Webb: “We have to clean [healthcare reform] up”
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, April 1st, 2010 | PolicySenator Jim Webb (D-Va.), the 60th and deciding vote to move healthcare forward on Dec. 24, 2009, says he’s still ‘skeptical’ about the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill.
In a WSLS interview, Webb said:
“I’ve been skeptical about the numbers. I’ve said it from the beginning. It’s my biggest problem with the legislation.”
He also admitted:
“Realistically, I hope we can find efficiencies in Medicare, but I don’t think we’ll find a half trillion dollars in Medicare.”
And, he said that the Senate should not have moved forward without clear guidance from the President:
“[President Obama,] [y]ou give us a bill and we will legislate.” He went on to say, “We should have done that. We didn’t. We are here now with the end result. We have to clean it up and help the American people understand that this is not socialization of the medical program.”
I think it bears repeating: Sen. Jim Webb was the 60th and deciding vote on this bill.
Nice to see that he voted his conscience.
“Born fighting”?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
26 Responses to "Webb: “We have to clean [healthcare reform] up”"
Yes JR, thank you for reminding me that if he had not been there, we would still be stuck with the status quo which as a business person is simply not a feasible course of action. I agree with the Senator that the cost containment measures need improvement, but now that this is law, perhaps the republicans will reconsider their policy of intransigence and work with democrats to deal with that issue. Regretfully, past efforts to address this issue resulted in the famous accusations of “death panels” so it is not surprising that the policy of obstructionism resulted in an imperfect bill that needs some work. But it is better than what it replaced, and perhaps a bipartisan effort will curb the outrageous claims of the far right so improvement can be made.
You’re so full of it, Mike.
Take your talking points somewhere else.
You know very well Republicans were stonewalled regarding the development of this monstrosity.
Please J.R., I am so sorry to have gotten under your skin. However, let me assure you that my comments are my own. For you, however, to suggest that the republicans would have participated if allowed to do so is revisionist history. The republican party adopted a policy of obstructionism and obfuscation, and frankly, I think they are still proud of that stance today; after all, it almost worked. However, now that most of their scare tactics have been refuted, it seems to me that a recalculation is necessary. Perhaps you could comment on that possibility.
mr barrett: this bill will cost scads of money. and will allow bureaucrats to control much of the healthcare industry. and will drive many businesses out of business (due to increase taxes, regulations & mandates). is this something Congress should impose?
Jim Webb. good grief.
I agree with the Senator that the cost containment measures need improvement,
Medicare is bankrupt. Social Security is bankrupt. Government jobs and government pay are increasing. Health care will be different. Because of the cost containment measures.
However, now that most of their scare tactics have been refuted,
Actually, the predictions are coming true faster than anticipated. My 80 year old aunt is now terrified that AT&T will discontinue the health care policy she’s had since she retired. Just when she needs certainty in her life, everything is uncertain.
Thanks Kelley for that analytical post; how much is scads of money anyway. In regard to businesses, let me inform you that the worst alternative was continuation of the double digit increases that have occurred over the last decade. That was a formula for disaster. From a business perspective, doing nothing was not an option. Your comment that bureaucrats will control the health care industry is comforting to the degree that they will police the cancellation of policies if you make a claim, the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and the denial of coverage without reason.
Medicare bankrupt. Social Security bankrupt. And some people really think government will reduce costs.
“We were waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the Big Fool said ‘press on.’”
Neither of your statements is true, and I do think costs can be reduced from the trajectory we have been on over the last decade. The status q
Mike Barrett,
How does this bill slow double didgit increases in health insurance prices? All it does is give some small businesses subsidies – just shifting the cost from the business and the employee to the tax payer. Unless i’ve missed something greatly over the last year, where is there anything in this bill that is going to slow down costs?
This bill is a coverage bill… thats all it is. It just shifts around healthcare costs from the old and the sick to the young and the healthy, the small bsuinessness and employee to the tax payer, the rich to the poor. And by increase coverage and reducing out of pocket expenses even further and getting rid of insurance prices thta are at all reflective of risk, we are going to increase healthcare consumption even more and increase overall costs. This was nothing more than an eleberate and overly complicated entitlment/ welfare program. And adding its fiscal unsustainability on top of our existing bankrupted programs is only going to make the final fix that muchmroe painful and cause our day or reckoning to be sooner.
