Sarah Palin on Senate Health Care Bill

[+DieChecker]

From a couple hours ago. Saw on Google News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/raw-data-palin-critique-senate-finance-committee-health-care/

Basically she says it is not going to work. It does not read like "Golly Gee" Palin, so I'm sure she had a bunch of political advisors help her out with this. The facts are facts. Unemplyment is up. People will rather pay a fine. Premiums will inevitably go higher. Medicare will suffer. Unions and small businesses will suffer. And, the Deficit will run away and keep running.

[conspiracybeliever]

I am so sick of Sarah Palin. Someone needs to tell her the deficit has already run away and isn't coming back too soon and most of the other stuff she warns of has already happened. Now Aroces is going to come running in here talking about how wonderful she is. If it works in all these other countries I don't see why it can't work here.

[The Silver Thong]

I am so sick of Sarah Palin. Someone needs to tell her the deficit has already run away and isn't coming back too soon and most of the other stuff she warns of has already happened. Now Aroces is going to come running in here talking about how wonderful she is. If it works in all these other countries I don't see why it can't work here.

LOL we won't see Aroces till about 4 ish as thats when they let him out LOL just kidding buddy

[ohio state buckeyes]

Sarah Palin is a moron.

[Startraveler]

It does not read like "Golly Gee" Palin, so I'm sure she had a bunch of political advisors help her out with this.

Since it actually contains interesting points, that's a virtual certainty. It's worth walking through some of these points, though.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Oddly enough, this is a strike at the conservative influence on the bill. The original fines were significantly higher than $750 but that number was amended during the markup process. The logic, of course, is that mandates shouldn't impose an undue burden on middle class households. The obvious way to avoid that and not threaten the system in the way "Palin" indicates is to increase the subsidy amounts to which low-and-middle-class households have access. This is favored by more liberal-leaning folks but not moderate-to-conservative politicians because it raises the price tag of the bill, which has seen an arbitrary maximum limit of somewhere between $800 billion and $900 billion imposed on it. But the reality is that there is a financial burden floating around out there and it's going to fall on somebody. In a generous (in terms of subsidies) bill financed in the method spelled out by the House bill it falls on families making more than $350,000. In a generous bill financed in the way specified in the Senate Finance bill, it falls on people buying the most expensive insurance plans. Well, sort of--that can get a little more complex.

Less generous bills leave the burden on lower and middle class people. Or, in the event that these people opt to pay the penalty and become free riders until they need care, the burden falls on everyone else in their (eventual) insurance pool. It seems clear to me where the wisest place to position the burden is but that's debatable. The reality is that since conservatives (I think the amendment lowering the penalty was offered by Republican Olympia Snowe) prefer to save money for the federal government by putting the financial burden on people in private insurance pools, the Finance bill does have potential structural flaws.

There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences.

This is off-topic but it's a mis-characterization of what the CRA requires lending institutions to do. Well-placed jab, though.

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8]

That's a bit of a non sequitur. The complaints that precede this (taxing Cadillac plans passes on costs to consumers!) indirectly argue for a funding mechanism like that in House bill--tack a small increase onto the income taxes of the richest people in the country. Then no one below a set income limit ($280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for families under the House bill) faces any additional expenses. And this can pay for the reforms in the House bill without adding anything to the deficit over the next decade. But in the long-term we run into the problem that medical costs tend to rise faster than do incomes.

The Baucus bill takes a different tack. Right now, as most people probably know, the government offers an effectively limitless subsidy to people obtaining health insurance through their employer because employer-based coverage enjoys a tax exemption. The problem is that this creates a perverse incentive for overutilization of both health insurance and the health care system. That's why many observers, often on the right, have called for ending that tax exemption (the list of people supporting this ranges from Milton Friedman to John McCain in his 2008 presidential bid). That's politically difficult to do but perhaps we could put a cap on that exemption. And a way to tap dance around it--and perhaps make it less unpalatable--is to place an excise tax on higher-end ("Cadillac") plans. Thus there would effectively be a limit to the tax exemption enjoyed by those health plans. Moreover, it doesn't amount to a tax on oranges to pay for apples (as the House's income tax would); it's taxing apples to pay for apples. What that means is that the tax grows just as fast as medical costs do. Indeed, the CBO says that not only does the Baucus bill's funding mechanism actually reduce the deficit by the end of the decade, it's likely to reduce the deficit more and more as time goes on. Or, as the dry language of the CBO blog explains, "All told, the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $12 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion."

