Cargo query
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Showing below up to 20 results in range #1 to #20.
|
"First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "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."" | 
|
From Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care, by Sarah Palin (The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2009) (view)
|
|
"The CBO's cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion." |
|
From ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits, by Martin Feldstein (The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2009) (view)
|
|
"If these cuts are approved, the American College of Cardiology estimates that 40 percent of the cardiology practices in Florida will go bankrupt. We need to pay for performance, not automatically reduce fees for procedures that patients have come to expect." |
|
From 10 Things I Hate About Health-Care Reform, by Arthur Feldman (The Washington Post, September 6, 2009) (view)
|
|
"Insurers don't have to market to consumers. They only have to satisfy employers. In addition, a person living in New York, for example, is currently only permitted to purchase individual insurance in New York. Allowing competition across state lines would drive down cost tremendously. We believe the solution to this problem is patient choice. What appears to be a free market in health care today is not." |
|
From How to Insure Every American, by John Shadegg, Pete Hoekstra (The Wall Street Journal, September 4, 2009) (view)
|
|
"During the campaign, Obama pledged not to force everyone to buy insurance, and promised $2,500 per family in savings from reform. Now he offers generalized support for a bill that is set to include a global mandate, fines on the middle class of up to $1,900 and huge tax hikes." |
|
From 'Reform' horrors: O's Total Disconnect, by Sally Pipes (New York Post, September 30, 2009) (view)
|
|
"Obama has pledged only to increase taxes on the rich. But his program essentially taxes the core of the middle class (those making $30,000 to $80,000). It will make them overpay in order to pick up the slack for others who need the extra coverage. In other words, health-care "reform" is a health-care tax dressed up as a program to cover the uninsured." |
|
From ObamaCare: Losing everyone, by Dick Morris, Eileen McGann (New York Post, September 21, 2009) (view)
|
|
"Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables." |
|
From Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional, by David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee Casey (The Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2009) (view)
|
|
"The case for ObamaCare, as with the NHS, rests on what might be termed the "lump of health care" fallacy. But in a market-based system triggering one person's contractual rights to health care does not invalidate someone else's health policy. Instead, increased demand for health care incentivizes new drugs, new therapies and better ways of delivering health care. Government-administered systems are so slow and clumsy that they turn the lump of health-care fallacy into a reality." |
|
From Government Medicine vs. the Elderly, by Rupert Darwall (The Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2009) (view)
|
|
"It may seem noble to declare that health care is a fundamental human right and not a mere commodity to be left to the vagaries of the market. Of course, the same thing could be said about food or clothing - also essential to human welfare - yet not even Ted Kennedy would have suggested that Washington nationalize US food production or overhaul the clothing industry. It is precisely because food and clothing are seen as commodities, because we do leave their availability to the market, that they can be had in such abundance and diversity." |
|
|
|
"Third, ObamaCare discourages personal ambition. The proposed reforms will institute a set of government mandates, price controls and other strictures that will make highly trained specialists, drug researchers and medical device makers less valued now and in the future. Americans understand that when you take away the incentive to make money while saving lots of lives, the cures, therapies and medical innovations of tomorrow may never be discovered." |
|
From Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls, by Arthur C. Brooks (The Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2009) (view)
|
|
"Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed. Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families?" |
|
|
|
"Mr. Obama's problem is that his Magic Kingdom Health Care World is colliding with reality. There is a big cost to any large government expansion—and the ways to cover the cost of Mr. Obama's plan are limited, unpopular, and sure to anger Americans once they are fully understood." |
|
From Obama Hasn't Closed the Health-Care Sale, by Karl Rove (The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2009) (view)
|
|
"The claim that a vast expansion of the federal role in health care could save money is largely based on the preposterous assumption that hundreds of billions of dollars would be cut in Medicare and Medicaid programs. A law on the books already requires Congress to contain Medicare spending. Each year, Congress refuses to implement this law. Now it would go after Medicare on a far bigger scale? Of course not." |
|
From Fear of health ‘reform’ is warranted, by The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board (The San Diego Union-Tribune, November 5, 2009) (view)
|
|
"The idea that expanding coverage will save the country money has always been a fantasy. True, the Congressional Budget Office found that, under certain assumptions that the authors of the legislation in effect required the CBO to make, the House and Senate health bills might not blow up the deficit over the next decade. But that won't happen in the real world. For one thing, doctors' reimbursements just aren't going to be cut 20 percent." |
|
From A Year of Magical Thinking, by Matthew Continetti (The Weekly Standard, November 28, 2009) (view)
|
|
"Medicare cuts that could shore up Medicare's own shaky finances, they'll plow into the entitlement too (if the cuts happen at all). The new entitlement will grow at a projected 8 percent a year, and it's only through gimmickry it's made to look deficit neutral in the first decade. The cost curve of health care will be bent up, and insurance premiums, too, will rise. For all of this, ObamaCare will still leave 24 million people without health insurance." |
|
|
|
"Despite the bill's strong points, it failed to address the one issue we cannot ignore in any truly effective health-care reform bill: out-of-control health-care spending. Until we tackle this core problem, we will simply be perpetuating an inefficient system that is unsustainable. This is the reason health insurance is so unaffordable to so many." |
|
From Why I voted no on health reform, by Jason Altmire (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 20, 2009) (view)
|
|
"In his historic speech to Congress on Sept. 9, President Obama pledged not to support any health bill "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period." This bill would raise the deficit by 2.86 trillion' dimes -- and yet the president is its most visible and audible supporter." |
|
|
|
"Mrs. Pelosi stripped $35 billion from the original score by changing the way Medicare pays for drugs administered in physician offices and raiding a Medicare reserve fund. President Obama's continued promises that he won't sign a health bill that increases the deficit is by now indefensible." |
|
From The $1.9 Trillion Gimmick, by The Wall Street Journal editorial board (The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2009) (view)
|
|
"In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all. There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending." |
|
From Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade, by Jeffrey Flier (The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009) (view)
|
|
"The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental. Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims." |
|
From Obamacare: Buy now, pay later, by Robert J. Samuelson (The Washington Post, November 16, 2009) (view)
{{#cargo_query:
limit=20
|offset=0
|tables=Items,Opinions
|fields=Items._pageName=Title,Author,Source,date_format(Date, '%M %e, %Y')=Date,URL,Quote
|where=Opinions.Position="Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Act should be passed" AND Opinions.Stance = 'against'
|join on=Items._pageName=Opinions._pageName
|order by=Date DESC
|format=template
|template=Item full display
|named args=yes
}}