Drudge’s big red link gives us this article: “White House Appears Ready to Drop Public Option.”
President Barack Obama’s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal.
…
Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the showdown.
“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”
Obama’s top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.
“What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
This, of course, is the crux of the bill: what we’re so concerned about. The backdoor to single-payer.
If this is true, it’s an astounding victory for Republicans, even if we don’t block the bill entirely. To sap up Obama’s political capital without him even winning a government option is just astounding. What a horrific political play over the past months on Obama’s part.
August 16th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
But the co-op program still uses federal funds to artificially create insurance companies, so the fight isn’t over yet.
August 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
There is more than ample bipartisan support in the Senate for Conrad’s co-op program to sail through without serious resistance. It would be utterly asinine for the GOP to get greedy and seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
August 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
The right play in my opinion is to rail against the co-op plan and demand tort reform, an idea that is dead-on-arrival with the dems.
This strategy would allow us to still paint the bill as a government takeover and one designed to protect trial lawyers.
There is absolutely no upside nor incentive for the GOP to sign on with the bill. All that will do is allow Obama to appear bipartisan, rather than the far-left liberal that he is increasingly viewed by the American public as according to Scott Rasmussen.
If we can hold the fort with 0 yes votes in the House and just bleeding over Collins and Snowe, we should be in good shape.
The government takeover argument could still resonate with Americans and painting these guys as trial laywer apologists is a way to supplement the argument.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“This, of course, is the crux of the bill: what we’re so concerned about.”
Maybe it is what YOU are so worried about. But this bill would still be chock full of many other horrendous changes to health care. Yes, the public option is probably the worst thing of all. But this bill would still be completely unpalatable.
Kris outlined many other horrors in this bill here:
http://race42008.com/2009/08/07/more-health-care-worries/
Even if the public option was replaced with co-ops we will still see massive increases in the federal budget and in the size of the deficit and the federal debt.
This bill must be killed completely. Let them work with republicans,if they will, on a completely new bill that includes tort reform.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“…but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.”
“If this is true, it’s an astounding victory for Republicans…”
I don’t know how much credit to give Republicans. With Democrats in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, elected Republicans don’t have the power to prevent any legislation. And Republicans among the populace don’t have much control over the re-election of Democrat Reps. and Senators. So if the Democrats pull back from their health care bill, it’s because they believe independent voters are going to turf them out in 2010.
But it is a victory for Republicans on message (Rasmussen has them as more trusted on health care for the first time ever), and for political momentum.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Dropping the public option. Unbelievable.
The largest Senate majority in 30 years, and one of the major planks of the party’s platform, and they can’t get it done.
Obama, Biden, Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid and others should be ashamed of themselves.
They should look back on this when they notice a curious lack of enthusiasm in 2010.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
As long as the bill requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions (which makes them no longer “insurance” companies), and it puts decisions in the hands of the federal government it’s still a bad plan.
This bill must fail.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I don’t disagree, but the reality is that, so far, Snowe, Collins, Grassley, Gregg, Graham and Enzi have all expressed conditional support for Conrad’s co-ops, and I’m not aware of any Democrat opposed to them.
Grassley, GOP warm to “co-op” health plan
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090611/REG/306119996
Enzi optimistic about possible health care bill
http://www.pddnet.com/news-ap-enzi-optimistic-about-possible-health-care-bill-061609/
Key Centrists Rally Around Conrad’s Co-op Plan For Health Care
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/key-centrists-rally-aroun_n_215332.html
Dems hesitant on Conrad proposal
To some, the co-op idea sounds vaguely familiar. When Conrad outlined it in a private Senate meeting, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) asked how it was different from Bush’s association health plans concept. There are some broad similarities. Both ideas allow groups of consumers to band together to provide insurance. They could be arranged at the state, regional or federal level, and they could use government start-up funds. Democrats opposed association health plans, in part because they would have pre-empted state insurance laws, allowing the plans to choose the least onerous regulatory framework.
http://www.oregonlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/06/dems_hesitant_on_conrad_propos.html
Graham: ‘Government-Run’ Health Care Won’t Pass Senate
However Graham left the door open on a co-op proposal floated by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/06/graham-governmentrun-health-care-wont-pass-senate.html
August 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
So much for Gregg being a smart ficon. If he votes for the Obamacare bill then I lose all respect for him.
August 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Giuliani: Obama failing to lead
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=160044F5-18FE-70B2-A852FFAF5A1BF3C8
August 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
If we are talking about what is best for electing republicans, then it would be best for the bill to pass with the public option or to fail completely. Total failure is a big victory for repubs. Passage with the public option would engender tremendous outrage and would likely result in the dems losing many seats in 2010.