So "Palin's" skepticism about the Baucus bill not increasing the deficit is unwarranted. It flows from the very thing "Palin" was complaining about: more expensive plans being made (through the effective cap on the tax exemption--the excise tax) to cost the holders of those Cadillac policies more, ultimately limiting overutilization of health care resources. In its broadest form, this is an idea generally favored by the right. And it's arguably more fiscally responsible than the House's income tax funding mechanism. Even though it "punishes" certain middle class families for having Cadillac plans (e.g. certain union families). But some consider that a feature, not a bug, for the reasons I just laid out.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

This is true, though the implication this is taken to have for health care legislation isn't quite right. The three bills that Politifact identifies are the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the SCHIP expansion, and the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act. All of these bills were introduced before the current session of Congress (of course they were reintroduced in January when the current session began) and at least two of those three were campaign issues in several races in 2008 (including the presidential race). So, yes, Obama didn't honor his pledge to put them on the White House website and allow for public comment on there. This is not to say--as "Palin" seems to suggest--that the text of these bills was somehow a secret and couldn't have been read by anyone who wanted to before they were signed (which I take to be the implication here about the final health care bill).

Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill.

Tort reform is mentioned in the Finance bill:

The Chairman‘s Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance. The Mark would further express the Sense of the Senate that states should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual‘s right to seek redress in court. The Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that Congress should consider establishing a state demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system.

In other words, the Baucus bill reiterates that it views tort reform as being primarily a state issue, and it certainly doesn't present an impediment to further tort reforms. Note that the savings from national tort reform estimated by CBO are 0.5% of health care costs.

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines.

There is only one way to do this effectively. The problem with the standard Republican proposal for this (exemplified in John Shadegg's current H.R. 3217) is that it allows insurers and states to race to the regulatory bottom, shedding anyone who even potentially threatens the goal of profit maximization (as opposed to getting health care to people). Allowing insurance policies to be sold across state lines (or, rather, mandating that states allow this, since that's what this proposal amounts to) could work if a federal floor was set for consumer protections. That is, some federal regulatory structure is needed if the integrity of the insurance markets is to be maintained. But guess what? The Baucus bill provides for exactly that:

National Plans

Current Law.

No provision.

Chairman’s Mark

The Chairman‘s Mark would allow national plans, with uniform benefit packages that are offered across state lines. These national plans must be licensed in every state that they choose to operate and would be regulated by the states in terms of solvency and other key consumer protections and would offer coverage through the state exchanges. States are permitted to opt-out of the national plan. Legislative action must be taken at the state level in order for a state to opt-out. A state that has opted-out can also take legislative action to opt back into the national plan.

Such national plans must be compliant with the benefit levels and categories detailed in the Mark, but would preempt state benefit mandates– thereby allowing these national plans to offer a single, uniform benefit package. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), in consultation with consumer groups, business interests, including small businesses, the insurance industry, federal regulators, and benefit experts, will develop standards as to how benefit categories should be implemented (e.g., what constitute prescription drug coverage) taking into consideration how each benefit is offered in a majority (26) of the states. After NAIC publishes these standards, the state insurance commissioners will ensure that

So it's a questionable analysis but "Palin" has come a long way since that death panels bunk.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Startraveler

[Kimi81]

Umm, Why is she still in the spotlight? I guess as long as Fox News is around she will alway's have an outlet to spew her stupidity

[InHuman]

death panels. Lol.

[preacherman76]

The saddest part is people not being able to look past the person or how they feel about her, long enough to see that she is telling the truth.

[odas]

The saddest part is people not being able to look past the person or how they feel about her, long enough to see that she is telling the truth.

No matter how hard I try to look past the (her) person I alwas see a chep b***h for some reason.

I even tried a new pair of glasses attached to a telescope taped to my ears. Nothing. Same thing.

[conspiracybeliever]

No matter how hard I try to look past the (her) person I alwas see a chep b***h for some reason.

I even tried a new pair of glasses attached to a telescope taped to my ears. Nothing. Same thing.

You are so bad!

[odas]

You are so bad!

Thank you

[churchanddestroy]

Umm, Why is she still in the spotlight? I guess as long as Fox News is around she will alway's have an outlet to spew her stupidity

Lets strike a deal. Republicans promise to ship Palin back to Alaska in a crate, Democrats send Nancy Pelosi back to Cali, also in a crate. Neither of them are ever in the national spotlight again. Sound like a fair trade?

