PDA

View Full Version : Republicans wary of Obama's public health care summit



Roger Perry
02-09-2010, 01:32 PM
Republicans have said all along they want the health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health%20care%20reform%20in%20the%20United%20State s) debate out in the open and criticized President Barack Obama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/) for holding discussions behind closed doors.

So Obama proposes a televised summit with Democrats and Republicans and now the GOP says it's not too sure that's such a good idea.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/25617

How do you righties explain that?

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-09-2010, 01:42 PM
Roger I am scared of SNAKES....

M&K's Retrievers
02-09-2010, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=

How do you righties explain that?[/QUOTE]

"'Will you walk into my parlor' said the Spider to the Fly"

Roger Perry
02-09-2010, 01:50 PM
"'Will you walk into my parlor' said the Spider to the Fly"

Yeah, but the Republicans said they wanted the health care debate out in the open and Obama called them out and now they are backing down.

brandywinelabs
02-09-2010, 02:17 PM
Just like that you expect them to trust O and the dems? If you read the rest of the article, what they are saying ans asking makes sense considering what has gone on to date.

M&K's Retrievers
02-09-2010, 03:11 PM
Roger, what part of "No" don't you, Obama and the rest of the libs understand? According to recent Rasmussen Polls, 61% of Americans say it's time for Congress to drop Health Care reform while 58% oppose the plan before Congress. Recent elections also indicate that people don't want the government jacking with their health care. Give it a rest and address more pressing problems. If they must, concentrate on the uninsurable (not uninsured - there is a difference!) That's where the real problem lies

Buzz
02-09-2010, 03:30 PM
Pick your poll I guess. Here is a new Washington Post/ABC Poll:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/4343700905_379ce26b06.jpg

M&K's Retrievers
02-09-2010, 03:59 PM
Pick your poll I guess. Here is a new Washington Post/ABC Poll:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/4343700905_379ce26b06.jpg

After ABC's Health Care Infomercial with Obama, I'm not sure how creditable their poll results are.

Hew
02-09-2010, 03:59 PM
So much hand wringing about the Republicans. It's the Democrats in Congress that can't come together on health care. It's the Democrats in the House who can't agree with the Democrats in the Senate that held up and ultimately killed the bill.

Besides, the bill awaiting reconcilliation between the House and Senate was written entirely by Democrats and crafted behind closed doors. All Obama wants to do is tinker with that POS legislation, tweak it here and there and find a Republican or two to bite so he can crow that it's bipartisan. The GOP leaders in Congress should hold out for a complete rewrite...this time WITH their input. To do anything less makes them either the dog or the pony in Obama's Big Show.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-09-2010, 04:10 PM
GREAT post hew

Buzz
02-09-2010, 04:13 PM
Besides, the bill awaiting reconcilliation between the House and Senate was written entirely by Democrats and crafted behind closed doors.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html


At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.

(1) "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." This is a long-running debate between liberals and conservatives. Currently, states regulate insurers. Liberals feel that's too weak and allows for too much variation, and they want federal regulation of insurers. Conservatives feel that states over-regulate insurers, and they want insurers to be able to cluster in the state with the least regulation and offer policies nationwide, much as credit card companies do today.

To the surprise and dismay of many liberals, the Senate health-care bill included a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them. This prevents a race to the bottom, as Idaho has to be comfortable with Arizona's regulations, and the policies have to have a minimum level of benefits (something that even Rep. Paul Ryan believes), but it's a lot closer to the conservative ideal.

(2) "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do." This is the very purpose of the exchanges, as defined in Section 1312. Insurers are required to pool the risk of all the small businesses and individuals in the new markets rather than treating them as small, single units. That gives the newly pooled consumers bargaining power akin to that of a massive corporation or labor union, just as conservatives want. It also gives insurers reason to compete aggressively for their business, which is key to the conservative vision. Finally, empowering the exchanges to use prudential purchasing maximizes the power and leverage that consumers will now enjoy.

(3) "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs." Section 1302 of the Senate bill does this directly. The provision is entitled "the Waiver for State Innovation," and it gives states the power to junk the whole of the health-care plan -- that means the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, all of it -- if they can do it better and cheaper.

