• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds to the Health Care Summit

    Health Care Summit

    Following the President’s health care summit, several Heritage scholars provided immediate analysis of the day’s discussion.

    Bob Moffit: The President’s Health Care Summit was an exercise in public education; it was enlightening. Particularly noteworthy was the threat of rising deficits to the nation’s future articulated by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).

    Congressional Democrats and Republicans often used similar language in describing their broad objectives: lowering the cost of care, improving the treatment of patients, and expanding coverage to more Americans.  Representatives on both sides also made it clear that they have sharply different methods of achieving these objectives. The polarization at Blair House reflected the polarization in the nation at large. But the Congressional Republicans can take solace in knowing that on the specific issue of the House and Senate health bills that they alone stand with the vast majority of their fellow Americans in opposition to these measures.

    While the President and Congressional Democrats would place more control over Americans’ health care in the hands of government officials, Congressional Republicans made it clear that they are seeking to sharply expand patients’ control over their own health care, not only in decision-making but in control of the flow of dollars in the system. Moreover, the summit showcased the President’s insistence that on advancing the same prescription for federal control enacted in the House and Senate by the Congressional leadership. The President’s own proposal, for example, builds off of the Senate bill. Thus, a number of features that many, if not most, of Americans find objectionable would be retained, including mandates on individuals and employers to buy insurance, and heavy federal control of private benefits and premiums. Congressional Democrats kept insisting on the need to impose an individual mandate on Americans to buy a government approved level of health benefits. It was also instructive that the President made some key factual errors in his exchanges with Congressional Republicans, such as the extent of the range of benefit mandates; in certain cases, he recognized these errors and corrected himself; an example was on the extent of the increase in health insurance premiums embodied in the Senate bill.

    Since the inception of the debate, it should be noted that the President insisted that his health policy agenda did not constitute a federal takeover of the health care system. In fact, it is very much a federal takeover of American health care. In the outline of his own proposal, released on Monday, the President would add to the federal powers embodied in the Senate bill. The most important would be a new Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would provide federal “assistance and oversight” to the states conducting reviews of “unreasonable rate increases” and “unfair practices” of health insurance plans. This, of course, establishes for the first time a legislative basis for the imposition of price controls on health insurance. If government can control both health benefits and health care pricing, that’s the proverbial ball game. Private health care would be “private” in name only.

    Ed Haislmaier: The overriding reality behind this summit is that both the public and the politicians come to the table divided not over the details but rather over the basic approach to health reform. In his comments, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) highlighted three of those major divisions — comprehensive legislation versus incremental legislation, starting over versus pressing ahead with the bills passed in House and Senate in December, and a decentralized approach versus a centralized federal solution.  Today’s debate showed few indications of a willingness by the President or the Congressional leadership to alter their basic approach.  Though the summit served to highlight the fact that both parties are in favor of reform, differing only in their opinions on how to achieve it, the direction of the health care debate is unlikely to deviate from the course it has taken for the past year as a result of today’s discussion.

     

    Nina Owcharenko: In order for the summit to have been successful, Democrats should have scrapped the House and Senate bills, along with the President’s proposal, all to which the American people have shown clear opposition.  Simply adjusting the magnitude of these proposals or adding new “conservative” provisions as suggested in the President’s latest proposal does not change their fundamental direction.

    As Yuval Levin, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and founding Editor of National Affairs, has explained, the crucial differences between Congress and the nation at large are not differences in degree; they are differences in policy direction.  Most Americans want problems in the health insurance markets fixed, but they do not want a federal takeover of the health care sector of the economy. Regrettably, the cornerstone elements of these proposals would put more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats and politicians. Instead, Congress and the Administration should pursue bipartisan reforms that give Americans greater personal control of their health care decisions.  If the President and Congress were sincere about achieving bipartisanship, they should have set aside these highly unpopular proposals and shifted direction by taking an incremental approach to health care reform: one that puts health care reform on a path toward empowering individuals and families to control more of the financing and delivery of health care.

    James Capretta: The White House was hoping their summit meeting would create momentum among Democrats to push their bill through the Congress.  That momentum almost certainly does not exist.

    Nothing fundamental changed today.  A strong majority of Americans is dead set against enactment of the bills Congress has been developing.  They are rightfully concerned about the risks that a large and expensive new entitlement program will pose for future tax rates and deficits.  They want Congress to go much more slowly and make sure that whatever is done improves matters and doesn’t make things worse.