If the bill passes, only missing the public option, then the fervor of opposition is greatly lessened, but it is still a defeat to republicans that any of this bill passes.
August 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Health Care Co-Operatives: Doing It the Right Way
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2493.cfm
“If Congress wants to provide Americans access to health co-ops, it would need to make it possible for an institution to combine tax-exempt (non-profit) status with mutual insurance status, something health plans cannot do today. Congress should allow mutual health insurance companies to form based on the credit union model. Under this model, Congress would simply grant non-profit status to mutual insurance companies, justified by the “member benefit” they provide.
Very likely, with this form of health care arrangement possible, various non-profit memberships and other organizations might link with a health co-op to make coverage available. State farm bureaus or consortia of churches, for instance, could establish such co-op health insurance.
In addition to these steps, addressing the tax treatment of health plan benefits in the individual tax code would help spur co-ops. If families could receive the same tax relief for joining a co-op–or any other free-standing health plan–as for enrolling in an employer-sponsored plan, there would be new options for the uninsured or underinsured……
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a supporter of a public plan, introduced his key principles on a co-op system that go in the wrong direction and would end up with a federally run public plan in all but name. He states that a co-op must be national in scope, it must secure significant federal start-up funding, and it must be run by federal officials appointed by the President.
There are “co-op” models that are the wrong way to provide health care and should be unacceptable to lawmakers, such as Senator Schumer’s thinly veiled public plan version. Simply calling some form of a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) a “cooperative,” for instance, would be only another type of public plan in disguise.
A health insurance GSE, with its close relationship to the government, would tilt the market playing field and open the door to political manipulations–both of which would ultimately harm consumers. It would also create unjustifiable and unaffordable taxpayer exposure to financial risk.
One need look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see how GSEs can distort the market and leave taxpayers with huge liabilities. Decades of market distortions generated by their implicit government backing, compounded by the effects of repeated political meddling by Congress, put those GSEs at the very epicenter of the mortgage market collapse that triggered the current financial crisis and recession. Furthermore, that GSE approach has now saddled American taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars in liabilities for just Fannie and Freddie alone–not counting the additional costs of the follow-on effects that their market-distorting practices produced in the rest of the financial system.
Furthermore, the rural electric cooperatives are yet another example of government involvement in the marketplace gone wrong. Close to 80 years after their creation, the federal government continues to subsidize these well-established cooperatives. Having government directly subsidize private cooperatives in health care would create similar unjustifiable distortions and taxpayer risks.”
August 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Remember that Obama was only a Senator for about 2 years before he basically retired to campaign full time, so he’s bound to make major mistakes. This looks like a big win, but we’ll see what the final product looks like.
On the lefty side, this is going to be a bitter. bitter pill for the Netroots crowd to swallow. How could they lose the public option holding about 60% of both houses? Look for calls on the left to Primary some blue dogs. I think this leaves the Democratic base angry and dispirited.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I wonder if this makes Specter’s position in his Primary any more tenuous. I’m guessing so, as the lefty base may be motivated to turn out against all “traitors” and “Dinos.”
At any rate, I’m anticipating some MAJOR venom this week from Puffington, Kos, and the Netroots crowd unleashed on the Democrats.
Also remember a lot of the leftist end of the Democratic caucus has promised to vote AGAINST any reform that doesn’t include a public option. So there could now be a left/right coalition against the middle, still handing Obama complete defeat.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Aft, so if you get sick and your insurance company drops you becuase they no longer want to pay the bills, what are you supposed to do DIE? Please don’t give me any crap doubletalk about how you should save up your money. A two day hospital stay currently can cost $190,000 thats real dollars pal. So again if your insurance company drops you becuase you get sick, and you can’t get insurance anywhere else because as you say the bill should die with this provision in it.
I would like a simple yes or no answser from you. if this happens should the person just DIE OR NOT?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
renie,
Has the government found that $37 trillion yet to fund Medicare’s unfunded liabilities?
The government can’t even keep their own little department within the health care system solvent. Why do you have so much faith that it will be different if they control the whole thing? Why can’t they show us how efficient and effective the government can be with Medicare FIRST, before they effectively nationalize the whole industry? Or are you one of the people who thinks the only thing preventing the government from finally being competent is more power? Do you think they will get more efficient, more responsive, more honest, and more transparent if they only had more power?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Ahh more doubletalk. Why is it that anyone still in the republican party cannot give a simple answer? Your buddies state that this bill should NOT cover pre-existing conditions. So if you have private insurance, and they want to drop you to shore up their profit margins, and you CANNOT GET INSURANCE ANYWHERE ELSE, are you supposed to DIE in the GOP opinion? Can you please answer my question.
