“While the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, today’s decision validates concerns that the law vastly expands the federal government’s role in our health care system and profoundly impacts the personal lives and medical decisions of Americans. Although today’s ruling is significant, it does not change the fact the policies of the law have failed. Two and a half years into implementation, health care costs have increased for families and small businesses; our nation’s health care spending remains on an unsustainable trajectory; Americans are realizing they won’t be able to keep their current coverage as they were promised; and innovation and high-quality care, the hallmarks of our first rate system, are being threatened by punitive policies.
“With the major legal challenge decided, our attention must turn to addressing the crucial issues that should have been tackled when Congress and the nation began the health care reform dialogue in 2009. When the law was enacted, Congress and the President failed to implement the real reforms to reduce health care costs, make coverage more affordable, meaningfully expand access to care and improve quality. Instead, what the law has done is impose more than 20 new or higher taxes, cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars, authorize a trillion dollars in new government spending, impose costly new burdens on employers and discourage greater investment. Congress must work to reverse the numerous flawed policies that are negatively impacting all Americans, and advance deliberate, sensible reforms that target cost, access and quality.
“One of my greatest concerns about the health care law is it promises benefits, financed in the short-term by budget gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions, that are completely unsustainable in the long term. The way the law is structured has proven to be unmanageable. Costly provisions are driving up health care spending while policies intended as offsets have been abandoned by the Administration or deemed unworkable. In some cases, these provisions have been reversed by Congress to avoid severe economic impacts.
“An opportunity to enact meaningful reform was lost when the health care law was jammed through Congress by the President without thoughtful consideration of the far-reaching implications of its policies. With the Supreme Court’s decision now behind us and serious fiscal challenges before us, I believe we are presented a new opportunity to identify the failures of our health care system, repeal the law and then carefully develop solutions catering to the diverse needs of the American people. These solutions must also help place our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. I believe we can build bipartisan consensus around common-sense policies that reduce cost by placing more power in the hands of individuals; families and small businesses to make health care decisions; expand access by ensuring affordable coverage options are available to all Americans; and promote the use of technology and medical innovations to improve the quality and efficiency of the care we receive.”
18 comments:
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America ...
... with NO LIMIT on the power of Government to tax anything!
Lovely little precedent being set.
Obama just got re-elected, too.
Woo Hoo!
What a great day for the country ...
What I really hope for is that BOTH parties work together on this and other issues after this election. When partisans on both sides define compromise as "when the other party comes to our way of thinking", our country suffers.
The statement the Chamber of Commerce and the RNC wrote for Charlie was very nice.
The problem is the system is broken and the broken record of tort reform is getting old. I happen to be all in favor of tort reform. With the provision that a professional panel sit in arbitration of cases of malpractice which still occur everyday.
However, once we get the 1% of cost tort reform will fix out of the way we are still left with a fundamental problem.
The poor get free health care via medicaid, often at emergency rooms which are the most expensive way of providing health care. The very wealthy, no problem,as most have insurance. If you have a full time job that offers health care insurance good for you.
If you don't, you are boned.
The problem is that with the Republican agenda of destroying what is left of the middle class they are screwing part of their own base.
Eventually people may get over their fear of Obama, Democrats and code words like socialism and realize that our system is a nightmare, if you are not one of very poor or very rich.
You are one illness away form poverty if you do not have insurance.
The problem with Charlie is that not one, not one Republican in the House Or Senate voted for the Affordable Care Act, that is PARTY discipline not principle.
Now Romney is going to put all his marbles on, vote for me to destroy the Act. Fine, he will lose on that platform.
If the Republicans are serious they will make their top agenda not the defeat of Barack Obama but working on ways to improve the bill.
From the perspective of the left, the loss of a single payer system was not a good thing. But we realize that the system as it is was broken.
When hospitals become luxury hotels and drug companies spend billions advertising dick pills that only your doctor can prescribe, you have to shake your head.
By the way I laughed when my Blue Cross person was quibbling with me about a procedure, I thought only government bureaucrats did that. I mentioned to them that if they can sponsor the Chamber of Commerce dinners and the entire Coke-a-Cola stadium, somehow I figure they could find a way to cover my claim.
Just because you get medicare or disability doesn't mean it isn't a form of social policy.
Grow up, wise up and step up. top protesting and start working to fix things.
Yea right, Charlie did not put that response together.
It's been either three or four years since the Republicans promised their health care reform bill. They had a number of years under Bush to fix the flaws even they admit existed.
Still waiting for the Republicans to deliver.
Yes, Obamacare is flawed, but given the "cooperation" of the Republicans and their lies about things like Death Panels, I guess we can't expect construction critism or new ideas.