    At various points, participants admitted there is a fundamental difference between the sides on solutions.  But they didn’t particularly describe the competing ideas very well.  What it comes down to is this:  what process can be put in place to improve the efficiency of the health sector.  The Democrats believe in governmental management of costs.  Republicans believe in a functioning marketplace.  That’s why the summit is not very likely to produce much in securing common ground.

    Cross-posted at The Daily Caller

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    53 Responses to Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds to the Health Care Summit

    1. Michael, Japan says:

      So typical – democrats call for "bipartisanship", which boils down to, "ok, you guys cave in and do what we want to do."

    2. Bobbie Jay says:

      Mr. President, what do you call it, when you and the weak minded are the only ones that want your plan? In your position, I call that a take-over.

      Jason Lewis just said it best. "Doing the wrong thing is not better then doing nothing at all."

    3. Shirley Wilkie - Mec says:

      The President was definitely campaigning again – just think, he wants to appoint a commision (Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority) and of course the cost of this is not factored into the cost of plan. I suppose he will then appoint another Czar so he can overrule them if he doesn't like what they do. We will NEVER lower the cost of medical care unless we have tort reform. There are far too many people who think the way to get rich is sue the rich doctors and far too many lawyers willing to help them do so. Also, the states should retain the right to monitor their own health care programs. I deeply resent the way the President is trying to nationalize everything in America and do not want the government telling doctors and hospitals how much they can be paid. Many hospitals are already in deep financial trouble and we don't have enough doctors now. This will exacerbate the problem.

    4. Barbara F Delo says:

      Perhaps Senator John Kyl said it best, "This Bill hurts the very people we are trying to help."

      It's easy to see why. The most likely outcome of a President Obama's planned Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority, a government control of rates, will be economic rationing of care. We also saw other evidence at today's Healthcare Summit that the plan will lead to inferior care in mention of restricting doctors from repeating tests if needed, community health centers/clinics for basic care, and cuts from Medicare.

      On the upbeat side, the Republicans were focused, and offered a well thought out incremental approach that actually addressed the real problems WITHOUT creating an expensive bureaucratic monster! And their plan leaves the people and their doctors in charge!

    5. John Clancy, Wyandot says:

      Central to good management is the idea of subsidiarity. Our leaders at the federal, state, and local levels need to keep this principle in mind when looking at managing our healthcare system. The closer decision making is done near the patient the better. Contrariwise, the farther away, the worse.

      This principle applies in education as well: the more personal we can make it, the better. The Dept. of Educ. was formed in Washington in the Carter years. Through it, and various acts of congress, BILLIONS of federal tax dollars were spent in the City of Detroit during the 60's and 70's to improve education.

      The results are clear: the government schools (I worked in them during those years) failed to teach the students. Involvement by the federal government in matters that belong at the local level violates the principle of subsidiarity and diminishes the people.

      Our founding fathers were profoundly aware of the value of this principle and the need to apply it for a government of the people, by the people , for the people.

      President Obama's, and those who concur in it his vision, have no sense of the value of subsidiarity. This situation has very negative ramifications for our country.

    6. Pingback: The News Factor, an informative online Conservative News Magazine » Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds to the Health Care Summit

    7. Dave in Scottsdale says:

      Todays "Bipartisan Show" only demonstrated that Insurance and Tort reform need to be done, and the current Obama and Democrat majority direction needs to be abandoned and restarted from scratch. Incremental improvement is a far better approach for our economy and America.

    8. Lester W. Levi, Sr. says:

      Satirically speaking. There was no advocate for people whose income is less than a hundred thousand dollars; namely, no "Joe the Plumber". I would guess that all the participants are millionaires. I am aware that there are plenty of members of Congress who listen to their constituents: Cooper, Alexander e.g.. I listened to appeals of unusual hardship cases-mostly from Democrats I gather. Emotions are used as a device. There are many "Joes" out there that need to be heard-they aren't dumb or inexperienced in the ways of Man.

      I'm just a retired school teacher; forgive me for sounding so "brass".

