ObamaCare: Its Just Wrong, clearly explained

This is the time  ... to kill it ... its a monstronsity; born of dishonesty and political corruption.

Mending Health Care   [Yuval Levin]

These days, it seems like the actual arguments for the Democrats’ health-care proposals have all faded away. Remember back when OMB Director Peter Orszag was on television all the time talking about reducing costs? Have you seen him lately? Me neither. The case for Obamacare as cost reduction just won’t pass the laugh test anymore, and no one seems to make it. The case for covering everyone isn’t heard all that much either, since the Democrats’ plans won’t do that. The case for improved efficiency hasn’t really survived the machinations necessary to get a bill through the House and to get another to the Senate floor — as what remains after the wheeling and dealing is anything but efficient. It seems like the only case being made to (and by) wavering Democrats in Congress now is that the bill just has to pass. History is calling, we have never been closer to agreement, this is our chance, do it for the president, and on and on. The theory is that it’s this or nothing; some combination of the Reid and Pelosi bills has to pass or else we just leave our health-care system as it is.

But as Sen. Tom Coburn and former Deputy HHS Secretary (and regular Cornerite) Tevi Troy argue over at Forbes, this is no way to think about public policy. The notion that our only options are a massive new entitlement (complete with huge job-killing tax increases, a bloated new government program, and ridiculous budget gimmicks, but no real means to cut health-care costs) or just doing nothing simply isn’t true. There are lots of other options, and there is plenty of time to think them through and make some changes that actually improve our system. The two basic premises the Democrats are advancing at the moment — this or nothing, and now or never — are both false. As Coburn and Troy point out, there are better ways.

Krauthammer's Take   [NRO Staff]

On the horse trading necessary to pass Obamacare:

We saw Senator Landrieu say, "I decided there were enough significant reforms." Well, one reform that she really appreciated was a $300 million payoff to her state in the bill that was shoved in there as a way to purchase her vote. So that is a reform she could admire.

The reason I think there continues to be erosion of public support for this [health-care reform] is there is a realization that that is just one of hundreds of provisions, loopholes, payoffs, extra bureaucratic commissions, mandates stuffed into a monstrously large bill that most people don't even know about.

But there is the sense that we have had ever since the middle of the year that this is not an attempt to streamline our health-care system, which is what it needs. Ours is the best in the world, but it is inefficient. There are a lot of inefficiencies accumulated over decades.

What you want is simplicity, to strip away the inefficiencies. This [bill] will add on to them and it's going to make it utterly incoherent.

Two examples: tort reform — that would save half a trillion dollars to $2 trillion in a decade — is not in here at all. In fact, in the House bill, it's discouraged. You lose federal money if you're a state and you impose tort reform.

Second is the idea of being able to purchase your health insurance across state lines. It's a ridiculous prohibition. You buy life insurance across state lines. You buy auto insurance. You buy oranges across state lines. If you didn't, they would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin in the winter.

And the answer isn't the establishment of a public option in oranges in Wisconsin. It's allowing [interstate] competition. But the liberals won't allow [interstate] competition because they want a public option as an avenue into nationalized health care, and the excuse is it [the public option] will introduce competition.