Controversial stuff dropped from health care bill

Congress is listening to at least some of its constituents’ concerns. Senate Bill Will Not Address End-of-Life Care:

The Senate Finance Committee’s health care plan will not include provisions dealing with end-of-life care, now one of the more controversial topics in the health care debate, the committee’s top Republican said on Wednesday.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said in a statement that the committee “dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

A Senate Finance Committee aide confirmed that the panel was not discussing end-of-life measures, adding that they were “never a major focus” of the committee’s negotiations.

House committees have passed legislation that would provide Medicare coverage for optional counseling sessions on end-of-life services.

In his statement, Mr. Grassley called the House legislation “so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences.”

And now I just read that another controversial measure, the public option, by which the government would set up its own insurance program to compete with private companies is also being dropped.

Feel better now? Will these changes let you support the bill?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com/ Dave Spotts

    I’m not ready to support a bill until it is understandable and there’s time to read it. That’s what I’ve been urging my Senators and Representative. The default vote on something you have not had time to read is “No.”

    That said, removing the public option and taking out statements about end-of-life care is helpful.

    There was a time when the average piece of legislation fit on one piece of paper. Woujldn’t that be nice?

  • http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com/ Dave Spotts

    I’m not ready to support a bill until it is understandable and there’s time to read it. That’s what I’ve been urging my Senators and Representative. The default vote on something you have not had time to read is “No.”

    That said, removing the public option and taking out statements about end-of-life care is helpful.

    There was a time when the average piece of legislation fit on one piece of paper. Woujldn’t that be nice?

  • Carl Vehse

    From The Atlantic’s Administration Official: “Sebelius Misspoke.”:

    An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.

    A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

    “Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”

    Another Chicago-style shell game. Don’t believe a thing this regime tells you. They won’t even show you Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate.

  • Carl Vehse

    From The Atlantic’s Administration Official: “Sebelius Misspoke.”:

    An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.

    A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

    “Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”

    Another Chicago-style shell game. Don’t believe a thing this regime tells you. They won’t even show you Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate.

  • Mary Ann

    Listening to the various speaches the president has given over the past months on the healthcare topic I have to conclude that he do what he wishes regardless. For instance: The issue of public funding for abortions. We are told there is nothing in the bill providing public funds for abortion, yet nine separate times members of Congress have tried to insert specifics insuring that public funds will not be used and nine times they were shot down. That is because according to those in the majority abortion is considered an “essential medical service”, and the bill clearly states that all essentail medical services will be covered, but never actually mentions abortion. This is why it is so important to read the bill and not take anything for granted.

  • Mary Ann

    Listening to the various speaches the president has given over the past months on the healthcare topic I have to conclude that he do what he wishes regardless. For instance: The issue of public funding for abortions. We are told there is nothing in the bill providing public funds for abortion, yet nine separate times members of Congress have tried to insert specifics insuring that public funds will not be used and nine times they were shot down. That is because according to those in the majority abortion is considered an “essential medical service”, and the bill clearly states that all essentail medical services will be covered, but never actually mentions abortion. This is why it is so important to read the bill and not take anything for granted.

  • Mary Ann

    #3 correction: Third line. he will do as he wishes. sorry

  • Mary Ann

    #3 correction: Third line. he will do as he wishes. sorry

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike bubba

    This is good, but if government really wants to fix healthcare, they’ve got to get out of it pretty much altogether. Baby steps, I guess.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike bubba

    This is good, but if government really wants to fix healthcare, they’ve got to get out of it pretty much altogether. Baby steps, I guess.

  • Jonathan

    Nothing says ‘pro life’ like watching folks die or live in abject misery because they cannot obtain health insurance.

  • Jonathan

    Nothing says ‘pro life’ like watching folks die or live in abject misery because they cannot obtain health insurance.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    Well, we now are getting a rather good idea that single payer systems don’t work. The best of the lot was the French system, but it is going broke. And now we hear from the vaunted Canadians: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw.

    It seems their system is “imploding”. What they don’t know is if any efforts to introduce competition into their system will work. Since there appear to be so many unhappy Canadians vis a vis the quality of their health care, it ought to.

    The option for government to step back and let private citizens organize cooperatives for their health care is very appealing to me. I hope this idea gains traction in the coming weeks. This may be the competitive leverage against HMO’s and insurance companies that we’ve been looking for, and need.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    Well, we now are getting a rather good idea that single payer systems don’t work. The best of the lot was the French system, but it is going broke. And now we hear from the vaunted Canadians: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw.