(4) "End junk lawsuits." It's not entirely clear what this means, as most malpractice lawsuits actually aren't junk lawsuits. The evidence on this is pretty clear: The malpractice problem is on operating tables, not in court rooms. Which isn't to deny that our current system is broken for patients and doctors alike. The Senate bill proposes to deal with this in Section 6801, which encourages states to develop new malpractice systems and suggests that Congress fund the most promising experiments. This compromise makes a lot of sense given the GOP's already-expressed preference for letting states "create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs," but since what the Republicans actually want is a national system capping damages, I can see how this compromise wouldn't be to their liking.

(5) To stop there, however, does the conservative vision a disservice. The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don't want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. But when Republicans are feeling bolder -- as they were in Bush's 2007 State of the Union, or John McCain's plan -- they generally take aim at one of the worst distortions in the health-care market: The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance. Bush capped it. McCain repealed it altogether. Democrats usually reject, and attack, both approaches.

Not this year, though. Senate Democrats initially attempted to cap the exclusion, which is what Bush proposed in 2007. There was no Republican support for the move, and Democrats backed off from the proposal. They quickly replaced it, however, with the excise tax, which does virtually the same thing. The excise tax only applies to employer-sponsored insurance above a certain price point, and it essentially erases the preferential tax treatment for every dollar above its threshold.

(6) And finally, we shouldn't forget the compromises that have been the most painful for Democrats, and the most substantive. This is a private-market plan. Not only is single-payer off the table, but at this point, so too is the public option. The thing that liberals want most in the world has been compromised away.

On Sunday, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell responded to Barack Obama's summit invitation by demanding Obama scrap the health-care reform bill entirely. This is the context for that demand. What they want isn't a bill that incorporates their ideas. They've already got that. What they want is no bill at all. And that's a hard position for the White House to compromise with.

Marvin S
02-09-2010, 04:21 PM
I had this discussion of bipartisanship with a friend of mine this AM. We find ourselves disagreeing on issues but can discuss them. Some of you on the left on this forum should try that :cool:.

We were talking of bipartisanship - my comment was it can only be bipartisan if both sides arrive on equal footing.

He came back with - the R's crammed it down the throats of the D's for the last 8 years - & I countered with Foley did the same, Rosty, O'Neill & Wright were no better, so it's not a Republican thing, it's a power thing :(.

Personally, I agree with the R's position, if they want them at the table it is not to discuss the bill that was cobbled together behind closed doors!

I am sure there may be something in the present bill worth salvaging but both my medical practitioners & myself seem to be satisfied with the present Mandatory government health plan I have. I just had my Rotator Cuff done, including stress tests & required medication it cost me less than $2k. When I had the Bypass done 14 years ago, I was out of pocket less than that & there have been few medical expenses in between. We actually spend more on the obligatory medical plan than we (the bride & I) spend on prescription medicines :cool:. We count our blessings knowing there are others, through no fault of there own are in a different position.

There are some things that could be done without a wholesale change, for us the Hopey - Changy thing is too much like the ribbon cutting ceremony at the local sewer plant. Bring it all to a central location so there can be a ribbon cutting ceremony rather than allowing each of us to have a septic system without the fanfare :rolleyes:.

badbullgator
02-09-2010, 04:52 PM
So much hand wringing about the Republicans. It's the Democrats in Congress that can't come together on health care. It's the Democrats in the House who can't agree with the Democrats in the Senate that held up and ultimately killed the bill.

Besides, the bill awaiting reconcilliation between the House and Senate was written entirely by Democrats and crafted behind closed doors. All Obama wants to do is tinker with that POS legislation, tweak it here and there and find a Republican or two to bite so he can crow that it's bipartisan. The GOP leaders in Congress should hold out for a complete rewrite...this time WITH their input. To do anything less makes them either the dog or the pony in Obama's Big Show.


Why didn't they pass it when they had the chance? Maybe because it is not liked by either side.......

road kill
02-09-2010, 05:02 PM
Why didn't they pass it when they had the chance? Maybe because it is not liked by either side.......
Aint it amazing??
The leftys had control of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the main stream network Media and the only thing they can do is blame Bush and the Republicans.