    9. Daniel Wenzel Cedar says:

      I watch the entire show today, and as stated within I too didn't see any movement form the Dem's on anyone issue that is any of there HCR bills, The Dems are dead set on passing this however they know that there stuck between a rock and a hard place if they do or don't pass hits monstrosity of a Bill against the wishes of the American People !! They also think the we as Americans are not smart enough to full understand this HCR Bill, Well there right cause they themselves do not understand it and that was apart of there plan, hoping the American People would not spend the time to read the Bill unlike all Democrats who even publicly said, "John conyers "Why read the bill, when you need 2 lawyers to read 2,000 pages" the mentality of the Democrats today is appalling to say the least, and I for one if I were a Democrat would be embarrassed to own up to being a Democrat. Not withstanding both parties have been out of control for the last 2 decades with spending, and power struggles in and out of there respective party and the days of reckoning have come to ahead and there gig's are up.

      We only have to look at a few states who's election have been a hard referendum on BO policy and the Dem's unwilling power trip and here again we had Mr. Joe Biden when in the Senate saying he hope to God that his party didn't repeat the same power trip as his counter parts did during the 90's. We all live in hard times today though some not so much as others but were all Americans and at the end of the day we help one another and party should never come between being a American, but should those days ever reappear it's time to rethink how we have acted both personally and politically and as we all should know as well, History does repeat itself every once in awhile and the time is near for history to repeat once again !!!

    10. Marly says:

      Charlie Rose had a panel discussion about the Health Care Summit and provided some interesting insight. Marly
      http://www.healthstrong.org

    11. Pingback: Taking In The Summit – Blog Watch

    12. Sheila, MD says:

      How is it that many of you can insist the American people are against the proposed HCR? You do not speak for me! I see it as a necessary. I think the people who don't want government intervention are people like you and the Congressional Republicans at the summit, that are folks who currently have comprehensive health care.

      I didn't see any politician in the summit who were willing to give up their current plans, but yet they say other Americans shouldn't have what they have. People need help NOW! What can't you folks with health care understand about that?

    13. SB Owner Springfield says:

      Only Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the merry gang of Democrats could sit their with smug elitist grins saying; we can add 30 million people to insurance rolls, expand Medicaid, improve care, and it will SAVE money. Say hello to Alice while you're down the rabbitt hole.

      Thank God the Republicans went prepared. Obama couldn't answer questions read directly from the bill, which he accused Ryan of using as a 'prop'.

      The 2700 page bill may look like a 'prop', but in reality it is a 'crock'!

      A progressive dream come true. Will Obama order reconciliation? You bet, the statists have never been this close to socializing our Republic, ever.

      Pray Democrats fail at this endeavor.

    14. Fever says:

      Sheila:

      Let me spell it out for you, HCR stands care for Health Care Reform. This is a misnomer for Obama's plan has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with rich and middle class providing free health insurance to the less fortunate. By the way, because politicians get something for free on the public dole does that mean all citizens should also be entitled to million dollar travel budgets, pensions, high salaries, health insurance, etc.? It's a dream world your living in where money grows on trees and deficits don't mean anything. starvethemachine.net

    15. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Transparency or not, a nationalized takeover of healthcare is still a nationalized takeover. My strong recommendation to "Mr. President" is to unplug those big ears and host a summit for the governors of the union's 50 independent states. The only thing demanding reform by the U.S. Congress is itself. Health care has always been and remains a state issue. The nation's legislature needs to pass a constitutional amendment forever banning their own interference into "… the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people". For the uninformed and reckless, the country's instruction manual is titled The Federalist by James Madison.

    16. Concerned, Mequon WI says:

      You heard Obama say taking baby steps will not get you to the end result. Apparently it is all or nothing with him. Paul Ryan spelled out the "smoke and mirrors" in this bill. We all see how this bill will cost more and the Democrats can't show how it will cost less. Baby steps will achieve something rather than nothing at all. The Democrats have had over a year to hash this out behind closed doors and now – after 6 hours – they want the Republicans to accept their way. Arrogant.

    17. Robert VA says:

      Nina captured it perfectly quoting Yuval Levin: …. crucial differences between Congress and the nation at large are not differences in degree; they are differences in policy direction.

      What are the underlying principles for Health Care Reform? Are the American people going to be left in a room with a smock while the Doctors stand out in the hallway making decisions? I don't think so.

    18. Jill, California says:

      Sheila, while there may be good arguments on both sides of the issue, the tipping point for me is my own experience with government-run healthcare.