At least the government does NOT kill people by denying care MWS. So WHAT is the GOP position on this, SHOULD THE PERSON DIE IF THEY CANNOT GET PRIVATE INSURANCE? yes or no?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Here’s one for you MWS, get it from the Iraquis. Hmm remember that war that your hero “W” said would not cost us a penny? Get the money back from them that we spent on the war. They have billions in oil revenues. Great plan you guys (repugs) had. We go broke, and the Iraquis get to keep their money. There is your health care money!
August 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
renie,
We can take care of the problem of rescission without a complete government takeover. Dropping a policy holder because he gets sick is basically fraud, in my book, but that doesn’t mean we need to go Soviet-style to fix it.
Now why don’t you answer a frickin’ question and tell me where the government is going to find the $37 trillion to cover it’s unfunded liabilities in Medicare?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
renie,
“They have billions in oil revenues.”
Medicare has 30,000 billions in unfunded liabilities. Keep going.
And FYI, most of us paleo-cons were against the Iraq war.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sorry, 37,000 billions.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Ross: I refuse to kill old people
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/08/16/ross-i-refuse-to-kill-old-people/
When a conservative Democrat takes the time to promise that he will not “kill old people,” you really know Democrats are struggling to maintain their footing on healthcare reform.
So it’s pretty stunning that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a leading Blue Dog Democrat, felt it necessary to make that pledge on CNN today.
“I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period,” he said.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
renie,
First of all, emergency rooms cannot refuse people, whether insured or not, so they wouldn’t just die on their own. Secondly, with regard to your statement “At least the government does NOT kill people by denying care MWS,” let’s think about what would happen if the government did pass the public option. We’d have millions more people receiving care from the same amount (or less in the future, if the government restricted pay for doctors and other care providers) of care providers. How on earth could the government NOT deny care under those circumstances?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Hmm remember that war that your hero “W” said would not cost us a penny?”
Yet another example of hoe EVERYTHING the government does ends up costing FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more than initial projections. That includes the cost of everything from bombing people, to insuring people, to educating people, to building bridges to sorting mail, etc… etc…. etc….
That point undermines your argument, not enhances it. Medicare last year cost something like 100x more than it was supposed to based on initial projections.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Renie,
And if we just seized all that Iraqi oil revenue as you propose, wouldn’t we then be the asset grabbing imperialists you leftists accused BUSH of being?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I just told you MWS, get the Iraquis to start paying us back. I did ansewr your “frickin” question, please read my response in it’s entirety. There was a measure in congress last year sponsored by republicans to send a letter (with formal resolution pending) to George Bush to try and get the Iraquis to start paying us back. No who killed it? JOHN MCCAIN.
How’s that for your “frickin” answer? And glad to hear that you think recission is fraud. It is and it’s killing people. I’ve had to go to court several times regardin this. I became ill in 2007, possibly from ground zero exposure, I worked across the street from the towers. I stayed at my job for 2 months after it happened.
So did you get your “frickin” answser? Getting a little annoyed? Any bill that does not cover recission, (pre existing conditions) is not acceptable.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Renie,
“So did you get your “frickin” answser?”
No. And I read your response. If even we stole all the Iraqi’s oil to pay for your healthcare, it wouldn’t be enough. You claimed we could get “billions.” Medicare is unfunded to the tune of 37,000 billions, as I noted above. Drop in the bucket.
More importantly, it shows that the government can’t find it’s @ss with both hands and a flashlight when it comes to effectively managing health care.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Does anyone else find it ironic that the liberal on this board is demanding that we steal Iraq’s oil?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
The Iroquois? I am confused. Are you talking about war reparations for a war that was fought before the US was even a country. That was what, 1753-1760?
August 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
MWS I did not say grab all of it did I? And no it does not undermine my argument, since BUSH STATED IT WOULD BE PAID FOR BY OIL REVENUES. Wow, I can’t get past your logic. And #23 (AFT), getting care from an emergency room is not the answer. Emergency room care is much much more expensive. It’s one of the reasons that costs are out of control now.
AFT your statement “First of all, emergency rooms cannot refuse people, whether insured or not, so they wouldn’t just die on their own.” After the emergency rooms patch up the critical problem they would die on their own.
Thank you both, MWS and AFT although none of you seem to be willing to say it plainly, it seems to me from what you are arguing is this:
THE GOP POSITION IS IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE AND YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY DOES NOT GIVE YOU INSURANCE YOU DIE.