    It seems their system is “imploding”. What they don’t know is if any efforts to introduce competition into their system will work. Since there appear to be so many unhappy Canadians vis a vis the quality of their health care, it ought to.

    The option for government to step back and let private citizens organize cooperatives for their health care is very appealing to me. I hope this idea gains traction in the coming weeks. This may be the competitive leverage against HMO’s and insurance companies that we’ve been looking for, and need.

  • Manxman

    I feel no better about this thing. Until we see what the economy is going to do after all the unbelievable things that have been inflicted on it, it is lunacy to take on expensive, intrusive health care reform.

    In addition, the people making the changes have neither the character nor the expertise to do this thing properly. I anticipate some real nasty unintended (or Obama-intended) consequences to rear their ugly heads.

    Now is not the time, and these are certainly not the people for health care “reform.”

  • Manxman

    I feel no better about this thing. Until we see what the economy is going to do after all the unbelievable things that have been inflicted on it, it is lunacy to take on expensive, intrusive health care reform.

    In addition, the people making the changes have neither the character nor the expertise to do this thing properly. I anticipate some real nasty unintended (or Obama-intended) consequences to rear their ugly heads.

    Now is not the time, and these are certainly not the people for health care “reform.”

  • J

    Bruce @7 I read the article you cited. It’s telling that no other country wants to adopt the US health care model.

    Manx@ 8 I felt the same way about our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “[I]t is lunacy …”

  • J

    Bruce @7 I read the article you cited. It’s telling that no other country wants to adopt the US health care model.

    Manx@ 8 I felt the same way about our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “[I]t is lunacy …”

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    I’ve noticed that the dairy cows down at the farm get pretty good health care. Healthy cows are productive cows, after all!

    They don’t seem to have much liberty, though.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    I’ve noticed that the dairy cows down at the farm get pretty good health care. Healthy cows are productive cows, after all!

    They don’t seem to have much liberty, though.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    “Everywhere there rises before our eyes the spectre of a society where security, if it is attained at all, will be attained at the expense of freedom, where the security that is attained will be the security of fed beasts in a stable, and where all the high aspirations of humanity will have been crushed by an all-powerful state.” — J. Gresham Machen

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    “Everywhere there rises before our eyes the spectre of a society where security, if it is attained at all, will be attained at the expense of freedom, where the security that is attained will be the security of fed beasts in a stable, and where all the high aspirations of humanity will have been crushed by an all-powerful state.” — J. Gresham Machen

  • J

    Apropos @6
    Nothing says America to me like the inalienable right to die broke and alone from some disease which has been easily treatable since the mid-19th century. We are indeed God’s exceptional country.

  • J

    Apropos @6
    Nothing says America to me like the inalienable right to die broke and alone from some disease which has been easily treatable since the mid-19th century. We are indeed God’s exceptional country.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Right.

    And the income tax was only supossed to be 1%.

    I don’t trust the government as far as I can throw them.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Right.

    And the income tax was only supossed to be 1%.

    I don’t trust the government as far as I can throw them.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Oops…’supposed’

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Oops…’supposed’

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    I am a product of a government sponsored spelling program. (public skools)

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    I am a product of a government sponsored spelling program. (public skools)

  • Carl Vehse

    In her column, “White House public option ploy: A trial balloon, not a white flag”, with numerous links, Michelle Malkin exposes the duplicity of the WH regime’s latest 0bamacare flimflam, including Michelle’s comment that “the public option provision can always be stuffed back in via a 3am manager’s amendment or during the House/Senate conference to reconcile each chamber’s Obamacare bills.”

    “Distrust and verify!”

  • Carl Vehse

    In her column, “White House public option ploy: A trial balloon, not a white flag”, with numerous links, Michelle Malkin exposes the duplicity of the WH regime’s latest 0bamacare flimflam, including Michelle’s comment that “the public option provision can always be stuffed back in via a 3am manager’s amendment or during the House/Senate conference to reconcile each chamber’s Obamacare bills.”

    “Distrust and verify!”

