Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Hope & Change Update: Papa Obama 1-for-14 on his health care promises
Weekly Standard:
Would it have been too much to have hoped that the president would go 1-for-14 on his health care promises?
President Obama has been perfectly clear. He has said that his plan for "health-care reform" would not cause any individuals or families to lose their health-care plans, would not be paid for by cutting seniors' Medicare benefits, would not bend the health-care cost-curve up (but instead would bend it down), would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, would not raise Americans' health insurance premiums (by $2,100 a year in the individual market) but instead would lower them (by $2,500), would not put the federal government in control of health care, would not require Americans to buy health insurers' product under penalty of law, would not cost more than $900 billion over ten years (and certainly not $2.5 trillion, like the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost), would not raise deficits, would not liberalize rules preventing taxpayer funding of abortions, would increase competition and choice, would leave what's good in place while fixing what's broken, would be bipartisan, and would be passed in an open and transparent manner with the C-SPAN cameras rolling for all to see.
Would it have been too much to have hoped that the president would go 1-for-14?
Weekly Standard:
Would it have been too much to have hoped that the president would go 1-for-14 on his health care promises?
President Obama has been perfectly clear. He has said that his plan for "health-care reform" would not cause any individuals or families to lose their health-care plans, would not be paid for by cutting seniors' Medicare benefits, would not bend the health-care cost-curve up (but instead would bend it down), would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, would not raise Americans' health insurance premiums (by $2,100 a year in the individual market) but instead would lower them (by $2,500), would not put the federal government in control of health care, would not require Americans to buy health insurers' product under penalty of law, would not cost more than $900 billion over ten years (and certainly not $2.5 trillion, like the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost), would not raise deficits, would not liberalize rules preventing taxpayer funding of abortions, would increase competition and choice, would leave what's good in place while fixing what's broken, would be bipartisan, and would be passed in an open and transparent manner with the C-SPAN cameras rolling for all to see.
Would it have been too much to have hoped that the president would go 1-for-14?
