My junior Senator may dismiss her constituents’ concerns with great regularity, but my state’s senior Senator, despite her liberal inclination, has almost always shown respect for her ideological adversaries.
And now, instead of marching in lockstep with her party’s leadership, Dianne Feinstein shows that she’s been listening to her constituents, expressing skepticism about her party’s proposed health care overhaul:
I just find that if you’re going to remake a sixth of the American economy, it’s very difficult at this time of great economic angst. . . .
There is real concern over debt and deficits, and whether this bill will create additional entitlements.
This is not to say Senator Feinstein opposes all of then rovisions of the various Democrat health care bills (indeed she supports many), but only to show that she understands that the cost of this programs concerns her, especially during the difficult economic times.
It’s too bad more Democrats have not acknowledged some of the concerns of Obamacare opponents as has Mrs. Feinstein. She honors our state by her civility and by the respect she shows for those not on the same page with her politically. And indeed, often incorporates their ideas into her program.
Via Don Surber who observes:
[Feinstein] is actually with Republicans in wanting to open up insurance. Currently, states control health insurance. Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress could indeed open insurance competition across state lines.
“…only to show that she understands that the cost of this programs concerns her…”
If y’all weren’t so consumed with the need to be anti-Obama, you might recognize that the President has also shown sensitivity to this concern from day one – which is why he has always insisted, including repeating it forcefully in his recent speech, that he will not sign a bill that adds to the deficits.
Indeed, that was the purpose of the commerce clause. To prevent 1, 2 or X states from denying access to the commerce of another state. It wasn’t the items of commerce but rather the power to keep regular the very act of commerce that was given to congress.
AS to the commerce clause, I find this hilarious. How are you guys going to square this advocacy of the federal government trumping state soverignity in the area of insurance – always traditionally a state regulated area? I am not questioning whether the feds have that power – but people on your side surely will, and others, even if they grant that the feds have the power, will argue it should not be used. Arent you guys all about federalism?
Tano in 1–and you expect e to believe that? He campaigned on a net spending cut and delivered the “stimulus” which added to the deficit.
He promised (in a campaign commercial no less) that for every new dollar in spending, there’d be a matching dollar in cuts. Hasn’t happened.
Even one of his leading supporters (Camille Paglia) doesn’t take him at his word on that.
CBO analysis of the various health care bills on the table shows they will all add seeral hundred billion dimes to the deficit.
And anyway, are you so intent on criticizing me that you won’t even acknowledge the praise I offered a Democrat?
Seems you’re all about frequenting this blog merely to attack us.
#1
Oh yeah. He’ll cut waste, fraud and abuse by creating….wait for it….even more waste, fraud and abuse.
#1: “If y’all weren’t so consumed with the need to be anti-Obama, you might recognize that the President has also shown sensitivity to this concern from day one – which is why he has always insisted, including repeating it forcefully in his recent speech, that he will not sign a bill that adds to the deficits.”
Yes, Tano, obviously we missed the President’s breathtaking sensitivity because we were so preoccupied with things like objective reality and Obama’s irredeemable lack of credibility (or what you call, being “anti-Obama”). Consequently, in my opinion, you can file Obama’s sensitivity to the fiscal concerns of his opponents in the same blazing, eco-unfriendly round file containing the Administration’s concerns about the “raw sensitivities” of the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/us_in_talks_with_libya_for_gadhafi_lFOdaMaptarU7l7Sbj6MUI
The only cost that concerns her is votes. Votes that she may be jeopardizing by following her government power trip. She is listening to her spinmeisters, as usual.
#4 Dan he’s got to earn that Soros paycheck somehow.
Tano,
As loath as I am to allow the federal government to override any state law, the fact of the matter is, it needs to be cleared up and would actually lower costs to allow plans to cross state lines *easier*
For example of some of the headaches that come from the current system.
Florida mandates coverage of Massage Therapists (Not to be confused with ACORN which mandates covering for prostitution as massage therapy), but only for policies issued in the state of Florida.
Texas prompt pay laws apply to *any* plan where services are rendered to a Texas provider. no matter where the plan is issued.
Those are just two examples. If the federal government were to step in and say that a Florida resident could buy say, a Texas plan, then he’d be able to have his insurance w/o having massage therapy covered *if he wanted to*.
But I don’t expect you to understand free market systems and increasing competion.
BTW, still haven’t gotten those ACORN talking points yet? I notice how you’re popping up in every thread except those involving ACORN or where you’ve already been schooled, like our lack of support of democracies like Honduras, Iraq, and Israel.
We sooo need a preview button.
Livewire is exactly right about the properly understood application of the Commerce Clause.
More generally, a hypocrisy charge is always hard to sustain since it prima fascia cuts both ways. And this is as good an example as any: “Single Payer” supporters – out of the blue – use a dubious, commerce-unfriendly reading of federalism to thwart federalism and centralize healthcare payments in Washington. Just amazing. If you’re looking for hypocrites, mirrors are cheap at Walmart.
Perhaps I’m all wet on this, but I cannot think of an issue where the right turned to state’s rights to stop business. Help me out here.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Drat. “Interstate Porn Trafficking” came to me in the shower. (Stop that snickering.)
Oh, well. Using our new charge of hypocrisy: If you leftists want to ally yourselves with the elders in Utah, be my guest! 😉
Best wishes,
-MFS
Oh, IBD reports a different set of truths than Tano’s Obama talking points. I know, surprising.
Tano,
Feinstein can do basic math. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will add $1.2 trillion to the deficit over ten years. The tax increases in the bill will cover $566 billion of that over the ten years. Obama’s economic advisor calculates that 4 million jobs will be lost as a result of increased taxes on small business owners. Obama plans to cut much of the Medicare Advantage plan and to cause those supplemental insurance policies to rise significantly to cover the gap between increased tax revenues and the Obamacare deficit.
Feinstein knows smoke and mirrors when she sees them and she wants a tighter accounting to show how Obama will not add one dime to the deficit. If Congress were to be forced to “not add one dime to the deficit” starting in 2010, the national budget would not be able to cover mowing the White House grass.
I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how Obama can carry out his bumper sticker “pledge” in terms other than “yes we can.” Come play with the big boys here and use logic, facts and simple math to make your case.
Heliotrope,
Feinstein has done nothing but raise a set of concerns about the budget implications of health reform. I am not criticizing her for that, quite the contrary. All I was doing was pointing out that Obama himself has expressed those very same concerns, and has promised, in a very forceful, public and unambiguous way, to not sign a bill which adds to the deficit.
If Feinstein’s rhetoric earns her praise here, then why not Obama as well?
He has not given his endorsement to any of the bills that the CBO has found to be budget busters. And the key proposal, the one that most everyone agrees will probably form the framework of the final bill is just coming out today. We will see how that is scored.
I dont know what the exact formula in the final bill will be, and I dont have a preferred formula. All I know about it is that it will have CBO scoring attached to it – and that scoring will be universally accepted as definitive. And that Obama has put himself in a position where is would be politically suicidal for him to sign a bill that isnt scored as neutral.
Heliotrope,
Just to update last comment.
Specifically referring to your question:
“explain to me how Obama can carry out his bumper sticker “pledge” in terms other than “yes we can.” Come play with the big boys here and use logic, facts and simple math to make your case.”
Well, the biggest boys in the room have spoken. CBO preliminary score on the Baucus bill shows it REDUCES the deficit.
LINK
This is not the final version, obviously, but I hope you see that it can be done.