[SilverCougar]

Lets strike a deal. Republicans promise to ship Palin back to Alaska in a crate, Democrats send Nancy Pelosi back to Cali, also in a crate. Neither of them are ever in the national spotlight again. Sound like a fair trade?

Can they both stay in those crates forever?

[preacherman76]

Lets strike a deal. Republicans promise to ship Palin back to Alaska in a crate, Democrats send Nancy Pelosi back to Cali, also in a crate. Neither of them are ever in the national spotlight again. Sound like a fair trade?

Sounds like a win win to me

[churchanddestroy]

Can they both stay in those crates forever?

You can't be in the media spotlight if you're stuck in a crate, so yes. They can stay in the crate. Problem solved.

Sounds like a win win to me

All I know is I would be happy.

[conspiracybeliever]

You can't be in the media spotlight if you're stuck in a crate, so yes. They can stay in the crate. Problem solved.

All I know is I would be happy.

So that makes all of us, except Aroces, Sarah's greatest fan.

[ninjadude]

Lets strike a deal. Republicans promise to ship Palin back to Alaska in a crate, Democrats send Nancy Pelosi back to Cali, also in a crate. Neither of them are ever in the national spotlight again. Sound like a fair trade?

No and here's why. Palin quit. Pelosi did not. Palin was the governor of a very small state. Pelosi represents one of the the most populous. Palin is on the fringe. Pelosi is more mainstream. Did your head explode? I hope so.

[danielost]

No and here's why. Palin quit. Pelosi did not. Palin was the governor of a very small state. Pelosi represents one of the the most populous. Palin is on the fringe. Pelosi is more mainstream. Did your head explode? I hope so.

yes of course anyone who disagrees with the dems is on the fringe. so those moderate dems in the senate must also be on the fringe. since they are about to vote against the senate version.

[churchanddestroy]

No and here's why. Palin quit. Pelosi did not. Palin was the governor of a very small state. Pelosi represents one of the the most populous. Palin is on the fringe. Pelosi is more mainstream. Did your head explode? I hope so.

First of all, you clearly lack a sense of humor.

Second of all, you never cease to amaze me. According to your profile, you live in Illinois. How can you sleep at night knowing there is an Illinois politician in the highest seat of our government? Nevermind any ideological debate about policies and philosophy and so on and so forth. THERE IS AN ILLINOIS POLITICIAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. You should lose sleep at night knowing that. But, of course, you are so ridiculously partisan that something like this would never frighten you, because like everyone else you are apparently too starry eyed and in awe of Obama to voice any skepticism whatsoever on the matter. Remember George Ryan? Tony Rezko? Blago? What about Mayor Daley's son mysteriously getting millions out of the Chicago budget? Daley, of course, "had no idea" anything had happened and was apparently "unconnected". The admissions scandal at U of I? And these are all very recent developments in the great state of Illinois. You should probably start reading John Kass's columns in the Trib.

I fear that a terrible monster has been let out of Illinois' closet, and its called the Chicago Way.

Edit: spelling

Edited October 28, 2009 by churchanddestroy

[churchanddestroy]

Also: Are you kidding me? Yes Sarah Palin is fringe nutters, but Pelosi isn't exactly a moderate either. If she WERE moderate, she'd have a much better national approval rating. Same with Harry Reid. Oh how easy it is for you partisans to point out the splinter in your brothers eye, but never mind the 2x4 in yours.

[Startraveler]

Pelosi isn't exactly a moderate either. If she WERE moderate, she'd have a much better national approval rating. Same with Harry Reid.

These words are meaningless, as juxtaposing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in some attempt to classify them as fringe liberals shows. What is it about their actual policy positions that makes either of them fringe?

[churchanddestroy]

These words are meaningless, as juxtaposing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in some attempt to classify them as fringe liberals shows. What is it about their actual policy positions that makes either of them fringe?

I don't know, the fact that most Americans disapprove of Pelosi and Reid, as opposed to... say, Obama, (to use another democratic example) leads me to believe that they are 'fringe'. Fringe, to but it plainly, is simply defined as a point somewhere outside of the general consensus. Calling Obama moderate? ::shrugs:: I'll buy it. Calling Pelosi moderate? Not a freakin' chance, my friend.

Unfortunately, and I just realized this as I was typing away, suddenly Sarah Palin is no longer fringe if I accept my own definition. Which scares me.

A lot.

edit: it posted the text twice

Edited October 28, 2009 by churchanddestroy

[+DieChecker]

How smart someone is has nothing to do with being a politician. Being a politician is about being as good a liar as possible, and the ability to take advise, while at the same time looking like everything is your idea and that you are honest. Sarah Palin has these qualities and thus Democrats should be afraid of her influence.

