The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Sen. Lamar Alexander has called out President Obama on claims that health care legislation would reduce premiums, noting that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher in the individual market under the Senate bill than under current law.

The CBO report, which was released in November, found that in dollar terms, an individual policy would cost $5,800 and a family policy would cost $15,200 in 2016 if the Senate bill were enacted, compared with $5,500 and $13,100 under the status quo.

During the summit this morning, Obama argued that in exchange for paying more, Americans would be getting more generous insurance coverage. But the reason is that the Senate bill would impose so many new benefit mandates on insurance policies. In a free market, individuals should be allowed to buy more expensive insurance that offers more benefits, but the problem with the liberal approach is that it would force everybody to pay more, even people who may prefer to have lower premiums and less generous coverage.

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Ellis Wyatt| 2.25.10 @ 11:58AM

Point GOP. Already established democrat bill will increase premiums. Obama can't argue with that one though he tried to say that is because we would choose better coverage. Fact is we wouldn't have choice to choose, all the new mandates will drive up insurance costs. Obama tried to sidestep but looked like he didn't know what he was talking about. White Hose may regret this summit idea, oc course msm will try to spin it into win for Obama regardless.

Eric Cartman| 2.25.10 @ 12:07PM

Um, is that an 800 pound gorilla wearing a t-shirt with "Ola! I'm an illegal alien" standing in the corner of the HC Summit? I think it is!

D| 2.25.10 @ 2:32PM

How do you get 3 new ObamaCare recipients in 2 seconds? Cut the umbilical cord of a new baby on U.S. soil. The European social model will not work in the US (even if one agreed with it) simply because of our immigration policy. Instant citizenship precludes the ability to offer easy entitlements.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/25/alexander-takes-on-obama-on-he

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Sulllivan Silliness

Ross Kaminsky | 5:40PM

Meghan McCain Doesn't Get It

Jeffrey Lord | 1:36PM

The Paul Factor

W. James Antle, III | 1:29PM

Bain v. Solyndra

W. James Antle, III | 12:11PM

Illusionist

Yogi Love | 10:06AM

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

The White House Sieve

Jed Babbin | 5.29.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Osceola Who?

Reid Collins | 5.29.12

The Bain of Romney's Existence

W. James Antle | 5.29.12

ADVERTISEMENT