawsuits. The astronomical malpractice insurance premiums that doctors are required to pay (and pass on to patients) is obscene! Obstetricians are particularly hard hit. An Ob/Gyn malpractice premium can easily be well over $100,000 per year!

Another part of the same problem is that doctors have to practice defensive medicine (order unnecessary tests) to cover all the bases a rapacious, unprincipled lawyer might exploit. Tort reform that takes out the ambulance chasers would go a long way to reducing the cost of health care. Perhaps a 'loser pays' system that includes the lawyers' personal wealth might work.

We don't have a health care problem in this country. We have a health care FINANCING problem, primarily due to fifty years of government involvement and unprincipled, rapacious lawyers! A pox on both their houses!

free market competition, Chicago style
"Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we?"

He is stating plainly that there will be a little more free market competition--from the government! IN THE SAME BREATH he goes on to explain that the feds will have to make some new ground rules for all insurance providers!

Let's do the math:

Fed program + (a miracle happens here) = innocent free market competition

Federal regulation of free market + fed program = you get to keep your own doc and insurance!

aaaaa!




Obama the usurper IS Snake Oil...
Well, here we are AGAIN discussing usurper Obama, as if he were a REAL PRESIDENT, when in fact he doesn’t even meet the basic ELIGIBILITY requirements to BE president (not born on American soil). It’s not a small matter of him not providing a real US birth certificate when asked by the American people, it’s that HE DOESN’T HAVE ONE TO BEGiN WITH because he was BORN IN KENYA.

Which by the way, makes every bill Obama signs and every THING he DOES acting as president, iLLEGAL. And pretty much means if we let this go on we are breaking the law right along with him. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES!

Come join me and help put up another billboard around the USA:
“WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 102329

CLICK HERE TO HELP DONATE MORE BILLBOARDS ACROSS THE USA (you know, the country that requires a president be born on U.S. soil?)
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/%E2%80%A2-la test-update-on-obama-birth-certificate-case/

Hugh Flipped Out Two Days Ago
He went ballistic saying Libertarians are morons and have caused Obama and company to rise to power.

Hugh's anger is misplaced. He should blame himself for Obama's rise to power. It was Hugh and people like him who supported a war in Iraq that killed innocents while he says he opposes the killing of innocents in the womb.

This hypocrisy by Hugh and 99 percent of the GOP leadership drives independents and Libertarians away FROM the GOP.

If Hugh and the GOP leadership showed moral consistency, marginal voters would hold their noses and vote GOP.

The Libertarians are also deeply offended with the GOP's contribution to setting up a police-state here in the USA.

Change these two things and the Libertarians might give the GOP the time of day.

Hugh should be mad at himself.

Question
So, Where's the survey you talked about on your radio show today?

Dark Matter, what about the war?
Until the financial crisis, McCain was leading because the American people didn't want this a guy who claimed he would cut and run to be President. Now that he is President, how has he deviated from the path Bush was following in Iraq?

Hewitt is right. The Buchanan wing of the Republican party helped ACORN elect this guy. So you of the majority now have this liar as your President. "How is that change going"? Do you have any "hope" that this is not the Jimmah Carter II administration?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.