It's pretty damned funny if you think about it............:p





rk

Hew
02-09-2010, 05:05 PM
Hopefully you'll beg my pardon, Buzz, if I don't wade into your uber-lib blogger Ezra Klein's tome...as I'm sure you wouldn't bother wasting your time reading a Rush Limbaugh manifesto on health care. Suffice it to say, whatever putative "compromises" that may or may not be in the Senate version that Klein cites were most certainly NOT written for Republican consumption because at the time the legislation was written there was ZERO need to compromise with them and there was ZERO effort to compromise with them. Actually, not only were they not compromised with; they were scorned by Pelosi and Reid. I'm sure to Klein, anything less than cradle-to-grave nanny-state care for everyone (including illegal aliens), is a right wingnut concept, but common sense dictates that there's not much in that bill that a rank-and-file Republican would/could vote for (and the one Republican who did vote for it said he'd change his mind and vote against it if given another opportunity to do so).

paul young
02-09-2010, 06:06 PM
well, they COULD write their own bill and submit it to the house/senate for debate.....

i'd like to see them actually do something besides have a hissy fit every time they're asked to weigh in on this type of legislation.

it's a lot easier to tear something down than to build.-Paul

Buzz
02-09-2010, 06:10 PM
well, they COULD write their own bill and submit it to the house/senate for debate.....

i'd like to see them actually do something besides have a hissy fit every time they're asked to weigh in on this type of legislation.

it's a lot easier to tear something down than to build.-Paul

Didn't they write HR 3400?

dnf777
02-09-2010, 06:58 PM
The GOP leaders in Congress should hold out for a complete rewrite...this time WITH their input. To do anything less makes them either the dog or the pony in Obama's Big Show.

Over 200 republican provisions and amendments in the final senate bill. No public option. No medicare buy-in at 55. Sounds like they had some input to me? This is a 'no pre-condition' open invitation to dialogue, and as per their typical M.O., the republican leaders are obstructing, and saying "NO". That's not what they're elected for, and its not what they have a big fancy building in Washington for. And its surely not what we're paying them for.

JDogger
02-09-2010, 08:26 PM
Aint it amazing??
The leftys had control of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the main stream network Media and the only thing they can do is blame Bush and the Republicans.


It's pretty damned funny if you think about it............:p





rk

Just when did the 'left' get control of the Judiciary? Did I miss that? The latest 5-4 ruling certainly was not a 'lefty one' was it?

JD

K G
02-09-2010, 08:41 PM
I had this discussion of bipartisanship with a friend of mine this AM. We find ourselves disagreeing on issues but can discuss them. Some of you on the left on this forum should try that :cool:.

We were talking of bipartisanship - my comment was it can only be bipartisan if both sides arrive on equal footing.

He came back with - the R's crammed it down the throats of the D's for the last 8 years - & I countered with Foley did the same, Rosty, O'Neill & Wright were no better, so it's not a Republican thing, it's a power thing :(.

Personally, I agree with the R's position, if they want them at the table it is not to discuss the bill that was cobbled together behind closed doors!

I am sure there may be something in the present bill worth salvaging but both my medical practitioners & myself seem to be satisfied with the present Mandatory government health plan I have. I just had my Rotator Cuff done, including stress tests & required medication it cost me less than $2k. When I had the Bypass done 14 years ago, I was out of pocket less than that & there have been few medical expenses in between. We actually spend more on the obligatory medical plan than we (the bride & I) spend on prescription medicines :cool:. We count our blessings knowing there are others, through no fault of their own are in a different position.

There are some things that could be done without a wholesale change, for us the Hopey - Changy thing is too much like the ribbon cutting ceremony at the local sewer plant. Bring it all to a central location so there can be a ribbon cutting ceremony rather than allowing each of us to have a septic system without the fanfare :rolleyes:.

Good post, Marvin....gets down to where the rubber meets the road: the end user.

k g

Buzz
02-10-2010, 08:14 AM
Hopefully you'll beg my pardon, Buzz, if I don't wade into your uber-lib blogger Ezra Klein's tome...as I'm sure you wouldn't bother wasting your time reading a Rush Limbaugh manifesto on health care.

Actually I do listen to conservative talk radio on my computer and iPod throughout the day through my Sirius Radio subscription. I don't limit myself to listening to and reading only those who I agree with. But, you're right, I won't listen to Rush.

