President Obama Praises House Movement on Health Legislation, Sees Reason to Hope in Bad GDP Numbers

TIME Magazine (Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983….). Barrack Obama stated….This plan will save or create over 3 million jobs — almost all of them in the private sector.This plan will put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, our dangerous — dangerously deficient dams and levees.
Joe Biden….. “Let me be very clear: A lower job-rate loss is not our goal,” Biden said.

jpt quotes The One:
“health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade,”
ONLY because of accounting dodges written into the bill . . .
Oblabla really IS becoming dangerously disingenuous, in search of “success”.
Meanwhile, the pill-mill “community health centers” to whom the poor and near-poor are consigned continue, unremarked, the “quality” kill-off of those who are too financially distressed to be of much lasting benefit to the corporations.

Its a shame this whole thing has to be delayed enough just so the Blue Cross Democrats can shake down the insurance companies. I guess the Blue Chips got enough cash to let it out, finally. These guys really are worse than the Republicans, some of whom actually believe in the idea of ruining health care.
What I don’t understand in the least is why the press continues to portray the Blue Bloods as “fiscal conservatives” (in the words of the NY Times). They are anything but – just look at their record, they have never met a piece of pork they didn’t like.

I’d sooner go to the barber for a “Bleeding” or leeches before I’d let Barrys’ butchers touch me.
If it is soooooooo good……why don’t they try it first and if it doesn’t kill them, so be it!!

Until Congress and all Cabinet members are put on this healthcare plan first, no further discussion is required. Exemptions for Congress and cabinet are a deal-breaker.
All private citizens have the ability to make their own living will, or discuss their end-of-life preferences NOW. Why does government now need to insert itself into the process? Some “counselor” from the bureaucracy has nothing to do with such private matters. There’s no reason to add government as a participant in this personal decision.
Of course, we could always use the same counselors to inject themselves into the abortion decision, you know, just to make sure the patient has thought through all the options and steer them in the right direction.

Meanwhile, fearing a double-cross from D.C. on THEIR health care, vets’
groups are threatening to work against ObamaCare — Disabled American Veterans, Blinded Veterans Association, Vietnam Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, American Veterans (AMVETS) and the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA.
The VVAW, in particular — WarBabys and Boomers — has a scary-good record on opposing a well-advertised misadventure whipped up between the WH and Congress.

I also was “pleased” to hear that the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a health care reform bill Friday night. However, I think we still have a long tunnel to go through,no? The debate is making me a little queasy. The parties disagree — and they should; it’s why they exist and it’s part of the American way — but politically we are more polarized now than at any point in modern political history. Ezra Klein has posted a chart from Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal which shows current political polarization is at its highest point since the 19th century. No wonder there are so many arguments in the comments section of this blog. I just wish we could be civil when we disagree.
At this point, with this polarization, a bipartisan solution isn’t really feasible, IMO. Congress and the Aministration should just go for it.
I like your assessment of the Blue Cross Democrats, Flash. That cracked me up. They drive me bananas:) W
I mentioned on a previous post that the media drives me crazy. Why? Well, you’d never know it from most media coverage, but according to a New York Times poll– that, yes, the NYT’s own Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee-Brenan did their best to spin in another direction– 90% of Americans want health care reform, more Americans approve (46%) than disapprove (38%) of how President Obama is handling health care reform (Congressional Republicans only have a 17% approval rating on this topic), and far more Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democrats (47%) than of the Republicans (28%).
Anyway . . .
I like your assessment of the Blue Cross Democrats, Flash. That cracked me up. They drive me bananas:)
I also like this quote from Dr. Britton comparing the current health care system to Katrina:
“For years, people warned that the levees were weak and would not sustain a cat 4 or a cat 5 storm. What nobody could tell you is when the moment would come that there was a stressor that the levees would break.
And I feel we’re in the same way, and our association does in many ways feel the same thing, that we’re at a point where a lot of things in our health system just are not working properly. And what we don’t know is when there’ll be a stressor that really collapses the part of the system that seems to be working very well for some of us on the upper end.”

“politically we are more polarized now than at any point in modern political history.”
psst: enacting Medicare was pretty “polarizing”.
What’s needed now is Single Payer, not top-down micro-managing the ungovernable insurance and “medical” corporations whose political donations enable “our” gutless representatives in the WH and the Congress.
Oblabla and the faux Democrats found PLENTY of trillions for the financial corporations, and for war in everywhere . . . and about a zillion doctors and other knowledgeable folks say that Single Payer — Medicare for ALL — is the way to ACTUALLY save $.

And check out Paul Krugman’s column on why the markets aren’t a cure for health care. He explains it exceedingly well. Here’s a taste, but there’s more, too:
“There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems.”

President Obama is our hero and he will guide us through these bad economic times.
Thank you, President Obama, for all you are doing for us.