  • Carl Vehse

    Dropping the “controversial stuff” would mean dropping the 0bamacare bill entirely. And when he’s not following the TOTUS, 0bama is doing a pretty good job of demonstrating the need to do just that, as noted in the article, Obamacare: The “Post Office” of Health Care Plans:

    At his orchestrated townhall event today [Aug. 11], President Obama defended the notion that his government-run public health care plan wouldn’t crowd out private insurers by referencing the symbiotic relationship between UPS, Fedex and the Post Office. Bad timing Mr. President. On Friday, the New York Times Business Section actually called for the privatization of the post office amid staggering losses, and even said it was in “General Motors territory.”

    Show us your BC, Barry!

  • Carl Vehse

    Dropping the “controversial stuff” would mean dropping the 0bamacare bill entirely. And when he’s not following the TOTUS, 0bama is doing a pretty good job of demonstrating the need to do just that, as noted in the article, Obamacare: The “Post Office” of Health Care Plans:

    At his orchestrated townhall event today [Aug. 11], President Obama defended the notion that his government-run public health care plan wouldn’t crowd out private insurers by referencing the symbiotic relationship between UPS, Fedex and the Post Office. Bad timing Mr. President. On Friday, the New York Times Business Section actually called for the privatization of the post office amid staggering losses, and even said it was in “General Motors territory.”

    Show us your BC, Barry!

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    If the Republicans want a better plan, they should have come up with it back when they were in power. They knew that there would be a day when the Democrats would be in power again and they should have taken preventative measures. What we see happening now would not be happening if the Republicans had not buried their heads in the sand for the past eight years.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    If the Republicans want a better plan, they should have come up with it back when they were in power. They knew that there would be a day when the Democrats would be in power again and they should have taken preventative measures. What we see happening now would not be happening if the Republicans had not buried their heads in the sand for the past eight years.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Kevin N.,

    In fact, Republicans have introduced meaningful health care reform for years.

    In the 1990s, Republicans tried to change Medicare into a defined-contribution model, more along the lines of the plan that federal employees enjoy. The Republican-controlled Congress passed such legislation in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Seeing that Medicare costs were out of control, Clinton set up a bipartisan Medicare Commission headed by John Breaux (D-La.). The Breaux Commission came up with a similar plan in 1999. Democrats killed that too.

    When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, from 2003-06, they provided Health Savings Accounts and prescription coverage under Medicare for the first time. With the Democrats regularly using Senate filibusters, those were significant achievements.

    Republican introduced precursors to the Patients’ Choice Act in the House in July 2007, May 2008 and September 2008. All died in the Democrat-controlled House.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Kevin N.,

    In fact, Republicans have introduced meaningful health care reform for years.

    In the 1990s, Republicans tried to change Medicare into a defined-contribution model, more along the lines of the plan that federal employees enjoy. The Republican-controlled Congress passed such legislation in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Seeing that Medicare costs were out of control, Clinton set up a bipartisan Medicare Commission headed by John Breaux (D-La.). The Breaux Commission came up with a similar plan in 1999. Democrats killed that too.

    When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, from 2003-06, they provided Health Savings Accounts and prescription coverage under Medicare for the first time. With the Democrats regularly using Senate filibusters, those were significant achievements.

    Republican introduced precursors to the Patients’ Choice Act in the House in July 2007, May 2008 and September 2008. All died in the Democrat-controlled House.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Also, The Republicans are trying to enact tort reform, which the Dems. stymie at every opportunity.

    Lawyers have driven healthcare costs through the roof, and something needs to be done about it.

    The Trial Lawyers Association is one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Also, The Republicans are trying to enact tort reform, which the Dems. stymie at every opportunity.

    Lawyers have driven healthcare costs through the roof, and something needs to be done about it.

    The Trial Lawyers Association is one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party.

  • J

    Steve,
    I don’t have a dog in the tort reform fight, but wherever it’s been enacted, lower health care costs (if you mean premiums) do not follow. Champion it because you don’t like lawyers or Democrats, but not because it can lower health care costs. Moreover, tort reform has nothing to do with private health insurers’ refusing to cover millions of Americans because they have 1) preexisting conditions and 2) can’t afford the insurance.
    Besides, if there were a correlation, you’d think that without tort reform, you’d think insurance company profits would be down, since they’re supposedly paying out all those huge jury awards, but the profits are staggeringly high.

    Tort reform is a huge red herring in this discussion.

  • J

    Steve,
    I don’t have a dog in the tort reform fight, but wherever it’s been enacted, lower health care costs (if you mean premiums) do not follow. Champion it because you don’t like lawyers or Democrats, but not because it can lower health care costs. Moreover, tort reform has nothing to do with private health insurers’ refusing to cover millions of Americans because they have 1) preexisting conditions and 2) can’t afford the insurance.
    Besides, if there were a correlation, you’d think that without tort reform, you’d think insurance company profits would be down, since they’re supposedly paying out all those huge jury awards, but the profits are staggeringly high.