Great. I always though that was the GOP position. Thanks for confirming it for me.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Dan no I said the IRAQUIS. Iraq you know the country that George Bush invaded? It is spelled correctly. Nice try though.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Ha Ha MWS you are a typical party hack good at twisting words. I said Iraq should start paying us back. And I”m not alone in that thought. Many republicans had similar thoughts last year. Those efforts were killed by party officials.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Ahh,
Iraqi (Iraqis plural )
1 adj Iraqi means belonging or relating to Iraq, or to its people or culture.
2 n-count An Iraqi is an Iraqi citizen, or a person of Iraqi origin.
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/Iraqi
I see. Thank you.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Dan, you are correct, the typo is mine. See I can be reasonable. =)
August 16th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
renie,
No, my position is the the GOVERNMENT CANNOT AFFORD to start another entitlement program, seeing that it can’t even pay for the ones it’s already started.
And your contention that we can pay for it with oil from Iraq is absurd. Can you link a single economist who has proposed paying for it in such a way? Crap, you may as well proclaim that we’re going have free college for everyone and we’re going to pay for it with a bake sale. You haven’t even BEGUN to answer how you are going to pay for Medicare, much less the whole damn health care system.
The other question (which you completely ignored) is why- if government can run insurance as efficiently as the private sector- does the government need a trillion downpayment in taxpayer subsidies just to make their program work for a measly 10 years?
And as you astutely observed, government projections of cost are crap. So you can figure that one trillion over ten years will probably turn into 2-3 trillion over 10 years, at least.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
MWS, renie might be onto a good idea. Why should we in America work for anything. If we can fund Universal health care with oil (we may need more than just Iraq though, better invade Saudi Arabia and Iran too), then we should be able to fund social security retirement for everyone over 35 if we just take over Europe.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Here’s what I don’t get.
The House Democrats are demanding a trillion dollars just in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years to help sustain their program. That comes out to over $2000 per year, per uninsured person. My family of 7 pays about $8700 per year for insurance (private insurance, btw, NOT a subsidized company plan), which comes out to about $1250 per person. Now a lot of those uninsured are young people, who should be cheap to insure, and the taxpayer subsidy is only supposed to cover PART of the plan. So why so damn expensive?
August 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Dan,
Good point. I guess we can put away our “No Blood for Oil!” placards now that a Democrat is in office.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
MWS, why would we need to shed American blood? We can just reduce our nuclear stockpile with a few examples and then extort the money.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Renie,
According to the CIA World Fact Book, Iraq exported about 1.83 million barrels of oil a day. So if we seized all their exports, enslaved the Iraqi people, forced them to cover the cost of exploration and extraction without paying, housing, or even feeding any of them, and realized the current $70 a barrel as pure profit, we would confiscate less than $47 billion per year.
Maybe you should go with that bake sale idea.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Dan,
Another good point. On the other hand, radioactive oil goes for only half the price of the good stuff, so we’d probably have to include south east Asia and central Africa as well.
It’s amazing to me that a liberal is demanding an exploitative empire to fund the welfare state. There seems to be some cognitive dissonance there.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The Medicare funding is a problem.
My plans would include tax hikes, and as for the public option, if we cut say 30-50% of our annual military budget, it would most likely pay for the public option easily.
We have a bit of a problem now though. No politician can make any substantive tax hike because it would kill their careers, and no politician can make any substantive budget cut because it would do the same.
And so we spiral into national bankruptcy as we have one party which demands increased spending but no tax increases, and another which demands decreased taxes with no decrease in spending or in even an increase in spending.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Dan,
On the other hand, if we’ve nuked or enslaved everybody, who do we sell the oil to?
August 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Kevin,
“And so we spiral into national bankruptcy as we have one party which demands increased spending but no tax increases, and another which demands decreased taxes with no decrease in spending or in even an increase in spending.”
Someone here the other day quoted the Financial Times as saying “Democrats spend more than they tax, and Republicans tax less than they spend.”
I thought that pretty well summed it up. While I could accept cuts in the military (I’m ready to give up on the idea of empire) any savings should go towards bringing down the sky-high deficit we have now, not start a new entitlement program that will need its own bailout in a couple decades. Seriously, the government is putting HALF its expenses on the public credit card this year, and they are looking for ways to “pay” for a new program? Are they nuts??? How about looking for ways to PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE? Or better still, cut the government to what we can afford……
August 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
MWS, we’d have to basically set up a pyramid scheme. The Europeans along with Japan and South Korea would be just below us on the Pyramid. The next level down could be Canada, China and Australia. Then the rest of Asia, South America and Central America, India, and Greenland, and sub Saharan Africa. Finally, the Middle East and Northern Africa could be on the bottom of the pyramid.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Kevin, the military budget for 2009 is $651 billion.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
The 2009 budget for medicare is $737 billion.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/02/20080204a.html
I think it is fair to assume that the public option would be much, much more expensive than medicare. Cutting the entire military budget is unlikely to be enough to cover the public option.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Dan,
And we could have Madoff run the whole scheme from prison! We’d get around a 25% ROI for a decade and a half, get our finances shored up a bit, and then just give him another life sentence when it collapses!
