Soldevila.com Blog

Governor Bobby Jindal on Government Run Health Care

Things in Louisiana are looking up. We are announcing major economic development wins and private capital investment and reducing government spending in order to live within our means. We just completed a grueling legislative session where we all had to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to find a way to do more with less.

We trimmed government spending, protected vital services and refused to raise taxes. (As is the case in any legislative body, some gave it a try). I can't say our legislative session was much fun, but it was necessary, and it is the American way. Or, at least we thought it was.

In the meantime, I've been catching up on the news in Washington. I wish I had not.

Let's review: the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bailouts for American International Group and others, CEOs of bankrupt businesses that receive billions of tax dollars running off with millions in bonuses, a $ 3.5 trillion budget, a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus that has not stimulated, unemployment continuing to climb, government in the banking business, and of course, the U.S. government now making cars.

We have record deficits, which are unprecedented in recorded world history. We have debt that is even causing our creditors in the Middle East and China to be worried. Oops, I almost forgot the new national energy tax that just passed the House. If it isn't bad enough that you may have lost your job and been fighting off foreclosure, the government now wants to make sure you, and every other American, pay more in energy costs so former Vice President Al Gore can be happy. This here is a fine pot of gumbo.

I honestly do not know one single individual who is happy with this situation. Not one. Not a Republican, a Democrat or an independent. These actions are all problematic individually, but taken as a whole, they are devastating. So against that backdrop, we enter the health care reform debate.

I know a little something about health care policy, and I can tell you exactly the game that is currently afoot. If the House Democrats' plan were to become law, the president's statement that "if you like your health care now, you can keep it" will not be true. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Businesses will, in effect, be forced to send employees into the Democrats' government-run health care. It's really not something to argue about, it is a fact. A private health insurance system, otherwise known as what we have today, will not be able to compete with a taxpayer-subsidized government plan, and businesses faced with growing health care costs will opt to either lay off more workers or send employees into the government plan. One independent study already suggested that up to 119 million Americans will end up leaving their private plans for the public plan. To think otherwise requires one to suspend disbelief.

The plan the House Democrats are developing is a radical restructuring of health care in America. You may like it, you may not, but it is just that; there is no denying or sugarcoating it.
Let me be clear about something: I have no problem conceding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with whom I served in Congress, means well, even though I realize some Republicans get mad when I say that. But the simple fact is that House Democrats are determined to try to tax and spend our way back to prosperity. The past six months have made that clear.

Our federal government is currently just flinging stuff against the wall, in trillion-dollar chunks, to see what sticks. Congress's own budget office has said the current "federal budget is on an unsustainable path" and that the Democrats' health plan does not reduce "long-term health costs facing the government."

The House Democrats' plan would have the following consequences:

· Most Americans would end up, over time, with government-run health care.

· The only folks who would be able to stave this off are the wealthy.

· The quality of our health care would diminish.

· Someone other than patients and doctors would make decisions on the treatments and medicines we can have.

· The taxes on the rich, otherwise known as employers, would further damage the economy and potentially drive up unemployment at a time we can least afford it.

If you like those outcomes, then by all means, support the House Democrats' health care plan.

The shame of it all is that there really is an emerging consensus among the populace that we need reform that reduces costs, improves outcomes and puts patients in control.

Imagine if the president proposed a reform package that made health insurance portable, ended frivolous lawsuits, allowed for pooling, required insurance companies to cover the sick, paid based on outcomes and not activity, used refundable tax credits to increase affordability and incentivized rather than penalized small businesses to provide coverage. Republicans would support those reforms, and the policy would benefit the entire country. True, it wouldn't be the radical and exciting restructuring that Pelosi is pushing, but it would begin to move us toward common-sense, bottom-up solutions. Solutions! There's an idea.

But wait, as the late Billy Mays would say, there's more. Social Security and Medicare, our two biggest entitlement programs in this country, are perpetually underfunded and are always in danger of going bankrupt. Is it even remotely possible that we as a country are now considering adding an entire new entitlement program to our repertoire?

Would the last sane person in Washington please turn out the lights when you leave?

Bobby Jindal is the Republican governor of Louisiana.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
FD HIDDEN DIV

CBO says Democrats' Health care bills could break the national bank!!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats' health care bills would not meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget arbitrator warned Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the national bank.

The sobering assessment from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf came as Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed to pass a partisan bill through committees. In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers continued to seek a deal that could win support from both Republicans and Obama's fellow Democrats.

Obama has made a new health care system the chief domestic goal of his first term. Among developed countries, the United States alone has no comprehensive health care plan for all its citizens, and close to 50 million of the 300 million Americans lack health insurance.

With pressure mounting on all sides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed as "a waste of money" a television ad campaign by Obama's political organization aiming to nudge moderates of both parties off the fence. He called it "Democrats running ads against Democrats." A spokesman later said Reid has no problem with the effort.

From the beginning of the health care debate, Obama has insisted that any overhaul must "bend the curve" of rapidly rising costs that threaten to swamp the budgets of government, businesses and families.

Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, whether the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that, as things stand now, "the curve is being raised."

Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Even if the legislation would not add to the federal deficit during the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.

Part of the reason is that Obama and most Democrats have refused to accept a tax on high-cost health insurance plans as part of the overhaul. Wide agreement exists among economists that such a tax would give businesses and individuals an incentive to become thriftier consumers of health care. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, also a Democrat, said Thursday that Obama's position is not helping matters.

White House officials played down the significance of the budget director's assessment, which they said was premature. "At the end of the day, we'll have significant cost controls," presidential adviser David Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the budget director's warning should be "a wake-up call," adding, "instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right."

Despite the flashing yellow light from the budget office, Congress pushed ahead Thursday.

On the heels of the Senate health committee's approval Wednesday of a plan to provide coverage to the uninsured, three House committees shifted into action on their version of the legislation. The Democratic bills also would create a government-sponsored insurance plan to compete with private coverage, although they differ on the details.

House Democrats won a coveted endorsement of their legislation from the American Medical Association, which said the bill "includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform." The insurance industry said it opposes key elements of the bill, saying a government plan "will cause millions of patients to lose their current coverage."