The other day I was in my truck listening to Fox Radio and there was a guy sitting in for John Gibson. He was saying that he loves Sara Palin, but he was poo pooing the idea of her ever being the Republican nominee for president. He felt that she lacks the vision that they need for a nominee. It was fun listening to the calls. People's heads were literally exploding that this guy could be so critical of her, because after-all, Sara is just so real. That was one common thread that ran through many of the caller's diatribes. Best couple of hours I spent on the road in a long time.:cool:

menmon
02-10-2010, 10:07 AM
Bipartisan...LOL

It's too bad that politics is all that matters! Most Americans are dealing with some level of distress while some are in real dire straits and all Washington can do is play politics.

If someone comes up with a good ideal, it is in the best interest of the opposing party to make it fail. And then if a good ideal gets legs, by the time it works its way through the process, it does not accomplish its intended goal.

The healthcare system has serious problems, but the lobist are controling the debate and process and both parties are bulkling to their pressure because they all get dollars from them.

The banking system just failed, but the lobist are controling that debate too, and I really question if any meaningful regulation will come out of it either.

I like most of Obama's agenda (please don't show your igorance and spew-out the latest Glen Beck demonization), but I question will he be able to move his agenda. To date, his batting average is not too good.

Regarding the current healthcare debate, all I hear from my friends on the right is how they are going to regain power at the mid-term election. They are taking this play from the 1996 playbook, because healthcare is what gave them the majority back them. I was in their camp back then, and I watched them move an agenda that was not good for Americans as a whole, and America voted in 2008 that they had enough, but because people are feeling pain and the current adminstration can't releve it fast enough, they want to throw them out too.

The reason the economy crashed so hard is because of the amount of leverage (debt) in the market. Having said that, that same leverage will make it rebound at an accelerated rate too. All of the indicators are showing that we have bottomed out and are on the verge of a recovery, and given the leverage argument I made above, it should be strong. Examples: you can only go so long with out replacing your car or dog truck; at some point you have saved to a point that you are comfortable spending some; housing inventories have fallen to a point that new construction makes sense; third world economies are buying our products in greater volume than American and Europeans; the stockmarket has recovered most of its losses, therefore, you are probablly considering another dog in training; people are refinancing their homes which is putting more money in their pockets; the dollar is strengthening and keeping fuel and food prices at bay; and there are many more examples.

How much Washington is to credit for this I don't know, probablly not much. However, until the banks recover from their mismanagement, credit and capital will continue to be tight and the only thing that Washington affects is monetary policy that is allowing these banks to recover and capital they loaned the banks to avoild failures. Having said this, during Reagan's administration, we he did the same things to fix the banking crisis that occured in the 80s. Now this president inheritied the entitlement problem that we have been hearing about for years that would result when the boomers came of age, therefore it coupled with a weak economy has sent the deficit to the moon. This got ignored for years because it was not good politics to deal with it, because it meant spending cuts and higher taxes. Now the right that had the power to do something about it for the last 14 years is yelling the loudest for spending cuts and that would be the worst thing we could do right now. So think twice before you bring back the same failed agenda.

Roger Perry
02-10-2010, 10:42 AM
Aint it amazing??
The leftys had control of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the main stream network Media and the only thing they can do is blame Bush and the Republicans.


It's pretty damned funny if you think about it............:p

rk

Didn't the Republicans have 6 years with control of Congress and the Presidency to come up with a health care plan? Did they even try to formulate one?:confused:

Buzz
02-10-2010, 10:46 AM
Didn't the Republicans have 6 years with control of Congress and the Presidency to come up with a health care plan? Did they even try to formulate one?:confused:

They have formulated a plan. First, cast themselves as defenders of Medicare and equate HCR with death panels. Then come out with a plan to make far deeper cuts to Medicare than were proposed by Democrats.

subroc
02-11-2010, 05:23 AM
Didn't the Republicans have 6 years with control of Congress and the Presidency to come up with a health care plan? Did they even try to formulate one?:confused:

prescription drugs...

YardleyLabs
02-11-2010, 05:55 AM
prescription drugs...
And that was one heck of a plan. With a cost of half a trillion dollars that was deliberately understated and never funded, and a program designed more to help pharmaceutical industry profits by paying prces for drugs that were higher than those paid by any other insurance payer.

subroc
02-11-2010, 06:08 AM
I am not saying if it was good or bad. I am not defending it.

Just responding to his query.