Which does make me think, what really is the difference between Social Security and Madoff? About the only thing I can think of is that SS is compulsary.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
The government asking “how can we afford government run universal health care” is like a family that is under water on its mortgage, has 10 credit cards maxed out, and all its cars pledged to title loans asking “how can we afford that vacation home in Jamaica?
August 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
It’s never over. Keep pushing them back, this Obamacare is a many-headed serpent, cut off one head and it grows another. Do you trust these people? Keep ‘em running, no way is this over.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
My guess is that Congress will pass a health care bill that puts lots of new mandates on insurers, employers, and individuals with the aim of getting everyone into the current health insurance system, and that doesn’t do much else (e.g., no public option, no real efforts at controlling costs, no Medicare cuts, etc). I think that President Obama will declare victory even though this is essentially the bill that the moderates in Congress wanted all along, and not the bill that Obama and the Democratic leadership wanted, and we can tell that from their statements on the subject over the past few months.
Congress will probably require that all but the smallest business offer health insurance, that all insurance companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, and that all individuals purchase some form of insurance, with a refundable tax credit or voucher for the working poor who can’t afford to buy a plan. Obama will then proclaim that the country has achieved universal access to medicine, though the access will be short-lived if costs aren’t brought down and if entitlements aren’t reformed.
Passing a centrist health care bill will probably help Obama in the long run because eventually folks will forget about his arguments in favor of the government deciding whether or not patients need new hips and will instead associate Obama with the centrist plan that becomes law, much as folks ultimately associated all of the Clinton/Gingrich policies with Bill Clinton. So the Blue Dogs and, ironically, the Republicans may have actually saved Obama from himself. It won’t save the Democrats in 2010 but by 2012 expect Obama to run hard on his universal access achievement, which he will of course tout as entirely his idea.
August 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Nevertheless, the leftist/statist/collectivist crowd continues to tread familiar ground:
Historian Götz Aly suggests that providing a welfare state for his Volk was Adi’s main motivation for conquest.
But let’s never confuse socialists with Nazis, Heaven forfend.
August 16th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Kevin,
Cutting the defense budget really isn’t an option. Quite a bit of it is nondiscretionary, employee and veteran benefits, housing, family benefits, maintenance on equipment, even protecting others and helping others.
Government spending in general needs to stop, government, especially when looking at all levels of government from federal to local, spend close to half of the GDP per year. About 2/5ths to 1/3 of taxpayers pay more in to taxes then they get back of total government spending. The others get more back in programs then they spend.
The government doesn’t seem to be able to control themselves, and if they don’t soon the system itself will fail. There are to many things on the horizon that will make things worse to add another cost, that as the CBO said will case government costs and the deficit to escalate rapidly after 10 years, while likely not affecting premiums much over all and whether the effect would be up or down is unknown.
August 16th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Tiger punched to the socialist crotch!
August 16th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The red flag for me is Obama wanting to computerize medical records.
Just think of the information your Dr. has about you, family health history, what you eat, or drink, or if you smoke and how much, mental, physical appearance, personal relationships, Doctor’s observations after an office visit, what test he’s ordered, what presciptions you take, etc.etc… Just imagine what could be gleaned from those records. Whatever you tell your Dr., and whatever the doctor tells you, the Government could have complete access to.
Even though these things don’t seem to be any big deal, it is a huge intrusion into your personal life, and well being, it’s a major government grab of your freedon and a violation of your right to privacy, not to mention a violation of the doctor, patient relationship.
August 16th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
You’re telling me that there is nothing we can cut from our 600 billion dollar military budget? The one that’s six times larger than any other countries?
I’m sure half of it could be cut. Yes, there will be equipment that won’t be maintained, bases shut down and such, but too bad.
August 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
‘This Week’ Roundtable: Palin Controlling the World Through Facebook
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/this-week-roundtable-palin-controlling-the-world-through-facebook.html
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8339233
Sebelius: ‘Death Panels’ Talk Is “Horrific”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/sebelius-death-panels-talks-is-horrific.html
About that deadline…
Click below to watch:
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=34035670001
August 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Kevin, I am with MWS on the military budget. I am done with nation building, don’t want to have anything more to do with it.
