Friday, May 29, 2009


From the National Center for Policy Analysis.

The biggest mistake Hillary Clinton made 15 years ago was not endorsing Bob Dole's health bill, which had more than 40 Republican co-sponsors, says John C. Goodman, President and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Dole bill would have given her 70 percent to 80 percent of everything she wanted anyway, to say nothing of creating a huge bipartisan lovefest. Democrats would have held the Congress in 1994….. and, well, you get the picture.

Barack Obama is about to repeat that same mistake, says Goodman. The smartest thing he could do is endorse a bill sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.), along with Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), [hereinafter called the Coburn bill]. Here's why:

Independent analyses estimate the Coburn bill would cut the number of uninsured in half, the same result that is expected under Obama's plan.

The Coburn bill is revenue neutral -- requiring no net increased taxes or spending; whereas Obama's plan will cost $1.5 trillion over 15 years and maybe more -- even though they both achieve the same goal.

The Coburn bill makes coverage more universal by shifting tax benefits from those who earn more to those who earn less -- precisely what Obama has committed to from the get-go.
The Coburn bill liberates millions of poor people from Medicaid rationing and gives them access to the same kind of insurance middle-income families have, whereas Obama's plan would do to reverse.

The Coburn bill gives people strong incentives to control costs, whereas Obama's $150 billion a year in extra spending will almost certainly add to health care inflation.

In some ways, this is the most "liberal" proposal on the table made by the most conservative senator on Capitol Hill; and it achieves all of Obama's goals as well or much better than Obama's own plan, says Goodman!

Source: John C. Goodman, "John Goodman's Health Policy Blog: The Republican Health Plan," National Center for Policy Analysis, May 26, 2009.

For text:

For more on Health Issues:


  1. I understand the whole nationalized health care debate. No where in the constitution do I remember health care being listed as a right. On what basis do they claim that this is a right? If it is the governments duty to make sure that we have good health then what is to stop them from telling us what food we are allowed to eat? What activities we are allowed to participate in?

    Nationalized health care is a slippery slope that we are going down. Two examples to look at how the government has recently regulated things. The Auto industry and the Banks with the Tarp money some were forced to take.

    This doesn't have much to do with health care but I just found a neat story about how the Earth was created that I posted on my blog. Since oou having served in the Corps too I thought you would appriacte it and wanted to let you know about it.

  2. I have no faith in the government running health care. They have a tendency to screw up about everything they touch. With that said, I see a larger issue Robert has brought up. The politicians in Washington will not work together on the subject of health care. There is no way Obama and the left are going to go for a bill put together by a republican. It is more important for the bill to be their own (and become part of their personal legacy) than it is for the bill to benefit America as a whole.

    Love the site, Robert. Been a follower for quite a while now.