      I was injured in the line of duty as a volunteer firefighter. When the County illegally denied my Workers' Comp claim, it started a three-year nightmare that resulted in permanent damage to my knee, tens of thousands of dollars in lost income, and a tremendous unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers in the financially desperate state of California.

      The claims adjuster in my case committed a felony by making fraudulent statements to deny my claim. You and I would be thrown in jail for committing fraud to illegally obtain medical benefits. But there's no punishment for government workers who deny care by breaking the law.

      If you think the insurance companies are bad … and we all know they can be … try going up against the government when the government breaks the law. You can't complain to consumer protection agencies, like you can if an insurance company does something wrong. And you can't sue the government unless the government gives you permission to do so.

      Putting government in charge of our healthcare is like letting the inmates run the prison. We need healthcare reform. No one questions that. But Obamacare is a clear path from the frying pan to the fire. Never be fooled into thinking otherwise.

    19. Normca says:

      For those who do not have health insurance and think you want it. Go buy it now yourselves.Have you seen all the TV adds for insurance plans? I do not want to pay for you, seniors do not want to pay for you. Please just go help yourself. S Chip anyone ? Or continue your reliance on others and go to a MacDonalds and sue for hot coffee.

    20. Gary Asson - Eagle, says:

      The President, Pelosi, Reid and the others at the head table listened but they didn't hear what was being said by the well prepared Republicans. The Administration is so totally arogant that they simply believe no one in the country can think as comprehensively as they. It is a sad trait for people in power to think that they are so much better prepared, so much more intelligent, so much more aware of the facts they attempt to impose their power over those who they believe are inferior. The meeting yesterday was a clear indication that the health bill should never be passed. It is wrong. It is expensive. It cannot be managed properly. The entire bill is based on flawed principles and supported by those who want Americans to believe that the Administration has all the answers, WHICH THEY DO NOT. I am completely and irreversably sickened by their arogance.

    21. Jon Scovell, Wheelin says:

      The Summit ony hurt the President and the Democrat majority. For months they have been telling the American people Republicans have no ideas, have never brought anything to the table, and are opposing any bill souly based on political points.

      The Republicans showed the American people they have solid ideas that increase coverage and lower costs. They pushed the idea of opening the market beyond state lines and cracking down on medicare and medicade fraud. Along with many other ideas, they came to the table with solutions instead of sad story after sad story from the Democrats on the other side. I hope the Republican Party keeps up the pressure and does not compromise their ideas for a public option.

    22. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      I agree with Normaca, you can buy Ins. for a little as three dollars a day, this might not pay 100% of your health care, but it would help. I have had Ins. just about all my life, 1st through my mother, it did not cover everyday medical care, drs. routine and vacinations. Then I got married and covered under my husbands work where he paid 3/4th of the premium deducted from his paycheck, when he died I went back to work in the medical field, I could not afford to pay for what we called "HOspitalation" but I did get a "Professional discount", I was lucky and no one had any serious problem, the hosp. I worked for had free family program as well. I later took out my own BC/BS and I never had to use it until after I retired. I found a way to pay for this and I still pay for my supplement policy over medicare( I paid for this out of pay check as well as my Ss) There are too many6 who want everyone else to pay their share, I do not see why if you are not elegible for welfare or SCHIFF why you think you are intitled to MY MONEY, I worked hard to get to where I am today as do my children and grandchildren. As a reminder, bothe Plymouth and Jamestown had a policy "IF you donot work you DONOT EAT" this did not apply to the elderly and infirmed but NO healthy person was allowed to eat anothers fruit of their labor. Too bad we don't use these tenets today, healthy people should earn their own keep, stay in school, stay away from drugs and gangs and respect the laws of the land as well as the 10 commandments, perhaps they should read commandment 9 and 10, first look up the work COVET, THou shall not covet thy neighbors goods>

    23. Ron Titus says:

      Sheila M.D. how does HCR that takes at least 4 years help anyone now? There are easy ways to accomplish coverage now, but they don't accomplish political agendas-which reign supreme in our brave new world of politics.

    24. citishark, US says:

      Can somebody tells Obama that his HC plan is DEAD??

      hint: HE won't listen anyway!!