Major legislation like the current version of the democrat’s health care proposal, that needs bribes to get passed, is, I am sure, good for the nation.

BTW, is it possible that there is any understatement or unrealistic expectation of future conditions in this legislation?

All your left wing hand wringing over republican support of government run health care is really heartwarming. Where was your support for President George W. Bush when he made an honest attempt to reform Social Security? Many of the proposals that he made were the same as clintons, in essence democrat proposals. He was front and center. No back room deals to get support. Democrats laid down like dogs. No participation at all.

Politics anyone?

Bunch of phonies.

paul young
02-11-2010, 06:43 AM
is someone in the legislative branch under indictment for taking a bribe on the health care reform bill?-Paul

dixidawg
02-11-2010, 07:38 AM
I don't know about that Paul. One very disturbing (to me) thing that surfaced during the whole Brown/Coakley race was this:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t215/dixidawg/coakleyfundraiser-1.jpg


If you google the names of the "Hosts" and "Co-Hosts", you will see many lobbyists and people in the Healthcare industry. Then google who those lobbyists have for clients, and it quickly becomes apparent that pretty much the whole Mass Congressional delegation is bought and paid for by those that would profit from healthcare "reform". Don't know if that holds true for the rest of the country or not.

Just because someone is not indicted does not necessarily mean thay are innocent.....

YardleyLabs
02-11-2010, 07:55 AM
I am not saying if it was good or bad. I am not defending it.

Just responding to his query.

Major legislation like the current version of the democrat’s health care proposal, that needs bribes to get passed, is, I am sure, good for the nation.

BTW, is it possible that there is any understatement or unrealistic expectation of future conditions in this legislation?

All your left wing hand wringing over republican support of government run health care is really heartwarming. Where was your support for President George W. Bush when he made an honest attempt to reform Social Security? Many of the proposals that he made were the same as clintons, in essence democrat proposals. He was front and center. No back room deals to get support. Democrats laid down like dogs. No participation at all.

Politics anyone?

Bunch of phonies.
The core of his social security reform proposal was to privatize a portion of the program and to reduce benefits for the balance. The immediate impact would have been to "address" a future (20 years away) problem by creating a $1 trillion immediate funding gap for current benefits, and still not resolving the long term problem. What it would have done would have been to infuse the $1 trillion into the stock market, inflating prices dramatically. It was hard to view it as a solution. To promote his plan, Bush began to describe the immediacy of the problem by focusing not on when the social security trust would actually be insufficient to pay all benefits owed, but on when the government would have to begin paying back the money borrowed from social security to finance current operations.

Clinton's solution, by contrast, was to dedicate the surplus in the budget to bolstering the funding for social security and then to begin a process of segregating the funds so that surpluses -- which we continue to have today -- could not be used to fund operating deficits. Instead, Bush used the budget surplus, the social security surplus, and new debt to pay for tax cuts from which almost all the benefits went to the top 1% of income earners. That certainly proved to be a brilliant strategy -- not.

Uncle Bill
02-11-2010, 04:48 PM
The core of his social security reform proposal was to privatize a portion of the program and to reduce benefits for the balance. The immediate impact would have been to "address" a future (20 years away) problem by creating a $1 trillion immediate funding gap for current benefits, and still not resolving the long term problem. What it would have done would have been to infuse the $1 trillion into the stock market, inflating prices dramatically. It was hard to view it as a solution. To promote his plan, Bush began to describe the immediacy of the problem by focusing not on when the social security trust would actually be insufficient to pay all benefits owed, but on when the government would have to begin paying back the money borrowed from social security to finance current operations.

Clinton's solution, by contrast, was to dedicate the surplus in the budget to bolstering the funding for social security and then to begin a process of segregating the funds so that surpluses -- which we continue to have today -- could not be used to fund operating deficits. Instead, Bush used the budget surplus, the social security surplus, and new debt to pay for tax cuts from which almost all the benefits went to the top 1% of income earners. That certainly proved to be a brilliant strategy -- not.


Spoken like a complete socialist with zero knowledge of how to run a business, because all you've been in is government programs.

Just watch the small businesses collapse as your messiah halts the Bush tax cuts, then you can again claim how just the upper 1% benefitted.

You have got to be the most bigoted class-envy promoter I've ever encountered. You are to be pitied.

UB