    Tort reform is a huge red herring in this discussion.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    J,

    I didn’t think we have had much real tort reform of the kind that we need.

    Maybe if we ever do get it, we might see some lower costs.

    Preexisting conditions is a real bugaboo.

    I don’t know how we could ever provide insurance coverage there, because no one would buy it until they got sick.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    J,

    I didn’t think we have had much real tort reform of the kind that we need.

    Maybe if we ever do get it, we might see some lower costs.

    Preexisting conditions is a real bugaboo.

    I don’t know how we could ever provide insurance coverage there, because no one would buy it until they got sick.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, J, where has tort reform been enacted? Oh right, nowhere.

    Tort reform is actually intimately tied to any discussion of healthcare reform (along with a collection of other topics): presumably, if torts are indeed reformed in tandem with several other common-sense actions (such as mandating that all health insurance packages be completely portable), costs to the consumer/citizen would be lowered enough that all but the most destitute could become ensured. The most destitute could perhaps be eligible for limited government aid, but the majority of the destitute already have health insurance in the form of Medicare Part D and Medicaid.

    The true red herring in any discussion of healthcare reform is the claim that what we currently have is a free market in the provision of health care and insurance. In fact, health care is the most bureaucratized and federally regulated industry on the planet (with the financial industry being a close second). It is precisely the regulations in effect that have exploded our healthcare costs (in addition to the unavoidable advance of wonderful technologies that will always remain expensive; quality costs): inadequate Medicare reimbursements, un-portable plans (creating default monopolies within states; monopolies always elevate prices artificially); state and federal laws which require insurance policies to cover everything from routine blood tests to breast implants to abortions to experimental stem-cell treatments; absurd tort limits which not only garner massive payouts from insurance companies but (and here is the direct impact on the consumer) compel all doctors to carry malpractice insurance which generally costs six figures per year for every single doctor who has it; rules which forbid insurance companies from offering high-deductible/minimal plans; regulations which require employers to provide highly generalized group plans; and a host of other reasons, rules, and regulations that otherwise prevent “healthcare” from being included in the category of private industries. Truth be told, the government has more greasy fingers strangling health insurance companies and doctors than it does around Amtrak. I could go on (it’s such a large topic to treat concisely or coherently).

    The market works, and what we need, believe it or not, is more competition. According to a very basic rule of economics, monopolies are never efficient except in the case of natural monopolies (of which healthcare is not), whether the monopoly be private or government.

    Two things you must remember: healthcare is already universally accessible, and healthcare already is and always will be rationed; the questions then must be: who will govern how healthcare is accessed and who will ration it. Currently, an unholy combination of the government and insurance companies hold both awesome powers. For an unexplained reason, leftists/progressives wish for the government to be the sole arbiter of both questions. Opponents of the current reform package–of which I am one–wish for actual people, consumers, those whose lives are in the balance to make those choices. It can be done. Honda made its money by selling hordes of stripped-down economy cars at a slim profit margin; Lexus made its money by selling a few luxury cars with countless (possibly needless) features at a large margin; insurance can do the same if we loosen the market and open it to “economy” plans and the current bloated luxury plans. That analogy applies to what we have now: currently, the government is manipulating the industry in such a way that we are only permitted to buy Lexuses, so to speak, which, obviously, most people cannot afford.

    Very long story short: I won’t be supporting this plan or any other until it demonstrably interacts with the problems I outlined above.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, J, where has tort reform been enacted? Oh right, nowhere.

    Tort reform is actually intimately tied to any discussion of healthcare reform (along with a collection of other topics): presumably, if torts are indeed reformed in tandem with several other common-sense actions (such as mandating that all health insurance packages be completely portable), costs to the consumer/citizen would be lowered enough that all but the most destitute could become ensured. The most destitute could perhaps be eligible for limited government aid, but the majority of the destitute already have health insurance in the form of Medicare Part D and Medicaid.

