This may be a little too much reality for the modern-day right:
“The fact is that’s not going to happen, OK?” Corker told dozens of people at Vanderbilt University.
Still, Corker made clear his opposition to the legislation and spoke in favor of continued, incremental legislative reform in future years to correct problems he foresees.
Then on to his substantive views, which are ridiculous:
The Tennessee Republican criticized the legislation as costly, however, doubting that changes to Medicare, for instance, would yield savings to make reform budget neutral. He expressed support for protecting people with pre-existing conditions, but said reform as it stands will squeeze out private insurance.
I’m not sure if this is sloppy thinking or sloppy paraphrase, but the issue with Medicare is whether or not congress is actually willing to let the scheduled changes take effect. It’s fair enough for journalists to express “doubt” about this, but Bob Corker is a United States Senator. He either intends to work to ensure that scheduled money-saving changes will take effect, or else he intends to work to ensure that scheduled money-saving changes will not take effect. He doesn’t get to just offer random predictions.
Meanwhile, for the thousandth time once you concede that insurers shouldn’t be allowed to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, then you have no choice but to adopt the mandate/subsidy framework. There’s no other way to make it work. And how on earth will a plan that creates no alternative to private insurance “squeeze out private insurance”? Or did Corker miss the months-long highly public argument about the public option?