« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The White House rejects interstate competition in health insurance.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  September 20th, 2009 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is actually from September 9th – you can tell, because they’re hyping the President’s speech as being a game-changer – but it’s instructive nonetheless. In this clip, Axelrod was asked, point-blank, why the administration isn’t trying to change the rules to let insurance companies compete across straight[*] lines, and his refusal to give a straight answer is almost as funny as is watching Wolf Blitzer pushing him to give one.

Mind you, the actual answer – “There isn’t anything in that scheme that benefits a Democratic client group, and interstate competition is part of the Republican plan that we keep lying about not existing, so we won’t support it” – is politically… fraught. Nonetheless, it’s instructive to remember that this administration has no interest in a bipartisan solution to health care reform, and even less interest in getting the Democrats in Congress under control. All the President wants is a bill to sign and the opportunity to declaim that he’s reformed health care. Anything will do at this point.

(Via Below the Beltway, via The Other McCain)

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

[*As Faithful Commenter NightTwister guessed: this is a Freudian slip, but I'm not going to fix it. On reflection, I like it better this way.- ML]

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Dems will protect the trial lawyers when all is said and done.

    It’s like when Obama says all options are on the table for energy – which means all options except drilling, refining, mining, and nukes.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    “State” lines, not “straight lines”.

    Freudian slip?

    This is why we’ll get nothing. The Democrats will never allow a Republican idea to get into a bill, and their versions don’t have the support to pass. Rather than getting a truly bipartisan law, they’d rather do nothing.

  • UpLateAgain

    Republican options are not being seriously considered. From a Democratic political standpoint, there’s little to recommend them. The Dems have to reconcile the differences within their own party to get anything passed, and they intend to do it through their normal routes (threaten to withhold future election support, promise pork, agree to support bills the holdouts want, etc.). They see no advantage in pissing off the trial lawyers or in incorporating anything the Republicans can later lay claim to.

    Sadly, I think they are still misguided enough to believe their own press… that they will ultimately have public support once it is actually law, and opposition to what they are doing is manufactured.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    there would be no need for any major govt involvement.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    and this would indeed cure some of the Ills of the Health Insurance concerns people have…. Liberals have stated over and over and over how anything/everything has to solely work toward the goal of complete Socialized Medicine in the US and helping and/or empowering people doesn’t fit that goal. They may back down on some things and settle for just one or two more Liberal Incremental-ism steps toward their goals but never, unless they have some loophole to let Liberal States out of them or to undermine the effectiveness so they can demagogue them, allow any real solving/fixes of the problems. It is all, always, as we all know at RS, about having the options open to blame the FAILINGS of Liberal programs on others not allowing them to impliment their plans further and plenty of MORONS out there that buy into it each time.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    or State Lines (States’ Rights, never) for that matter…. Having a “straight” line makes it too easy for folks to see what side of the line they are on! They have to keep the ambiguity to lie about!!!

    I know, state the obvious ;-)

  • Next93

    There was a time <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement”not so long ago (and <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war” another, quite long ago) when Democrats were all about state’s rights.

  • Next93

    I hang my head in shame

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    today’s Progressive Democrats (socialists). Also, States’ rights should never trump freedom. In both examples you gave, freedom was more important than an individual States’ right to limit it.

  • IJB

    Nonetheless, it?s instructive to remember that this administration has no interest in a bipartisan solution to health care reform, and even less interest in getting the Democrats in Congress under control. All the President wants is a bill to sign and the opportunity to declaim that he?s reformed health care. Anything will do at this point.

    On the contrary – I think the record clearly shows that Obama in fact won’t settle for any old bill to sign at this point.

    In fact, he’s clearly holding out for nothing less than Single Payer.

    If Obama had just wanted a bill, or a deal, even a Dem-only bill, he’s had about a bizillion chances to get one, and has passed them by every time.