But you’re missing the point. Cutting the military budget will not pay for the public option.
August 16th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Blue-Ribbon Panel Fact Checking the Health Care Debate
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; J. James Rohack, M.D., president of the American Medical Association, and John Rother, AARP executive vice president for policy and strategy
‘Fox News Sunday’ gets straight answers on health care’s critical questions
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8275485&referralPlaylistId=playlist
August 16th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I do agree with you post # 57 Fox News Sunday hosted by Wallace gleaned straight answers on the Health Care Debate.
i especially commended James Rohack, M.D. on his assertion that care has to be between the doctor and his or her
patient, without interference from the govt. the insurance co. or any other third party, and that holds true with the
end of life matters. He also contended the tort reform as part of eradicating waste and maintain quality of care.
Sen Conrad touched on the taxpayers concern about funding abortions, and he promised that , that will not happen. We
should celebrate at least that the public option, the ” death panel angst ” and the complete overhaul of the Health
Care System will not be a reality.That e should keep what we hve now, but remove the waste as well as get the
insurance companies get their act together. I agree with Giuliani that those who cannot afford paying for premiums
should receive subsidies from the government, just like the stuent loans.
August 16th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Nop, you haven’t won. There will be a public option, but they’re going to do it without seeking Republican compromise.
August 16th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
The public option is dead, and it looks like Palin will get most of the credit for killing it.
Meanwhile, Romney is MIA. Where’s he been, anyway? Probably off playing golf somewhere.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Romney doesn’t golf, unfortunately.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
GOP gains steam as health care bill sputters
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26167.html
August 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
This is the sillies statement you have made so far. Just recently you have attacked Romney on his attack on the Public option, what a hypocrite. And please, Palin had nothing to do with it as she came late to the party. Credit goes to the people and their grass root movements.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Maybe Romney is off playing scrabble somewhere.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
GOP drafts NFL talent
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2122A9B4-18FE-70B2-A84570FDDC81BF9E
August 16th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Well, the three prominent Republicans mentioned in the Politico article are Rudy, Pawlenty, and Palin.
“It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change, he is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican,” Pawlenty said in his speech to the group.
Giuliani offered a narrower definition of a Republican win, telling POLITICO earlier this week that if the president signs any bill that does not include a public option, he would count it as a major loss for the administration.
The former mayor and rumored New York gubernatorial candidate seems likely to reach that benchmark for a “win,” as the White House appeared to signal Sunday that it was increasingly open to a bill without a public option.
“If the White House had proposed the plan, it would basically be the same plan,” he told POLITICO on Thursday.
“But would they have looked better doing it? I think so,”he said.
The former mayor added though that it would be “counterproductive” for the GOP to try to capitalize on the issue, urging party leaders to instead wait for public sentiment to grow over a perceived Democratic overreach…..
The town hall protests have undoubtedly breathed life into the GOP’s opposition on health care. But while the leaders speaking at the GOPAC connention were drawing applause by calling for tort reform and the right to pool risk across state lines, the press narrative and the party base were turned into former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin’s Facebook posts, where she railed against so-called “death panels” and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother.
The Republicans who spoke with POLITICO were loathe to criticize the protesters or Palin, but seemed to recognize that the party isn’t so much leading a grassroots movement as it is hitching itself to an emotional backlash against the Obama administration.”
August 16th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Obama picks public option fight with liberals
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-picks-public-option-fight-with-liberals-2009-08-16.html
August 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Thunder #63
Palin backed a Proclamation dealing with the End of Life Counceling in Alaska while Governor. The Proclamation can no longer be found on her web site.
So Flip is not the only one.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Lkv,
You may want to read the following from Jacobson:
Palin Was Against “Death Panels” Before She Was Against “Death Panels”
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/faux-anti-palin.html
Think Progress, the Democratic policy and media-watch group, has come up with an amazing discovery. Sarah Palin was in favor of voluntary, private counseling so that people could put their end-of-life affairs in order, before she was against government bureaucrats getting involved in a mandatory process as part of health care restructuring cost savings efforts.
Nothing inconsistent about Palin’s position. It’s private versus public. It’s one thing for individuals to plan their own lives on their own, but quite different when government enforces mandates and gets involved in such decisions as part of an effort to cut health care costs. Remember, keep your laws off my body, or something like that?
But that did not stop Think Progress from proclaiming that Palin was for “death panels” before she was against them. Needless to day, this will be the meme of the day, to be run with by left-wing bloggers to “prove” that Palin has been inconsistent, when in fact there is no inconsistency.
