It is one thing for conservatives to criticize President Obama's QAHCAA (Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans) health care plan but now even a number of liberals are attacking it as unworkable. We recently saw skepticism emanating from Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski and now fellow liberal Susan Estrich is expressing deep doubt that any such plan is economically feasable. Estrich kicks off her column with a sarcastic look at the "success" of Obama's stimulus plan:
The stimulus program must really be succeeding in Washington, D.C. Government is hiring; people are working. In fact, if news reports are to be believed, they're working night and day. So maybe there's some sleep deprivation thrown in for good measure. And don't forget the legendary heat and humidity that made service in the nation's Capitol hazardous before the advent of air conditioning.
What other explanation could there be for my friends in Congress and the administration thinking that what the country wants them to do right now is raise taxes and spend a trillion dollars to overhaul health care, much less to push it through in a month in a 1,000-page bill being rewritten every day?
Ouch! But it gets even better. Stand by for the money quote:
The idea that somehow you're going to tax the "rich" enough to pay for quality health care for every American who doesn't have it, can't afford it or stands to lose it, not to mention for all of the undocumented aliens who receive it for free now and presumably will continue to in Obama health land, is almost laughable. It's one of those things candidates say in campaigns, ignoring the fact that it doesn't add up. But in a bill that might pass? Add a 5 percent surtax on every small business in the country that makes $250,000 or more? This is going to create jobs? What am I missing?
You're missing the slightest hint of any sense of economic reality from the Obama administration. However, keep going, Susan. You're on a common sense roll:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a report this week concluding that the bill being written by House Democrats would increase the deficit and weaken the already weak economy.
Duh.
No one is explaining to people how the big changes in the bill will affect people who have insurance now, which happens to be the overwhelming majority of all Americans (and an even higher percentage of all voters).
Will our premiums and deductibles go up or down? Will our doctors and hospitals be better or worse off? It is simply not credible to tell me that if I like my insurance now, nothing will change. If you turn the health care delivery system on its head and start regulating, mandating and controlling the terms, don't tell me it won't change things.
Changing the tax treatment of insurance benefits changes who gets them and who pays for them. "Controlling costs" means what? Does my doctor have to see more patients? Get more approvals before ordering tests? Order less expensive tests? I don't know a single person who is willing to sacrifice, or even risk, their health care right now to an uncertain plan that they don't begin to understand — except folks in D.C.
I went to my doctor this morning and suspect I had an experience that's being repeated in doctor's offices across the country. My doctor told me how worried she is about the plan. Actually, it was much stronger than "worried."
She wasn't a big fan of HillaryCare, but from her reading, it was a carefully drafted and thought-out program compared to what's being discussed now. She's convinced that if the administration succeeds, the ripple effect will cost Democrats the House in 2010 and her patients' their access to high quality, affordable care.
I reassured her that the Democrats would never be that foolish. I hope. Maybe it's time for Congress to get out of Washington. They'll get an earful when they do.
Except for the final paragraph, this column could have been written by a conservative. And would the Democrats be that foolish? Well, at least they were honest enough to call their own health care bill "QAHCAA."
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
more than $1B per page
July 17, 2009 - 08:14 ET by puredmashieeven dyed in the wool libs can't justify the cost.
swing hard in case you hit it.
I guess that's one way
July 17, 2009 - 12:48 ET by XJ.JonI guess that's one way to justify it being 1000+ pages long....
Oh, God, help us!
I'm mad as Hell, and I'm NOT going to take it anymore!
Oh ain't that a shame....?
July 17, 2009 - 08:34 ET by superconSusan is worried about her bank account and her healthcare plan.
Susan is the typical liberal. She proudly supported Barack Obama when he said all theses same things during the campaign (he did) and let the facts be damned. The only thing she saw was the White House back in Democratic hands and she figured they would work out the rest later. The trouble is that Barack Obama is as big a socialist as EVERYONE predicted he would be and he is doing everything we knew he would.
It is finally dawning on Susan that Barack Obama is coming after her money and her healthcare and all of a sudden what was good for other people is now not so good for her. I am certainly willing to take her at her word that she now has concerns about Barack Obama but first she should apologize for supporting and covering for him and closing her eyes to what many people knew would come.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
Yep. It's sick how these
July 17, 2009 - 08:44 ET by mattmYep. It's sick how these well-to-do libs spend so much energy trying to get neofascists like Obama elected and then once we're on a fast train to hell, they want off.
I say let all the dopes who want socialized medicine be taxed for it themselves and leave the rest of us alone.
Not so fast
July 17, 2009 - 09:09 ET by KC MulvilleLet's not forget our friends who claim to be Republican or conservative, but who just wanted to be done with Bush, and elected the other side out of mere disgust.
It just proves the old adage: elections are always about the future. Voting to condemn the past, as the liberals and media advised us to do, is voter abuse. It doesn't solve anything, and it creates disasters for the future.
Well if the 2006 and 2008 elections were intended to punish
July 17, 2009 - 13:35 ET by lsudolemiteRepublicans, then the lesson is obviously being lost on the party "leaders." Their response to getting killed in the elections and watching Obama campaign like a conservative during the final stretch? We need a bigger tent, become more moderate, change to fit the modern demographic.
