President Obama plans to address a joint session of Congress next week in an effort to rally support for health care legislation as White House officials look for ways to simplify and scale back the major Democratic bills, lower the cost and drop contentious but nonessential elements.
Administration officials said Wednesday that Mr. Obama would be more specific than he has been to date about what he wants included in the plan. Doing so amounts to an acknowledgment that the president’s prior tactic of laying out broad principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details was no longer working and that Mr. Obama needed to become more personally involved in shaping the outcome.
But the officials said Mr. Obama was unlikely to unveil a detailed legislative plan of his own. And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many Democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Mr. Obama would be “more prescriptive than he has been to date.” And he added, “We have a tremendous amount of consensus in Congress to build off of.”
“And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers”
A ‘government-run competitor” means taxpayer-funded and the expansion of government powers and bureaucracy. It means the creation of more government employees/state clients (and a client voting block), with powers that no ‘competitor’ has: to force other people (taxpayers) to pay for the subsidized benefits of members of the scheme. This isn’t competition at all. It’s economic rigging of the body politic that would have done credit to Huey Long or Julius Caesar.
I will keep an open, but very wary eye on this. If they want true reform that will really help the most people via the competitive private sector I will be among their strongest supporters. If it is just an end run to achieve government, statist control, then let the battle begin and continue until those proposals and the people who keep proposing them are banished from office.
I’m leery of any legislation that gives more power to the IRS. From Byron York at the Washington Examiner,/i>:
Allow me to help here,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
This is what people need to pay attention to: huge expansions of government power over individual Americans.
1. azusa wrote:
[blockquote]A ‘government-run competitor†means taxpayer-funded and the expansion of government powers and bureaucracy. It means the creation of more government employees/state clients (and a client voting block), with powers that no ‘competitor’ has: to force other people (taxpayers) to pay for the subsidized benefits of members of the scheme. This isn’t competition at all. It’s economic rigging of the body politic that would have done credit to Huey Long or Julius Caesar.[/blockquote]
You mean like the U. S. Postal Service? Why can’t health insurance companies compete against a government run insurance plan? After all both United Parcel Service and FedEx are able to compete with the USPS.
4. Capt. Deacon Warren wrote:
[blockquote]
Allow me to help here,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
This is what people need to pay attention to: huge expansions of government power over individual Americans.[/blockquote]
You know, it would be nice if these right wing outfits would actually cite the legislation. How about a quote of the provision(s) being talked about.
From all I have been able to find, the proposals do not have the IRS decide whether anyone’s health plan is adequate. As far as I can tell, the provision has to do with low income individuals and families seeking reduced rates.
It would be a fairly simple matter for me to create a 1040A that showed I was well below the poverty line. It would, of course, be totally fraudulent. A “Health Choices Administration” could have the information verified.
Sort of like law enforcement can obtain “sensitive information” from the IRS in the course of their investigations of criminal activity.
[blockquote]You mean like the U. S. Postal Service? Why can’t health insurance companies compete against a government run insurance plan? After all both United Parcel Service and FedEx are able to compete with the USPS.[/blockquote]
Uh, not really. The USPS has a statutory monopoly on the delivery of first class mail. Plus, the USPS will never go out of business as any traditional competitor would in the free market. But if you want to make the argument that Obamacare will reflect the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and quality of service available at the Post Office, I’m not about to get in your way.
[blockquote]You know, it would be nice if these right wing outfits would actually cite the legislation. How about a quote of the provision(s) being talked about.[/blockquote]
[i]Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it. [/i]
From that hissing nest of right-wingers, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml]CBS News[/url]
So you’re getting all excited about the fact that the government has access to your tax data? Like this is something new?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
Sigh.
What if there ISN’T a big scary bogeyman in this bill? Do you really think this is the exact moment that we have the right number of truly evil people in congress who are going to find a way to kill your parents? The facts just aren’t there to support it. The scary items trotted out have turned out to be pretty bland when viewed in context.