And I love Alan Colmes’ title in his follow up: Palin Was For (What She Mislabels As) “Death Panels” Before She Was Against Them. Alan, you didn’t need to use the parenthetical; everyone knows that “death panel” was just a descriptive and evocative term, not a literal quote of the name of a panel. Well, almost everyone.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116979483434
Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.
Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
These are two must-see videos if you have twenty minutes. It’s Hannity and Frank Luntz interviewing a focus group allegedly composed of 14 McCain voters and 15 Obama voters.
Frustrated and Furious (Part I)
Americans sound off on health care, Obama administration in “Hannity” town hall
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8164377&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/hannity/index.html
August 16th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Frustrated and Furious (Part II)
Americans sound off on health care, Obama administration in “Hannity” town hall
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8164377&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/hannity/index.html
August 16th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Carville: Dems should force GOP to filibuster health care reform
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/16/carville-dems-should-force-gop-to-filibuster-health-care-reform/
“What about this?,” Carville said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “Suppose they pass a House bill that can get 56 Senate Democrats.” Then, Carville suggested, instead of using reconciliation, a special budgetary maneuver in Senate procedure that frustrate GOP attempts to mount a filibuster, Democrats should call for a vote. “And make [Republicans] filibuster it. But the old kinda way is that they filibuster it and make’em go three weeks and all night and [Democrats] will be there the whole time.
“Then, you say, ‘They’re the people that stopped it. We had a majority of Democrats. We had a good bill. They stopped it.’”
The Democratic strategist also rejected any comparison between the Clinton administration’s failed efforts at health care reform in 1994 and the Obama administration’s efforts now.
Democrats “pulled the plug,” Carville said, on health care reform in August of 1994, just months before the mid-term election where Republicans took control of the House. Now, “this is August of the year before the election,” Carville said.
“Make’em filibuster it and then run against a do-nothing Congress [in 2010],” the former aide to Bill Clinton and longtime ally of both Clintons told CNN’s John King.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Tommy Boy:
Palin is the one who called it a “Death Panel”.
When everything that can possibility be done for a loved one has been done, then this counseling is necessary. I have no problem with the Proclamation, What I have a problem with is her calling it wrongly a death panel.
She kind of weaved a web here. If there is something I don’t understand here, then I apoligize
August 16th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Lkv,
See #70. Jacobson only talks about the private-public distinction. She delves into more detail.
Allah provides an apt analogy:
Stupid: Critics go after Palin for encouraging end-of-life planning as governor
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/14/stupid-critics-go-after-palin-for-encouraging-end-of-life-planning-as-governor/
“The difference between this and ObamaCare pushing living-will consultations for seniors in the context of cutting costs is the difference between a general public campaign asking people to consider organ donation and some government employee visiting you in the hospital after an accident to remind you that a lot of needy folks sure could use one of those kidneys. It’s all a matter of coercion, bad government incentives, and which circumstances are most likely to give rise to it.”
August 16th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
It’s sad to see the liberal trolls on here defending a 2 trillion dollar deficit and wanting higher deficits to pay for their risky schemes.
I understand they want to be slaves to Washington, but I wonder why they don’t leave the rest of us alone.
Can’t they just send their paychecks to Obama and let him make all their decisions for them?
If they don’t think they can handle their own lives they don’t have to screw with the rest of us who are responsible.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Fox News Sunday: Senator Shelby (R-AL) on Co-Ops
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003191939
August 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I know that none of you would give him credit, but Huckabee has done a lot to bring the healthcare debate to the viewers. He devoted three to four weeks in a row on healthcare. He has had a tremendous response to the varied topics that he covered.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Palin/Huckabee 2012!
August 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Aron could you verify if the trolls on here have the same IP or if the IPs are unique?
If the IPs are unique it appears the trolls have been given a script from Democratic Underground. The all say the same things and capitalize the same lines in their propaganda.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Texas, I actually did give Huck credit a few days ago for using his show to talk about health care a lot lately. I still despise him, but will give him credit for being a good soldier against Obamacare.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
That would almost think about voting for Obama, what a losing combination.
Please, you can’t be serious. This was a grass root movement and no body deserves credit but the people. In fact, I could argue that Romney deserved more credit because of his op-eds. But the truth is, it is a Senior Citizen Movement, and they don’t want the bill. In an irony of fate, it is Senior Citizen Democrats that really put the nail into the coffin.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
There was only that one post from the IP address used by Brittancus, who I noticed dumped the same spam at Patterico.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Thunder
I don’t believe that I invoked the name of Romney. And I don’t believe that I said that Huckabee deserves more credit than any other republican. I just believe that he deserves some credit for shining light on the healthcare debate. He does have the top rated cable news show on the weekends.