The minute I heard Newt say that the era of Reagan was over, I knew the party was in deep, very deep trouble. Weren't these the same people who assured us that Obama would govern as a moderate? Colin Powell, I'm looking at you.
They will eat their young if necessary . . .
July 17, 2009 - 09:59 ET by Galvanic"It is finally dawning on Susan that Barack Obama is coming after her money and her healthcare and all of a sudden what was good for other people is now not so good for her. . . "
Even the dim-witted Harry Reid is appalled at the degree to which the Obama warriors will attack those who oppose them. Prompted by the White House, the DNC is launching a campaign to air ads in the states of "blue dog" Democratic senators who are voicing concerns or outright opposition to Obama Care. The message to the Democratic constituents in the target audience is to apply heavy pressure their respective senators to get them to cave in to Obama-ism 'or else.' With some of these Senators up for re-election in 2010, they are obviously concerned that the DNC will pull a "Dump Lieberman" campaign on them. It's certain that the DNC will screw over new Dem Arlen Spector while Obama feigns support to comply with his promise to Spector; they can easily expand the slaughter to strategically radicalize the rest of the DP.
Just as Stalin had Trotsky brutally assassinated, Obama and Rahm Emanuel will run over anyone who gets in the way -- including the Democrats who supported them.
Good news
July 17, 2009 - 10:06 ET by BlondeLet them do some of our work for us. Even the loonies must see that Biden's "spend our way out of bankruptcy" can't work. Enter (I hope) fiscally responsible republican candidates.
I wonder how this is going over with the Blue Dogs? I know Joe Lieberman didn't like it.
I hope he fails, too.
........the ripple effect
July 17, 2009 - 08:47 ET by MidAmerica........the ripple effect will cost Democrats the House in 2010.........
The dems, perhaps, are beginning to see that the congressional leadership and obama are setting up the conditions that the democrats could be going over a cliff that will turn the country against them and it could last for generations.
The country is passed out in an alley and obama, reid and pelosi are not trying to see if the country is OK and render aid but rather to run through our pockets to see if we have any money.
Not Necessarily
July 17, 2009 - 09:06 ET by Red JeepIf the Republicans run weak candidates or no one at all against these Dems they retain power. If your favorite Dem to hate, like Barney Frank let’s say, runs unopposed he wins! And then there are all those Dems in heavily gerrymandered districts like Waxman who will never lose. Add the Acorn influence/fraud and we will have Dem majorities for a long time to come.
Well yes but it depends
July 17, 2009 - 09:18 ET by MidAmericaWell yes but it depends on whether obama get's his way on what he's proposing. The economy is still sinking and the length and depth of this recession is getting to be historic (but then this IS a historic president). Keep in mind even though the effects of obama's agenda has not yet taken place the public is already turning away from him. So when the taxes hit and new layoffs begin and the healthcare that the majority of Americans are used to is no longer there that's when people will really wake up to this fraud of a president.
What...she doesn't believe
July 17, 2009 - 08:59 ET by motherbeltWhat...she doesn't believe that in Obamaland we can tax our way to prosperity???
Well, Susan, reality's a bi!*h, ain't it?
"Controlling costs" means what?
Here's what it means, Susan...it means mandating lower payments to doctors, and............rationing! Of course, they won't call it that. It will be dressed up in some Bizarro-speak euphemism that makes it sound like exactly the opposite of what it is.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
What...she doesn't
July 17, 2009 - 09:03 ET by Par for the CourseI hope she doesn't believe we can "spend" our way out of bankruptcy either.
Wait till obama's lower
July 17, 2009 - 09:06 ET by MidAmericaWait till obama's lower payments to hospitals and doctors result in the closing of rural clinics and hospitals and hundereds of thousands of people have no easy access to any medical care.
The lack of strategy
July 17, 2009 - 10:04 ET by KC MulvilleThe Obama Gang and the liberals all make the same, frequent mistake: they assume that when they act, the rest of the world will remain the same.
It doesn't matter what the specific issue is. That's a general rule. The most common liberal mistake is that if you tax something, the taxpayers will continue exactly as is. But the moment you tax a revenue stream, the people who profit from that stream will change it. The act of taxing inevitably produces a response; people adjust.
Think of the ratcheting effect of this public option, and how it interacts with small businesses. Take a hypothetical community of 100 small businesses. Let's say that 10 of them are on the margin right now.
As the number of businesses drops, and the cost of the public option increases, it ratchets up the pressure. The Obama Gang assures us that we have no need to worry, because his plan only applies to the top percent. But as time goes along, it constantly increases the pressure, creating a smaller and smaller top percent.
Now, if we were talking about a few million dollars in extra taxes spread across the United States, that's not a big deal. But with all the things Obama is trying to do, we're talking several trillion dollars of pressure.