I do think costs can be reduced from the trajectory we have been on over the last decade.
Really, Mike? Tell us how you plan to do that. Jim Webb didn’t seem to have a clue. I bet it had something to do with his trying to figure out how they were really going to cut $500 billion from Medicare.
And it’s duly noted, Mike, that you don’t give a rat’s ass about my aunt’s suffering. People like her are just collateral damage, eh?
Well EJ, I refer you to my first post on this forum. I acknowledged that more could have been done to deal with cost. Preventive care is the key to cost control and reduction, and while getting the uninsured into coverage will help, that is only part of the equation. More has to be done by establishing protocols, but the moment any one side of the political spectrum talks about this, the Sarah Palin’s of the world stand up and scream “death panels.” So frankly, if we are to have an effective discussion of this issue, we need both parties aboard. In this area, the best source on information could be our state senator who knows this topic inside and out, and who helped build a most profitable company by emphasizing wellness instead of treatment, and building a fortune because he did it well.
A lot of these Democrats got caught in the John Kerry shuffle as they were trying to pull a “I voted for it before I voted against it.” It didn’t quite work out that way and after the Brown election, they are trying to take a right turn to run and escape from their Health Care “Macaca” moment of epic proportions.
As a strategy, “I voted for before I voted against” didn’t work as a campaign strategy for John Kerry and “Macaca” didn’t work for George Allen.
When the time comes, we can expect to see much more “thoughtful reconsideration” as they try to shine us on about how they voted in ignorance of “specific provisions” of the bill.
Their long faces and flowing dissertations of their profound regrets, excuses and sorrow along with their apologists in the media and on the blogs will give us a whole series of “Macaca” moments that will provide a great deal of entertainment in future months.
mike, I am not an analyst. I am a voter. I did read the House Obamacare bill & read about 1/2 of the Senate bill. there are many fees & mandates in this bill. I don’t know how many “uninsured” there are in this country, but I do know this: you cannot add 15 million (or 30 million?)to free health care & not expect for the whole thing to cost alot (scads) of money. the bill creates 111+ new agencies. won’t these agencies cost money?
how will the Commonwealth pay for all the mandates coming down from Washington? even if you think the bill is great, you must wonder how Virginia will raise these funds.
but even worse than Webb is Mark Warner who, as former Governor, knows what the state must pony up to meet fed mandates. and he didn’t care what he did to Virginia.
Yes, I knew that you are not an analyst. It was clear from your post. Most estimates put the uninsured at 40 M; problem with your comment is that we all now pay for these “free loaders” because when they need emergency care, they show up in the emergency room where a q tips cost $500.00. So we pay for these free loaders in the cost of our health care insurance. The mandates for citizens to have health insurance are not state requirements, they are federal requirements, and yes, there are costs of implementation, but there are added revenues from the mandates, and cost avoidance from preventing emergency situations from developing. That is why firms like Amerigroup can make a profit; they know how to prevent illness and therefore, save the government and the system money. Mark Warner does care, and his vote was the correct one. The sooner you die hards realize that, the sooner you can stop your self destructive behavior.
FLASHBACK: That wasn’t the same Amerigroup that McWaters used to own that had a scandal in Illinois that involved gaining huge profits by ripping off taxpayers and the government that forced him to resign? And, oh by the way, a guilty verdict by a jury and a $334 Million fine? So that’s where our money is going… quite comforting.
Sometimes we need to be reminded… http://www.virginianewssource.com/editors-messsage/308-mcwaters-responsible-for-major-ripoff-while-padding-personal-wealth
So basically what you are saying mike is this bill deosnt actually reduce costs, you are just hoping that we eventually be able to get along politically and do it at some future date. And what is necessary to reduce costs has little to do with what this bill actually does.
And for the most part preventaitve care dows not reduce costs. Yes there are some specific measures that do, but on aggragate most people who receive preventative care would have not bcome ill anyway. If it were the case that preventative care as a whole reducued total costs, private insurance companies would already be subsidizing preventative care. They would pay you to get physicals because it would save them money in the long run. And even if preventative care does save costs, this bill still has little to do with that.
I am just going to add that Social Security is not bankrupt. It currently has (off the top of my head) 2.1 trillion in the trust fund. Social Security would be rather easy to fix if we wanted to do so. Don’t try to come up with how the government spent the Social Security money. The surplus was invested in Treasury Bonds which are about the safest, most secure investment available globally – unless you want to argue we should have invested the money in China. But where are the Chinese investing their trade surplus dollars?