[Startraveler]

But isn't this what you were just complaining about in the other thread, church? That politics is all about appearances? Games and theater meant to move poll numbers? As opposed to "important" things and "higher standards"?

You prove my point. People, by and large, don't care much about policy, they care about labels and appearances and conventional wisdom. People have notoriously low standards when evaluating an argument or statement made in a political context. Pelosi's from San Francisco, she seems pretty okay with "teh gay"™ and civil liberties so she must be an überliberal and thus "fringe". The reality is that politics is about surface appearances because that's as far as most people look. And that's how most people like it.

Palin isn't particularly popular because even the uninitiated watching her get stumped in a softball Katie Couric interview know that she's dangerously unprepared for a big time leadership role. She's all style and no substance and it's still painfully apparent at this point; she hasn't yet figured out how to make it look like she has substance. None of this is to say that policy positions/beliefs have nothing to do with the process. They play a role, though not one separated from frames and appearances and stunts. That's why when people see Palin--someone who seems all right with teaching creationism in public schools, someone who is completely anti-choice and opposed to using stem cells for research, someone who supports amending the Constitution to define marriage, someone who thinks deregulation is an economic panacea, someone who seems almost reflexively opposed to protecting the environment or threatened animals, and so on--they sense someone who might be a bit fringe. While style and appearances are hugely important in politics, Palin's 2008 meltdown is a good indicator that some amount of substance still has to back that up or make the unpalatable more acceptable to people.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Startraveler

[churchanddestroy]

But isn't this what you were just complaining about in the other thread, church? That politics is all about appearances? Games and theater meant to move poll numbers? As opposed to "important" things and "higher standards"?

You prove my point. People, by and large, don't care much about policy, they care about labels and appearances and conventional wisdom. People have notoriously low standards when evaluating an argument or statement made in a political context. Pelosi's from San Francisco, she seems pretty okay with "teh gay"™ and civil liberties so she must be an überliberal and thus "fringe". The reality is that politics is about surface appearances because that's as far as most people look. And that's how most people like it.

Uh, no, I was just trying to illustrate what I understand defines moderate v. fringe based on what the general demographic opinion is. Looking at Obama, where roughly between 45-55% of the people approve, I feel safe saying that for now, he is in the 'moderate' zone. As opposed to Pelosi and Reid, both of whom have low 30s high 20s approval ratings among the public, to show that they can be regarded more as "fringe" than Obama would be. Thats what I'm trying to point out here. Sorry I don't have time to figure out what the exact approval ratings are, I'm just going off the top of my head with what I've recently read.

I don't dislike Pelosi because of her stance on gay rights and other civil liberties. I'm more libertarian than anything else, so I don't see a problem with gay marriage. I support it.

I DO, however, dislike Pelosi for her economic views, and for supporting a 'nanny state', if you will. I despise big government. Just to clarify that.

Palin isn't particularly popular because even the uninitiated watching her get stumped in a softball Katie Couric interview know that she's dangerously unprepared for a big time leadership role. She's all style and no substance and it's still painfully apparent at this point; she hasn't yet figured out how to make it look like she has substance. None of this is to say that policy positions/beliefs have nothing to do with the process. They play a role, though not one separated from frames and appearances and stunts. That's why when people see Palin--someone who seems all right with teaching creationism in public schools, someone who is completely anti-choice and opposed to using stem cells for research, someone who supports amending the Constitution to define marriage, someone who thinks deregulation is an economic panacea, someone who seems almost reflexively opposed to protecting the environment or threatened animals, and so on--they sense someone who might be a bit fringe. While style and appearances are hugely important in politics, Palin's 2008 meltdown is a good indicator that some amount of substance still has to back that up or make the unpalatable more acceptable to people.

I guess I meant Palin's popularity with the GOP crowd, which, to me, is even more startling than the cult of personality surrounding Obama. At least Obama is pro-science, which means a lot to me, as I'm majoring in Biology. Palin, on the other hand, represents the systemic failure of the Republican party. She is everything about the conservatives that I can't stand - hyper religious, uneducated... When AROCES says that people fear Palin, hes right on one accout: I do. I fear her because she, in my humble opinion, is representative of the cancer that killed conservativism. The advent of the Religious Right and the intolerance that followed, the influence of charlatans like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell... Thats what I'm afraid of.

Edited October 28, 2009 by churchanddestroy