    25. David - MI says:

      It's a shame that our leaders can not sit down and work toward an appropriate resolution. Just think back to the founding fathers and their immediate resolution when changing from the Articles of Confederation to the Contitution and the open discussion held in the Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) papers. On top of that, our entire form of government was created in less than 36 pages (not 2700 like the health bill).

      But, don't kid yourself about the "socialization" aspect. We all take advantage of things that make sense to be centrally managed. I, for one, am grateful for our national highway system, national parks, etc.

      We currently have four (4) types of healthcare systems in the U.S. – Government run (like the VA system), government payor (Medicare/Medicaid), employer, and pay as you go. The amount of inefficiences is tremendous. Maybe we can learn from other countries and take the best ideas. Heck we do that in business every day.

    26. Sam, WI says:

      Some people believe that socialism can work, only that it has never been implemented correctly. That line of thinking however is false; the fatal flaw with socialism is that people are imperfect by nature. As such socialized anything is doomed to faliure.

    27. Pingback: Reaction to the Health Care Summit « PoliticallyEmpowered.com

    28. Andrew Cole Burlingt says:

      One just needs to review the contents of The Prince by Machievelli to see that this is what "Team Obama" was trying to achieve yesterday: whatever will keep and maintain power. Team Obama decides what is virtue and what is vice and what the definition of "is" is. We Americans have already learned this from the Clinton administration in spades. Fortunatley for the American people, we still believe and know that cause and effect. That is, If the Democrats push these unwanted bills, then the Democrats (especially the moderate and Blue Dog Democrats) are fired. If the Republicans push this type of legislation, then they are fired too. That is the beauty of our system of checks and balances.

    29. Pingback: The (first-name basis) health care summit « News Talk WTCM AM

    30. Pingback: “Did the Blair House Summit Change Anything?” and related posts - KuASha Organization

    31. Alan Leslie, Baldwin says:

      This so-called health care summit, was nothing more than an excuse for Obama to go throught the motions of seeming to care what anybody else thinks. He was campaigning and talking over the Republicans at the meeting. HIs problem is that it did not work. He came across as intolerant, testy, rude, disrespectful, nasty, petty, and dishonest, which has become his hallmark. The atmosphere was that of the teacher lecturing his unworthy pupils. The Republicans, who came well-prepared with homework done, and gave Obama more deference than he earned or deserves.

    32. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Thank you John Clancy of Wyandotte. Subsidiarity is the basic premise of federalist government. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are proving their ignorance of such founding principles. They obviously don't know the definition of 'federal', sort of reminiscent of Clinton's 'is' thing. Picking the democrat's flawed health reform apart is wasted breath. From the very beginning this argument does not belong at the federal level. In fact, the U.S. Congress should have been working to transfer SS and Medicare entitlement programs back to the individual states.

    33. Gary Marriott says:

      Thank you for the succinct summary. The more I read the more I learn. We have to keep contacting our Senators and House reps and let them know how we feel. I would imagine that when Levin and Stabenow's staffers see my e-mails come up , the hit the delete button……….

    34. Pingback: "Did the Blair House Summit Change Anything?" and related posts

    35. Charles Martin, PA says:

      I think Republicans did a good job of presenting the case for addressing areas of concern without handing the government a blank check for power and control of the system. Why do we need a 2400 page bill to stop the fraud that is ocurring within the medicare system? Why was tort reform not undertaken last year? Surely political donations would not affect the decision making of the compassionate Democrats. The Democrats have already admitted that this is just a starting point to get where they really want to go. Americans , I hope, will not so easily give up our freedoms for the hollow promise of security made by those who are spending beyond the ability of this great nation to repay. Yes we must all take some responsibility for where we find ourselves now, but now is the time to say the spending binge must end.

    36. Mike, WI says:

      What none of you seem to realize is that everything being suggested is simply putting band-aids on a system that is flawed. Republicans propose scrapping the bill, that would achieve so many necessary goals; Democrats propose scrapping health-care, at least to some extent, and trying a new approach contrary to the previous, failing one. Which seems more profound. I understand the fundamental differences in ideology, differences that are what make this country great. The problem is not these differences. The problem is politics. Politicians (from my perspective, on the right…this could and would be argued, I'm sure) are so concerned with their reelection that they would leave 30 million people without the necessary health care and health insurance reform. That is the disgusting part of this entire debate.