As Charlie knows full well a lot of the provisions of the bill haven't even taken affect yet. Regarding the debate on the bill itself, the Republicans were nowhere to be found as far as responsible, considered policy. I can't wait to see what "solutions" to fix this they will come up with....oh wait...that's right they just take potshots at Obama to make sure he doesn't get elected again, actual productive policy debate is not part of their agenda....and the country suffers.
"if you like your healthcare coverage, you can keep it!"
B.H. Obama
Yes, Roberts shunned his nominator on this one.But that should put to rest the Dems howling about the courts being totally biased. The ruling was based on Oblama's deception to the American people. He refused to call it a "tax" to enact the lasw. No he has to explain to the American people why he increased taxes by over a trillion dollars with this bureaucratic mess.
Hey Charlie, instead of the Policalise speak, get on the radio, get on the TV and SPEAK OUT for gawd sakes. The Federal Government has now made anyone who does not purchase health care insurance a criminal. What will be next, putting them in jail when they don't by insurance. This is simply unbelievable and the people of this country are passively accepting this as good. Unreal.
The major parts of the Bill have not been enacted yet and Dent is misleading.
Charlie Dent wants you to forget the escalation of healthcare costs year after year before healthcare reform was enacted. But that was ok because it was the Commercial sector.
Conservatives are always banging the drums on entitlements, but the individual mandate requires everyone to carry their own water and take some responsibility for their own healthcare.
Chief Justice Roberts may have just handed the election to Romney. Now it is established that the mandate is a tax, and as such it is going to be even more unpopular with the electorate. This "loss" for some, may actually end up being a "win".
Hey! Didn't Republicans promise to fix healthcare back in 1994 when they opposed reform under Clinton (Hillarycare)? What reform did they offer in all those years?
Charlie dent speaks the truth. With facts and fiscal realities. Something Obama and that about to be elected rep for Half of Northampton County(see two blogs down). Just don't want to face. We can not afford obamacare. Obamacare may be the dream of the idealists but it is the nightmare of the realists and has no place in a capitalistic society.
So if the individual mandate is a tax, and RomneyCare (as advocated at one time by the "conservative" Heritage Foundation) included the individual mandate, does that make Romney another Governor from "Tax-achusetts"?? Will he be driving a tank soon like Dukakis?
I voted (signed) for it, before I voted (campaigned) against it, sounds strangely deja vu from yet another Massachusetts Democrat presidential candidate.
The seeds of compromise between Dems and GOPs are actually there....will they ever grow?
Lighthouse, re: Romney/Taxachussetts: Yes! Remember, most R's did not support Romney in the primaries when they had a choice (i.e. prior to the competitive field shrinking to just him). Many (most?) Rs view Romney as a RINO flip-flopper. He was nominated as the best financed, best run campaign to launch a challenge to Obama. Tea Party aside, Rs made a pragmatic choice to take an incremental step back from the left edge. All candidates flip flop. Obama said his 21-tax law contained NO taxes. He lied. Romney lied. Politicians lie. Let's move along.
The tone of the Roberts opinion was that the law is unprecedented in its onerousness and passed under a false premise. Bader-Ginsberg went balistic because Roberts even mentioned the Commerce Clause in an opinion they all agreed had nothing to do with it, as the law is a tax. She made a bitter statement about Roberts' opinion just before the court adjourned.
That's because funding anything with taxes (that always require raising) is very problematic. There is no guarantee of funding for the law. The refusal to require states to be compelled to participate in the expansion of Medicare leaves a holy mess as those tossed from Medicare (estimates are 15 million) have no place to land, as was required under the portion struck down 6-2.
One of the zillion pundits observed that Roberts handed Obama a cigar - an exploding cigar. George Will's column expounds on this today. The health care fight has just begun with new rules of engagement involving an age-old theme. Taxes.
C'mon ladies and gents in Washington. Please cross the friggin' isle and work together for the sake of our country. Please put ego and corporate interests aside. Jeeze Louise, no wonder Congress has an approval rating that is lower than Cetacian dung. This applies to BOTH parties.
So Dent is a tool of the R leadership and the R's leader - Willard Mitt Romney - wants healthcare reform to do the following:
1. Allow the insured to keep their current insurance.
2. No get dropped or unable to obtain coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
3. Help the states give access to affordable healthcare.
4. Help lower the cost of healthcare.
All of these are achieved via Obamacare aka Romneycare. Apparently what he objects to is the part of the legislation that actually pays for the above mentioned.
Doesn't sound like a fiscally responsible plan to me. Just sayin'.
Publius
Post a Comment