I heart the internet, but sometimes I think we were all better off when we didn’t have access to things we don’t understand.
6. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote][blockquote]You mean like the U. S. Postal Service? Why can’t health insurance companies compete against a government run insurance plan? After all both United Parcel Service and FedEx are able to compete with the USPS.[/blockquote]
Uh, not really. The USPS has a statutory monopoly on the delivery of first class mail. Plus, the USPS will never go out of business as any traditional competitor would in the free market. But if you want to make the argument that Obamacare will reflect the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and quality of service available at the Post Office, I’m not about to get in your way.[/blockquote]
And what monopoly does any of the health care bills being considered establish for the federal government? As far as I know, absolutely none.
USPS does not have a monopoly on parcels and quite obviously UPS and FedEx are competing successfully in that market.
Interestingly, USPS doesn’t have a monopoly on that bane of our existence–bulk mail. And it appears that both UPS and FedEx have started competing in that market as well, although it is perhaps too early to tell how successful they will be. USPS, UPS and FedEx have to compete with e-mail spam, which may win that one. Of course, if and advertiser really wants to get your attention, having the bulk mail hand delivered to you is one way to do it.
7. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by†regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.â€
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details—there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable—to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.â€
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy†but has not applied for it.[/blockquote]
Yes, so it does. But that wasn’t what the article alleged, to wit
[blockquote]Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable†health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.[/blockquote]
What the provision in the bill cited would do is let the IRS provide specific information to a “Health Choices Administration†to verify an application for government subsidized medical insurance. Seems rather rational to me.
There was a time when conservatives were very strong on preventing “welfare cheats” and law enforcement. But now they want to make it easier to commit fraud. It doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were praising warrantless snooping on citizens telephone conversations and e-mail. But now they are singing a different tune.
Pity.
8. clayton wrote:
[blockquote]
So you’re getting all excited about the fact that the government has access to your tax data? Like this is something new?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
Sigh.
What if there ISN’T a big scary bogeyman in this bill? Do you really think this is the exact moment that we have the right number of truly evil people in congress who are going to find a way to kill your parents? The facts just aren’t there to support it. The scary items trotted out have turned out to be pretty bland when viewed in context.[/blockquote]
It’s easier to pursue the scare mongers on the Internet than to read the actual bill[b]s[/b] (there’s more than one) on the Internet.
Fear mongering worked for the Republicans in 2004.
It didn’t work in 2006 or 2008. They haven’t figured it out yet.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
[blockquote]And what monopoly does any of the health care bills being considered establish for the federal government? As far as I know, absolutely none.[/blockquote]
You missed the point completely. If the government took away the USPS’s first class mail monopoly, the $7 billion they lost last year would be a spit in the river. Yet the USPS staggers on like an extra in a George Romero movie. The question is why private industries [i]have[/i] to compete with entitites subsidized by the state. If the body they’re competing against can never go bust, that’s not competition. There’s a deep conflict of interest at work here.
I suppose the question is, if the problem is the insurance carriers’ unmitigated greed, why don’t you port-siders put together a big ol’ non-profit insurer bankrolled with capital from some of your fatcat pinko pals like Soros? You could put into motion all those wonderful policies you bray endlessly about:
* no restrictitions on pre-existing conditions
* no disparities in premiums
* every insured member gets whatever (s)he wants, no matter the cost
* experimental treatments are fully covered
* preventive and exploratory procedures are unrestricted
* executives restricted to earning a small multiplier of what your janitors make
By your reckoning, this sort of non-profit ought to take off like gangbusters, and with all the wonderful savings you reap, premiums will be dropping like a lead balloon.
So what’s keeping some enterprising southpaw from doing this? What’s missing?
#10, I don’t see much difference in those two, “rational” or not.
[blockquote]What if there ISN’T a big scary bogeyman in this bill? [/blockquote]
There are plenty, but Annenberg (for whom Obama once worked) is running interference here, not debunking.
[Commenters are requested to respectfully address the issues and to avoid addressing other commenters in an aggressive or disrespectful way]