The numbers
July 17, 2009 - 10:43 ET by StarAZThey just tack on some numbers--we may have 5 more recessions in 10 yrs--if we ever go back up at all...Everyone will be sick as dogs with fear and worry--we may stop by the doctor everyday...costs cannot be estimated. Anyhow they know perfectly well everyone will forget these costs...if they are even listening to them now...This "Here's a billion, there's a potential billion" crap is a joke. Anything they do balloons out of control and they just tack it on the bill...move on, nothing to see here. It reminds me of my ex-. He would say, "I will sell a gun to get money to do this or that...just charge it for now." Then when I asked when he was selling the gun, he would say, "Well, I changed my mind."
Supercon...
July 17, 2009 - 08:56 ET by FuzzlenutterI couldn't have said it better!
QAHCAA = CACA
July 17, 2009 - 10:35 ET by moovovaQAHCAA (Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans)
QAHCAA...is pronounced...CACA?*
Surely, this was not intentional...or, was it?
*...ca·ca f. 1) colloquial (excremento) poop; 2) (defecto) defect, error; 3) (porquería) crap, junk.
I WANT A T-SHIRT WITH THAT ON IT!
And remember, it's QAHCAA.
July 17, 2009 - 10:07 ET by nolotrippenAnd remember, it's QAHCAA. Just say it out loud as a single word.
Once again we get someone
July 17, 2009 - 10:34 ET by SnappyOnce again we get someone waking up from fantasy land who was fine with paying her fair share of taxes, and yes the rich will have to pay more....its only fair right? But when suddenly its ...what? My taxes? My health care....no you dont understand, my health care is fine, dont mess with me. I assumed I was in the "In" crowd, I helped get "The Won" elected why are my taxes going up and why is my health care quality and costs now in jepoardy. No No NO Im one of YOU not one of Them...................
Sigh..... When will people learn that it is We the people and its up to ALL of us to look out for ourselves and stop relying on government for all of our woes. When asking the question about how we should fix health care the big question seems to getting lost and that is WHY the government should be responsible for this in the first place!
Very nicely put Snappy.
July 17, 2009 - 11:50 ET by PewahVery nicely put Snappy.
The myth of a trillion
July 17, 2009 - 11:32 ET by slickwillie2001The 'trillion dollars in 10 years' or $1.3T is pure DC fudge. One hears that and assumes it means $100B or $130B a year. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obamacare as is starts out at about $17-20B the first year of its passage, and ends up at a run rate in Year 10 of about $245B, twice what one would assume from listening to the liberal media.
If you add up those first ten years you get to the $1-1.3T, but in the end we are left with an entitlement program with a run rate of $245B. The final run rate is what should be looked at, 'the trillion dollars in ten years' is smoke and mirrors.
HMMMMM
July 17, 2009 - 10:43 ET by rick007All one has to do is look at Indian and Va health care to see the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HMMMMMM
July 17, 2009 - 10:48 ET by rick007To be a Lib. Damn O Freakin Crap one hase to be totaly out of any common sense.
Just look at J. Leiberman. The Dem's turned on him big time and he still votes with them. What a complete rear end of a Donkey!!!!!!!!!
The Dem party is the party of asses all right!!!!
Here's a video of what
July 17, 2009 - 10:49 ET by MidAmericaHere's a video of what healthcare will be like when full government control, with all of it's 'cost savings', is implemented .
LOL MA!
July 17, 2009 - 17:51 ET by RukusAin't that the truth! : )
Gary
Hey, Jimmah Che Obama! I want my country back!
His plan cannot possibly
July 17, 2009 - 11:45 ET by PewahHis plan cannot possibly pass the scrutiny of any liberal who is acting honestly and rationally. Hence the need for speed to get his plan through before it takes many more hits like Susan Estrich just gave it. All rhetoric aside, the Obama cabal is showing that they will pursue their socialist ideals at all costs and they are vastly overreaching on this one.
Hypocrites
July 17, 2009 - 12:34 ET by b4m4wyIf Congress is so gung ho on this healthcare for everyone plan, why are they not on it???
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan
They are not and will not
July 17, 2009 - 12:45 ET by SnappyThey are not and will not get on a common plan for the people as they are above all that. Im sure you have seen congress and especially this administration setting up an "Us and Them" class conflict. Its the Rich and Poor or its the Black and White all the while remaining aloof from it all. They have set themselves up as elites, royalty if you will and are above all the fray that we the masses have to deal with so they can better "care" for our needs.
----as a side note, wether you like Palin or not I beleive this is truly what sets her apart and part of her appeal is that she maintanes her common folk status and appeal while representing-----
Good for you Susan!!!
July 17, 2009 - 19:38 ET by PaarlI will now be able to tolerate her accent for a long spell..knowing that some good sense is coming from her !!!!
You go girl !!!
Paarl of Rhodesia
pronunciation
July 18, 2009 - 03:59 ET by sudmufIsn't QAHCAA pronounced caca? Could someone please enlighten me on this?
Healthcare~
July 18, 2009 - 12:12 ET by Georgia GirlI'm posting this everywhere (sorry if some of you are seeing a repeat), as I think it is too important to take our eyes off the ball for even a minute. So if you would, read it...and weep...and then let's all get an email or phone call out!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/07/17/urgent-action-needed-on-health-care/#more-611