    This Obama’s an “all or nothing” kind of guy.
    (And to quote Buddy Rich, by way of “Seinfeld” – “This guy – this is not my kind of guy.”)

  • rainforestconservative

    that they will not allow interstate competition. That along with cutting government mandates and tort reform would help bring down the cost to a point where this “reform” would not be necessary. They have been trying to kill private insurance for decades so they can impose complete government control over your ability to get medical treatment thereby control over a major part of your life by mandating what you can and cannot do to be “eligible” to recieve thier gubmint handout. Free cheese for everyone! To liberals the world is a big mirror and they don’t like what they see. < Jackpine Savage

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    because it is then the same old game of being able to blame the Liberal Bill’s lack of doing things and actually making things WORSE on everyone not allowing them to have a complete takeover and excuse to push further.

  • JadedByPolitics

    they could have done the interstate competition and the tort reform and without any Democrats but they didn’t do it. I pray that We The People can stop this monstrosity (whatever monstrosity he decides on) before it becomes the law of the land.

    How did WE not do these things when we had the mean’s and the opportunity? I just sit here and shake my head because we could have done so much and we would still have a large part of the Congress because Americans would TRUST Republicans to do the RIGHT thing. Such a waste.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    …good thing we’ve refrained ;-) lol until I’ve just hinted at it now, of course. Which now brings about the only thing not thrown into the HC debate into it.

    /absurdity — Relax folks, just being silly.

    Actually, NOT — we’ve seen the Racism and Sexism cards, I’m waiting for that/this to somehow be thrown in the mix of grasp-at-straws arguements why folks MUST support all the Democrats Health-Care schemes to Power-grab. You may laugh now, but don’t act surprised if they do find a way to sneak Homophobic to be against it as it is Racist and Sexist! You know the Liberals know no shame in ramming through an agenda item.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    that go along with the status quo. A critical mass lost their seats over it.

    The new class of Republicans will be elected on conservative principals, not just a weak preference for the Elephant (Donkey-lite) over the Donkey.

    At the risk of counting my chickens before they’re hatched, it’s possible that the purge of ’08 may turn out to be a good thing in the long run.

  • Achance

    The usual incrementalism won’t do for these guys and that is the lesson they learned from WJC’s administration. The American people really don’t like liberal solutions of any sort. If you try to do them incrementally, the people rally against you and you find yourself facing a Republican Congress. They gotta have the full monty so they can destroy Republican opposition. That means nationalized health care and card check. If they get those two, elections in America will be like union elections – or Cuban elections.

  • janis

    and what ever else BigGovernment.com unleashes this week will figure in helping to derail these twin curses? Given how fast America has turned against his programs already, how fast before his own side starts edging away from him back home? They’ve got to be worried for their political lives as his negatives grow.

    I bet the lot of them are genuflecting hourly on the notion of economic upturns.

  • mbecker908
  • IJB

    But these guys aren’t going to get any of those three – not Single Payer, not Card Check, not Amnesty. And Cap ‘n’ Tax is gone too.

    Which means, after Obama, The Hard Left is going to have a quandary – if they can’t get what they want by going ‘whole hog’, and if they can’t get what they want incrementally, then *how* do they get what they want?!

    (And I’m pretty sure they’ll figure it out that the only way they’re going to get what they want is *non-democratically*. It’ll be interesting, to say the least, when 25% of the population starts to outright advocate violent revolution as the primary means to their ends. I doubt it’ll go well for them…)

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    SoSo is just another step in that direction.

  • nessa

    …that just to make me feel better about my own lack of HTML skills.

  • rainforestconservative

    Conservatives as a group, not individualy allowed themselves to be pacified by Bushes “compasionate conservatism”. Now we have seen the easily foreseeable consequences and are no longer asleep. There is a new awareness that if we aren’t constantly vigilant and willing to fight for our freedom’s we will lose them entirely. It is too bad it had to get this far but we can’t change the past all we can do is fight for our children’s future.