    37. Bill, VA says:

      What the people on the left don't seem to realize is that WE ARE BROKE! We can't afford "free" health care even if we want it. The fact of the matter is that eventually the government will shrink, by way of reforms, or by sheer collapse. I prefer reform myself.

    38. Michelle, Oregon says:

      Clearly, Obama and the Democrats who cling to this takeover of our healthcare system refuse to listen to the American people. They have forgotten that they serve at our pleasure. We'll be happy to remind them in November. How do you go about recalling a President?

    39. Michelle Roeker, Ore says:

      Obama and certain Democrats cling to their plan to take over the health care system as if they are royalty and not elected officials. We'll be happy to remind them that they serve at our pleasure in November.

      How do you go about recalling a President?

    40. MM in NC says:

      Obama failed to convince the American people about the need for such monstrous bill. His behavior was arrogant throughout the "summit." I wonder why he had to be so pedantic as he spoke to the senators and representatives who were there in the hopes of breaking some ground and find a way to provide the true reform the country needs. Instead they want to push a bill that will not change the problems we face, just change them making them worse: the Louisiana Purchase, the sweet deal for seniors in Florida and all else should have been as despicable to him as they are to regular Americans. Instead, he chose to disrespect senator McCain. Obama, we know you are president. It is something many of us wish had never happened not because any of us is racist but because your plan for our beloved country is not what we want. Some were fooled a year ago and voted for this idea of hope and change that has only brought heartache and disbelief.

      Can't wait for November of 2010 and 2012 because as "professor Obama" mentioned speaking during the summit, elections have consequences. We are ready to show the consequences of arrogance and disdain for this country and its values, what they will cost to the politicians who ignore the wishes of the people.

    41. sal Oregon says:

      The plan put forth by the Democrats and the President is not what the majority of Americans want . There can never be any agreement when democrats refuse to change neither the direction nor any of the inclusions of the democratic plan.

      What needs to change are motives and attitudes. We need men and women of character and honor to represent us and who care about the good of the country and future generations not their political life. The real deficit in our country is one of morals, ethics, honor and character that comes with the belief in GOD. A belief that permeates private and public life, not the artificial separation imposed by so called "progressive" courts.

    42. Regina Groves Van Bu says:

      This has nothing to do with Healthcare it is about 1/6th of Our Wealth going to SEIU and George Soros .

      George Soros is Obamas Puppet Master it is about getting the wealth and power and the destruction of the NAtion George Soros destroyed UK and France and is now after the U.S

    43. bill harrell says:

      The attempted health care takeover by our govt is a sham to pay back the unions for support and to free the unions from having to pay billions in future benefits that they r on the hook for.

    44. Kevin, North Carolin says:

      I will ignore the technicalities of the Democrats' plan, as they have been so well addressed by previous comments, and instead mention the one overriding objection I have to this: the individual mandate. Our country, as our national anthem famously states, is the "land of the free". In the land of the free, we should not have the federal government dictating that each and every individual citizen purchase an insurance policy, or any other market product for that matter. This is the prerogative of each individual. A person has the right of non-participation in the market. If I don't want to purchase health insurance it is my prerogative, and whatever rationale lies behind that is irrelevant.

      We've already seen the federal government insert the thin edge of the blade with so many existing laws of dubious constitutionality, but this one is truly putting a foot into the door jamb of personal freedom. A government that dictates what health caregivers must provide and how much they're allowed to charge is a perfect catch-all stepping stone to controlling practically every aspect of the citizens' lives. What you eat, what you do for a living, where you live, recreational pursuits — practically all of these things will become fair game.

      In closing, just remember it's a lot easier fighting to retain your rights than fighting to get them back!

    45. Helen Silver says:

      Please explain what responsibilities the CBO has? Where does it get its "facts" upon which it basis its conclusions? What is the difference between "estimate" and "prediction" in the sense that the CRO use the terms? How accurate have its findings proved?

      I know nothing about economics but it troubles me that the health care debate is founded on CRO numbers which I do not understand. Thank you.

    46. Helen Silver says:

      Please excuse the typo – my question refers to the CBO. Too many abbreviations too early in the morning. Thank you

    47. Cameron D. MacKay, E says:

      As a Canadian, I have lived under socialized medicine for most of my life. American's may wish to consider the following comments when they are confronted with Obama's Healthcare "Reform" Bill.

