Charlie Rose boosted New York Times's staff "conservative" David Brooks
for his endorsement of the individual mandate on Tuesday's CBS This
Morning, but Senator Tom Coburn was having none of it. Rose quoted from
Brooks, whom he labeled a "a Hamiltonian, and someone...you share views with." Coburn slapped down the pro-ObamaCare argument: "We just don't have the authority to tell people to do that" [audio clips available here [1] ].
The Oklahoma Republican continued, in part, that "Brooks...[is]
a Hamiltonian. I'm not. I'm a Madisonian, and that says, as government
grows, freedom diminishes, and what we've seen is our freedom diminished." The anchor followed up by spotlighting ObamaCare benefits: "So, therefore, you don't...support
the requirement for pre-existing conditions, nor the fact that
children, up until the age of 26, will come under their parents' plan?"
Rose turned to Coburn for his take on the oral arguments on ObamaCare in front of the Supreme Court. The anchor hinted at the senator's conservative position when he asked, "I think I know how you stand on health care, but with respect to the issues before the Supreme Court, do you hope the Court says to the United States, this entire health care law is unconstitutional?"
The doctor turned politician first argued that "every claim
about this bill is going to be disproven, both in terms of its savings,
its delivery of care, and its affordability. It's highly unaffordable.
We're now $2.6 trillion, over the first 10 years- of what it's actually
going to cost in increased taxes and spending by the federal government."
Coburn added, in part, that "the federal government has gotten
outside of the bounds of what we were ever intended to do, and one of
the ways we did that was by expanding the Commerce Clause to have us
involved in things that are really not our purview under the
Constitution." The CBS on-air personality finished the
interview by reading the excerpt from Brooks and asking his question
about pre-existing conditions and coverage of people up to age 26 on
their parent's health plans.
This isn't the first time that Rose had recourse to reading left-leaning points from the Times. On January 19, 2012, the CBS anchor trumpeted a headline [2] from its front page, which played up how Mitt Romney "seems to be dancing around the idea of what his wealth is. This is the New York Times today: 'Romney riches are being seen as new hurdle; complex web of assets is difficult to assess.'"
The full transcript of Charlie Rose's interview of Senator Tom Coburn, which aired 14 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of Tuesday's CBS This Morning:
CHARLIE ROSE: Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been a
fierce critic of the President's health care law. Senator, good morning.
SEN. TOM COBURN, (R), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good morning, Charlie. How are you?
[CBS News Graphic: "Heart of Healthcare: High Court Hears Arguments On 'Individual Mandate'"]
ROSE: I'm good. Senator, I think I know how you stand on health care,
but with respect to the issues before the Supreme Court, do you hope the
Court says to the United States, this entire health care law is
unconstitutional?
COBURN: I certainly do. I praise the Obama administration for wanting
to address the issue. There's no question we have problems. Health care
costs too much. But every claim about this bill is going to be
disproven, both in terms of its savings, its delivery of care, and its
affordability. It's highly unaffordable. We're now $2.6 trillion, over
the first 10 years- of what it's actually going to cost in increased
taxes and spending by the federal government.
[CBS News Graphic: "CBS News/The New York Times Poll: Healthcare Law:
Disapprove, 47%; Approve, 36%; Supreme Court Should: Overturn entire
law, 38%; Overturn mandate, keep rest, 36%; Keep the law, 26%; Margin of
Error: +/- 3% Pts."]
So my hope would be- and for another reason, Charlie, is the Commerce
Clause- and the expansion of it- is the reason we're running
trillion-dollar deficits. We're- you and I have had this conversation
before. We're in such a big financial hole, and if you go back to look
at why we are- it's because the federal government has gotten outside of
the bounds of what we were ever intended to do, and one of the ways we
did that was by expanding the Commerce Clause to have us involved in
things that are really not our purview under the Constitution.
[CBS News Graphic: "CBS News/The New York Times Poll: Healthcare Law:
Requirement that Americans have health insurance: Disapprove, 51%;
Approve, 45%; Margin of Error: +/- 3% Pts."]
ROSE: Well, David Brooks, in today's New York Times, who's a
Hamiltonian, and someone who, I suspect, in many cases, you share views
with, says, 'In my own view, the individual mandate is perfectly
acceptable policy. We effectively have a national health care system. We
all indirectly pay for ill, uninsured people who show up at emergency
rooms. If all Americans are in the same interconnected health care
system, I think it's reasonable for government to insist that all
Americans participate in the insurance network that is the payment
method for that system.'
COBURN: Well, we just don't have the authority to tell people to do
that. That's fine for some columnist to write that. David Brooks- he's
right. He's a Hamiltonian. I'm not. I'm a Madisonian, and that says, as
government grows, freedom diminishes, and what we've seen is our freedom
diminished.
Plus, it's not working. How well is Medicare working right now,
Charlie? How well is Medicaid working? None of them are working well.
They're totally bankrupt programs. We can't afford them. The care is
declining. Even though you say you can have access, you don't really get
access. Forty percent of the people who are now coming into Medicare
are having trouble finding a physician that will take Medicare. It's not
working, and the reason it doesn't work is we're not using market
forces to allocate a resource, and creating a true safety net to help
those people who need help-
ROSE: My understanding, then-
COBURN: So we're outside of our role as a federal government.
ROSE: So, therefore, you don't- do not support the requirement for
pre-existing conditions, nor the fact that children, up until the age of
26, will come under their parents' plan?
[CBS News Graphic: "CBS News/The New York Times Poll: Healthcare Law:
Approve: Require coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, 85%;
Reduces Medicare donut hole for prescription drugs, 77%; Children under
26 stay on parents' plan, 68%; Margin of Error: +/- 4% Pts."]
COBURN: Well, I- Charlie, that's not it. The point is, is I support a
true market where you can actually go in and buy something. The point
being is, we're going to make everybody buy something, or we're going to
say, if we don't do that, then some consequences of market failure we
can't tolerate- so therefore, we'll no longer trust markets, and we'll
have a system where the government sets the rules on everything. There
is a choice in between there, and the choice is- and I don't have any
problem with what you do on terms of insurance- but where is it the role
for the federal government to set that? What's wrong with the states-
what's wrong with us allowing insurance to be bought and sold across
state lines? One of the- we don't have a real market in insurance.
That's the reason everybody wants to try to fix it-
ROSE: Senator-
COBURN: Before we criticize the market base, we ought to go back and say, could we have a real market? And we've not done that.
ROSE: To be continued- Senator Coburn, thank you so much.
COBURN: All right, Charlie.