DanL-thank you for the credit you gave to Huckabee.
As to the trolls, the Obama machine asked them to get in our face and hence that is what they are trying to do. But if you ignore them, they will go away.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Romney is screwed. ObamaCare – public option = RomneyCare. The true Romney believers will spin this by saying Romney opposes ObamaCare 2.0 because he’s a federalist to his core. Who’s gonna take him seriously when he runs for president in 2 years and says his way of “reforming” healthcare is by telling 49 governors to come up with 49 solutions for universal healthcare? No one rational, that’s for sure.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Administration Official: “Sebelius Misspoke.”
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/administration_official_sebelius_misspoke.php
An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
“Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”
A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn’t misspeak. “The media misplayed it,” the third official said.
Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That’s been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn’t exactly a walk-back — the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.
“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it,” Obama said.
This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.
The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.
August 16th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Pawlenty gets into position on health care
Speaking to GOP activists, he belittled federally run programs as ineffective.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/53365007.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUq9_b9b_jEkP:QUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Mexico Replaces All 700 Customs Inspectors
Newly Hired Agents Undergone Months of Training to Fight Against Drug Smuggling
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/world/main5245589.shtml
It’s Time to Legalize Drugs
By Peter Moskos and Stanford “Neill” Franklin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601758_pf.html
August 16th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Chances Dim for a Public Plan
White House Opens Door to Compromise on Government Role in Health Overhaul
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125043830465934883.html#printMode
Liberals Fret a Democratic Stay to Center
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125047031100135625.html#printMode
August 17th, 2009 at 12:10 am
ABC Roundtable: Palin’s ‘Death Panels’, Town Halls, Clinton and Vick
Ed Gillespie, Donna Brazile, Ron Brownstein and Anne Kornblut
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8339233
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8339507
August 17th, 2009 at 12:22 am
This administration is a train wreck.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:09 am
“And please, Palin had nothing to do with it as she came late to the party. Credit goes to the people and their grass root movements.” Exhibit A of those who have their heads in the sand. I realize that I do not live in Romney country, but most people I know who are against socialist medicine are not crediting Mr. Romney for us winning round one in the battle. Sure are win may eventually benefit Mr. Romney through the back door, but our success has a lot more to do with Mrs. Palin than Mr. Romney. It is a proud day to be a Palinite.
It is funny how the Romneyites almost lost their nerve earlier this week and said ‘you people are doing it all wrong, you should not be going to town hall meeting and talking about death panels.’ Now, all of a sudden the Romneyites want to take credit for what Mrs. Palin, Mr. Pawlenty and other did. Well the people at the picnic I went to yesterday know the score about health. Sure, some of them will eventually vote for Mr. Romney, but it won’t be because of this round.
BTW, thanks again to people like Tommy Boy and Kristofer who are fighting this battle throughout the country.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Apparently an administration official said Sibelius ‘misspoke’ and a public option in some form is still the President’s preferred option.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:30 am
I’m sure the public option is Mr. Obama’s prefered option. Mr. Obama had to throw Mrs. Sibelius under the bus to please the yellow dogs. The bottom line is that we won round one by getting the Dems flustered and off their game and we have cause the yellow dogs and blue dogs to be on the verge of civil war. Just look at the liberal web sites and see how the Yellow dogs have lost their minds. Both dogs and in somewhat disaray and we must fight harder to keep them that way. We need to go for the jugular.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
What Went Wrong
Piling up debt, gaffes, and hypocrisy, Obama & Co. are sinking.
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MWRmMjAxNmNhZDRhMjllYmFjYTZjYmRlYTZmYWNjYTA=
August 17th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I think the DEATH PANEL direction was the wrong way to go. We have a small victory, on an ambiguous part of the bill? But we’re off course on the rest of the monstrosity. Adn we do have Palin to thank for it.
Now, we’re going to get a bill, and it’s going to be terrible.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Adn we do have Palin to thank for it.” We at least we agree on that Martha!
August 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
As long as insurance companies want ever increasing profit margins, the
prospect of community rating with no more than a 2 to 1 (or even a 5 to 1)
ratio of old to young and the requirement to cover everyone regardless of
pre-existing condition and the inability to drop the sick, will eventually
lead to such companies asking for a bail-out from the government.
Even without a “public option” any reform at all means eventual single-payer
and there is no way of dodging the kinds of reform I have outlined above.
The Democrats have too many votes to not do these basic things, which will
destroy private insurance eventually.
For the more libertarian minded of you, keep in mind that the ability to
take profits and avoid taking personal responsibility for the insured by
holding stock in an insurance company is a STATIST priviledge. There would
be no private insurance without statism.