      1. If the Democrats think that by creating a Nationalized Health Care system, they are going to reduce costs …. they should be reminded that a monopoly does not save costs as has been proven by the Canadian experience. Currently, health care costs are the single biggest budget item for every province in Canada.

      2. It is fallacious to compare the American situation with the Canadian situation for at least 2 reasons:

      (a) Canada relies, in large part, on America for its defence and therefore has a much smaller per capita defence budget so can spend tax dollars on state medicine;

      (b) Canada relies on the private American system to do 80% of the R &D for medical drugs and procedures because the private sector, here, are unwilling to risk that kind of money when they have only one potential customer who can dictate price.

      3. Canada's National Health Care system is currently experiencing uncontrolled costs so Obama's projections are just the tip of the iceburg.

    48. Phil, Fairfax, Virgi says:

      What seems to be lost in this discussion is that the elitists, statists, progressives or whatever you want to call them do not believe in the constitution or our founding fathers, they believe that to be all outdated, they want to re-write the constituton, they think James Madison is just the name of a university. The federalist papers mean nothing to them.

      The coming elections are the only things that will determine the reality of our future. ARE YOU FOR TYRANNY OR LIBERTY, each and everyone we know needs to vote to secure our liberties and those of our children and grandchildren.

    49. Pingback: Health Care Summit: Debacle Digest « Applecross Media

    50. Walter, NH says:

      Maybe the states should stand up to Obama and company with a threat to suceed from the nation and claim their own sovereignty; for a state cannot exist under an inept and corrupt federal government, nor function for the right and will of the people. If it were up to me i would move my beloved state right out of this national union to become sovereign where I would have the best interest of my statemen at heart.

    51. Wildcat from Dallast says:

      I was travelling on business the day of Blair House Theater where Obama attempted to direct and emcee yet every airport TV seemed to be locked on the central news network’s coverage which is why I probably got unusually ill.

      Not only are the Republicans the party of “NO” but they are, in fact, the party of “KNOW”. *For those who lack the educational prowess of those possessing poison Ivy League degrees, it sounds the same as “NO” but translates to having credible information or knowledge unlike the party whose entire argument against the facts articulated by those who “KNOW” consists of two words: “shut up”!

      The Republicans are the party of KNOW as much as the party of NO because they do understand what the American want, and equally important, what they do NOT want, and they do NOT want Obamacare in any form.

      It was painfully obvious to the most casual observer that BO, Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest of the crew from “The Pirates of the Potomac” had an extremely difficult time just sitting there as the designated attending Republicans rendered oral statements (without the aid of a teleprompter). Statements that incorporated the will of the citizens with actual cogent thoughts on why to scrap the crap they call HCR and then provided viable concepts of market based change and the crucial one of tort reform which results in less government intervention versus an overt takeover of healthcare by the government and kept their personal liberties intact. The most visibly upset was BO himself. In fact, when parts of the bill(s) were read to him followed by a question for him to explain which left him simply frustrated, and it showed.

      In my assessment the Obama Kabuki Theater was a dismal failure for the Democrats but did show the American people just how nontransparent they are and that even if they appear to have said the correct words, they do not mean what they uttered. The Democrats have always planned to ram this piece of excrement legislation thru regardless what we think and continually articulate to them.

      “Target, loader: load beehive muzzle action, continuing to scan my sector of responsibility for emerging targets of opportunity, over”.

    52. Todd Owens says:

      I became convinced during the campaign, and still believe firmly, that this President is determined to be a one-term President. He recognizes that his agenda is so radical that it will be political suicide. But his Marxist ideals are so deeply entrenched in his philosophy that he believes it will be necessary and views himself as a martyr for his cause. He is absolutely willing to fall on his sword.

      I'm sure he thought the path would be much easier with a Democrat-led congress, but he is now regrouping himself, and tempering his message to make it sound more palatable to democrats and the uninformed among us. His end goals, however, have not been tempered. His agenda is no less radical.

      DO NOT be fooled by what he is trying to portray as "listening to the American People".

      Make no mistake, this man is a thug and will stop at nothing short of reaching his goals. We have won nothing until this man is out of office.

    53. Pingback: Buffett to Obama: Scrap Current Bill and Start Over | Fix Health Care Policy

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×