11 Responses to "Defending Olympia"
October 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I think Snowe is an important contributor because many Blue Dog democrats share her perspective. The final bill with either include a trigger option, or an opt-in/opt-out measure.
You’re right to be concerned about what pork is added. In the end, I don’t think Pelosi/Reid will get everything they want, but at least a deal will finally be done; and that’s the most important thing.
October 14, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Snowe is not “treasonous”; many of us conservatives just think that she voted for a bad bill. My main concern is that it will raise insurance costs and increase the deficit.
The insurance companies are not perfect, but they are not the enemy. Our system is broken, I think we can all agree. But to many of us on the right side of the spectrum, this bill is not the answer.
And I’m with Vern: I don’t know how much more pork we can afford.
October 14, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I understand where you’re coming from. Please remember the whole idea for reform in the first place was to cut costs, thereby lowering the deficit. Also, we’re still a long way from the final bill, which I hope is more toward your liking – fiscally.
October 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“Please remember the whole idea for reform in the first place was to cut costs, thereby lowering the deficit.”
Exactly. And I’m just not convinced that this is what the Baucus bill will do.
October 15, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’ve advocated that “something” get out there since the very beginning, believing on one hand that reform needs to occur and on the other, fear that status quo will remain if it doesn’t get out there before the Dems lose their majority. I have to admit, though, that I thought more of the financial aspects of it would have been vetted by now by all stakeholders. As a result I’m not as all for “something” as I once was.
The CBO doesn’t like it, the insurance companies are fighting back, and I’m just starting to read now how the bailout banks exec bonuses are at a high this year. Wasn’t there legislation in the bailout package to prevent that from happening? What happened? That was a bill for a “mere” $750m!
My fear is that the Dems have no true care or concern for the long-term financial impact on the country. They’re sounding like politicians on this, not economists and that scares me.
off-topic side note: the fact that CNN felt the need to “fact check” SNL is FUNNY!
October 15, 2009 at 8:53 am
Vern,
Your assessment is spot-on. No one likes this bill, it hasn’t solved the problem, and people like me and my children and grandchildren are going to be footing the bills for these experiments the rest of our lives. Like you, the only conclusion I can draw is that “the Dems have no true care or concern for the long-term financial impact on the country.”
And Wolf Blitzer fact-checking an SNL skit is funny, but also kind of a pathetic commentary on the state of our media. Have they ever done that before? I think the answer is “no.”
October 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm
One note: nearly all the bank bailout money has been repaid. People often forget that. Also, the ten-year deficit projection has decreased drastically already under the new administration compared to analysis of what it would have been had the democrats done nothing.
October 15, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Credit where it’s due! The bailout has been producing great/surprising results so far, and I hope it continues. I don’t think it has nearly all has been repaid, (see links below) but the point is that at least the trend is going in the right direction, which I agree.
I hesitate to vindicate here, though. It was (arguably) government intervention that caused this whole financial mess in the first place, providing guarantees for bad loans under both the Bush and Clinton administrations. For a large part, the basis of these backings were political, not economic.
My concern with the health care reform is that the basis for it will be too political and hardly social or economic. Following the same trend as the sub-prime mortgage crisis, are we to expect a Health Care Industry Rescue Program 4-8 yrs down the road? TARP we could barely afford. A Reform bailout bill? Yikes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
October 16, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Olympia Snowe should be irrelevant. What is the best bill we can get? It’s one that has a public option. That’s the key to controlling health care costs, which is why the insurance companies are fighting it so hard.
Olympia’s “trigger” is for suckers. Half of us will be dead before it gets pulled. The other half will be broke.
I could live with the “opt-out” proposal. Not many state legislatures will be stupid enough to give their constituents FEWER choices.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi need to ask themselves one question: What would Lyndon Johnson do? They have the power to steamroll the bad guys here, if they all get on the same page.
October 14, 2009 at 11:54 am
I think the bigger concern for Americans will be how the final health care bill is passed (i.e. what political tricks are played to pass it), and what pork is snuck in there as well (new airport runways, wooden arrows, etc.)
Do you think it will end up being the Pelosi/Reid Bill?