But Medicare, Medicaid and the greater health care problem? (Like people showing up at the emergency room without any health-care insurance?) Bigger problem which is harder to solve. What was passed is by no means perfect, but at least it attempts to address the problem. What the Republican Party presents as solutions to the problem are less then adequate and in many ways would only make the problem worse.
I kinda like Webb’s balanced approach. Let’s start addressing some of the problems with the current legislation instead of moving back to the starting line. We have made some progress, but we need not take two steps backwards after taking one step forward.
That is unless the Supreme Court rules the legislation unconstitutional. In that case I am going to start campaigning for what I really am in favor of – a limited socialized health-care system.
yes, we currently pay for the uninsured to go to the ER. but under Obamacare, we will pay for ALL of their medical treatment: psych visits, PT visits, follow up visits to neurologists, & other specialities. routine check ups for everything.
will these extra persons thrown into the system require add’l wait times for appointments. you sure would think so, wouldn’t you?
so my husband, who works hard enough for his own health insurance & pays taxes so these others can use the system without paying, may have to wait for treatment. that is wrong.
how is that for analysis?
Well first of all Kelley, they will add revenue. Many of the free loaders are young professionals who simply choose to save their own money by not buying health care insurance, and then falling back on emergency room care for which many of us who have commercial health insurance pay. Second, others who have been priced out of the market because they lost their insurance, or they had pre existing conditions, will be required to have insurance as well. Third, despite what EJ said above, getting people into regular medical and dental care is the best and most effective cost reducer there is, and this Bill takes a giant step toward that objective. Yes, the rich will pay more in taxes, but this same increase is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks they have earned over the last few decades that have increased income disparity in this country to a remarkable level. Frankly, once the tea party members start to realize that it is the republican party that has disenfranchised them and reduced the status of the middle class, those seven candidates you are putting forth may need to change their tune.
[...] up, there’s this post on Jim Webb’s “concern” about the recently-signed Obamacare law. He’s skeptical about the budgetary numbers from the [...]
Kelley,
See why I am in favor of limited socialized medicine? We’d pay for at least the obvious health care needs while denying the superfluous. If you showed up at the hospital with a heart attack, we’d treat the heart attack. But if heart surgery is necessary you better have supplemental coverage.
Everybody pays into towards basic coverage. Basic coverage for everyone is provided. If you want better coverage, sign up for it. You paid for basic coverage through taxes, just do not expect more.
It seems to me my vision is pretty much what is already out there. My vision just allows a citizen to go to the local provider before a visit to the emergency room is necessary.
I predict if times get tough for dems in several years, Sen. Webb will become a republican once again. Arlen of the South if you will.
Senator Webb can talk to this voter’s hand.
I for one am SO GLAD he cast the deciding vote. He will get my vote next time. Good for you, Jim! Don’t let those divisive, obstructionist, uncooperative, status-quo-glorifying, yucksterist, non-inclusive good ole boys get you down. They can’t stand the idea of a nation that actually cares for it’s sick and would prefer the dim light of their caves to the wonders of the modern world.
In many ways, it’s hysterical that they rail against you on this glorious thing called the internet here, because we all know that today’s internet would be nothing without DARPA — that evil Guvment TAXPAYER-led project that led directly to what the WWW is today. Screw the firefighters, the police and screw paying taxes for anything like libraries and schools and art and music. Four things that are just as important as defense.
They’re voices are loudest, but I can’t actually hear a word they are saying as none of it makes any sense to me any more.
The healthcare bill will end up costing even more money. Our so called free market health insurance is not a competitive system and it costs us twice as much as systems in Germany and Japan that provide equal care. Those systems are not government run but are composed of truly competitive “non profit” insurance companies that negotiate rates with hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies. We could have regulated the industry effectively without increasing our costs so substantially but our lawmakers chose not to regulate much of anything. That’s why our financial markets are in such terrible shape and I’m sure health care, already overly expensive, will get much worse. The irony is that many Teaparty members who are so angry about the healthcare bill are probably on Social Security and Medicare. Let’s give them what they want and let them find insurance in the free market and live on their savings during retirement. I’m ready for that level of commitment, let’s be consistent and get government all of the way out, except for regulations.
Leave your response