    The true red herring in any discussion of healthcare reform is the claim that what we currently have is a free market in the provision of health care and insurance. In fact, health care is the most bureaucratized and federally regulated industry on the planet (with the financial industry being a close second). It is precisely the regulations in effect that have exploded our healthcare costs (in addition to the unavoidable advance of wonderful technologies that will always remain expensive; quality costs): inadequate Medicare reimbursements, un-portable plans (creating default monopolies within states; monopolies always elevate prices artificially); state and federal laws which require insurance policies to cover everything from routine blood tests to breast implants to abortions to experimental stem-cell treatments; absurd tort limits which not only garner massive payouts from insurance companies but (and here is the direct impact on the consumer) compel all doctors to carry malpractice insurance which generally costs six figures per year for every single doctor who has it; rules which forbid insurance companies from offering high-deductible/minimal plans; regulations which require employers to provide highly generalized group plans; and a host of other reasons, rules, and regulations that otherwise prevent “healthcare” from being included in the category of private industries. Truth be told, the government has more greasy fingers strangling health insurance companies and doctors than it does around Amtrak. I could go on (it’s such a large topic to treat concisely or coherently).

    The market works, and what we need, believe it or not, is more competition. According to a very basic rule of economics, monopolies are never efficient except in the case of natural monopolies (of which healthcare is not), whether the monopoly be private or government.

    Two things you must remember: healthcare is already universally accessible, and healthcare already is and always will be rationed; the questions then must be: who will govern how healthcare is accessed and who will ration it. Currently, an unholy combination of the government and insurance companies hold both awesome powers. For an unexplained reason, leftists/progressives wish for the government to be the sole arbiter of both questions. Opponents of the current reform package–of which I am one–wish for actual people, consumers, those whose lives are in the balance to make those choices. It can be done. Honda made its money by selling hordes of stripped-down economy cars at a slim profit margin; Lexus made its money by selling a few luxury cars with countless (possibly needless) features at a large margin; insurance can do the same if we loosen the market and open it to “economy” plans and the current bloated luxury plans. That analogy applies to what we have now: currently, the government is manipulating the industry in such a way that we are only permitted to buy Lexuses, so to speak, which, obviously, most people cannot afford.

    Very long story short: I won’t be supporting this plan or any other until it demonstrably interacts with the problems I outlined above.

  • Cincinnatus

    Addendum: Though it seems un-conservative, it might also make sense to require health insurance to be mandatory, with the one new regulation being that pre-existing conditions must be covered.

    Such is already the case in the auto insurance industry, which is, in the absence of government control, is exceedingly competitive. Under such a model, all would be required to have some kind of health insurance. Of course, this analogy cuts both ways: it is and should be absurd to forbid health insurance companies from charging more for those who are a higher risk, so to speak. Auto insurance providers are justifiably permitted to charge the 20-year-old male who has been in 3 accidents far more for his risky coverage than a for a safe driver; the same should, in general, apply to health coverage.

  • Cincinnatus

    Addendum: Though it seems un-conservative, it might also make sense to require health insurance to be mandatory, with the one new regulation being that pre-existing conditions must be covered.

    Such is already the case in the auto insurance industry, which is, in the absence of government control, is exceedingly competitive. Under such a model, all would be required to have some kind of health insurance. Of course, this analogy cuts both ways: it is and should be absurd to forbid health insurance companies from charging more for those who are a higher risk, so to speak. Auto insurance providers are justifiably permitted to charge the 20-year-old male who has been in 3 accidents far more for his risky coverage than a for a safe driver; the same should, in general, apply to health coverage.

  • Paul E.

    Steve @ 19,

    The reason the Democrats didn’t shoot down the prescription drug program is because they wanted it more than the Republicans. I heard Congressman Tom Tancredo talking about that monstrosity of a bill on the radio the other day, speaking of how he was pressured to vote for the bill by Republican leadership. The Republicans felt they needed to do something on health care, so they passed a fiscally unconservative bill to appease the public and show they were doing something. I have to disagree that the prescription drug program was a “good” piece of legislation.

  • Paul E.

    Steve @ 19,

    The reason the Democrats didn’t shoot down the prescription drug program is because they wanted it more than the Republicans. I heard Congressman Tom Tancredo talking about that monstrosity of a bill on the radio the other day, speaking of how he was pressured to vote for the bill by Republican leadership. The Republicans felt they needed to do something on health care, so they passed a fiscally unconservative bill to appease the public and show they were doing something. I have to disagree that the prescription drug program was a “good” piece of legislation.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Paul E.,

    I agree with you, Paul. Not the best bill to pass.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Paul E.,

    I agree with you, Paul. Not the best bill to pass.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X