#1 in money spent on healthcare and 38th and 37th in healthcare and life expectancy. I’d say the US has alot to improve upon.

I don’t see anywhere mentioning the premium cost of this national health insurance and the co-pay. People might think it is free or much less than what they are paying now.

“Yes, but check out the chart. It’s really interesting. I think it indicates there were more people in the center at that time, or the parties weren’t quite as far apart ideologically.”
If you link FROM Ezra Klein, you can view ALL the charts. They ARE interesting.
What the parties have been about since Kennedy-Johnson has nothing to do with anything that preceded the Kennedy assassination, I wouldn’t think.
The “Democrats” now are what moderate Republicans used to be . . . and not so long ago.
In particular, if Obama weren’t wearing the “black” birthday suit, I don’t think his organization would pass for “Democrat”s. OR that they’d have managed to hijack the Democratic Party.

Digby pointed out today that the “end of life counseling” that the wingnuts are moaning about now is actually one of the Republican ideas that has been incorporated into the reform. More on the AARP website.

@jodean, I got the impression from the NYT this morning that the bill just voted out of E&C committee authorizes Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Finally, a reversal of the most expensive single health care rule. Thanks to the “fiscally responsible” Republicans for burdening us with that cost originally, by the way.

I commented on the end of life counseling thing on another here post earlier this week because a commenter named Lyn seemed so terrified, supposedly because she’d been studying the bill but more likely cuz she’d read or heard some of the misleading propaganda. I also mentioned, like Digby does, that Betsy McCaughey is a liar.
Since not all of you will go to Hullabaloo, here’s what I wrote earlier in the week after accumulating good info from a few sources ( and yes some of it is a regurgitation of what others have written because I’m not particularly articulate, lol)–
I’ve been looking into some of the concerns expressed by Lyn earlier, and I found the language she’s worried about. I don’t watch highly partisan idealogues on either side so I’d missed some of the outrageous claims made on TV and radio. I hope this will allay some fears–
To substantiate their outrageous claims, conservatives point to SEC. 1233 of the House Tri Committee bill, a section titled “ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.” But while the language allows Medicare to reimburse providers for consulting with patients about end-of-life issues, nothing in the section mandates a consultation. On page 429, the bill specifically states that seniors “may” consult with medical professionals — not government bureaucrats.
The bill aims to provide seniors with information about drafting a living will or the options surround end of life care, information Americans have been asking for. A recent report by ThirdWay found that “although 75% of Americans feel advance directives are a good idea, only 40% of Medicare patients say they have one.” Given the lack of clear information, “many patients sign documents that don’t offer clear instructions. Family members may have conflicting feelings about the care they wish to see a patient receive…For elderly patients, their end-of-life wishes regarding care are often unknown or ignored.” The new optional Medicare service seeks to reverse that trend and help patients make more informed end-of-life decisions.
Also:
“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed,” AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said in a statement. “To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion — especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.”
Jon Keyserling, vice president for public policy and counsel at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said: “I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent.”
Also:
Conservatives and Republican leaders have been running wild with the claim that the House Dems’ health care reform bill, by offering Medicare funding for “end of life consultations,” could lead to mass “government-encouraged euthanasia.”
But it turns out a GOP Senator, Susan Collins, sponsored a virtually identical initiative this spring, before this became an anti-reform GOP talking point — and praised it as necessary to improving our health care system’s “care for patients at the end of their lives.”
Though this talking point has been debunked multiple times, conservatives and GOP leaders like John Boehner continue to employ it with abandon.
On May 22nd, Senators Collins and Jay Rockefeller introduced the “Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act,” according to a press release sent over by a source. The measure provides Medicare funding “for advance care planning so that patients can routinely talk to their physicians about their wishes for end-of-life care,” the release says.
Collins praised the measure, which may be included in the Senate health care bill, in the release. “Our legislation will improve the way our health care system care for patients at the end of their lives,” she said, “and it will also facilitate appropriate discussions and individual autonomy in making decisions about end-of-life care.”

Germany has a 12% income tax for state run health insurance. If your family is making 90k a year, thats roughly 1,000 a month. We will pay for it, there is no doubt about it.
And while the “propaganda” says you’ll have a choice to keep your private plan, its a bunch of BS. You can keep it sure, if you want to pay double every month cause you can’t choose to pay the tax or not. We are all going to be taxed for it, so who in their right mind would pay an extra premium every month for the better health care?
Oh thats right, rich people. Yay for a plan to screw over the middle class.

jon jay v,where do you get your figures?Do you realize that in Europe the cancer survival rates do not match the US?That extremely ill or extremely old people do not get placed on dialysis or may not get angioplasties or CABG operations?Why do foreign patients come here everyday for medical care? Why do foreign MDs come here to practice? Even the best hospitals in Europe don’t hold a candle to the average community hospital in the US. This plan is nothing but a government-run HMO.I thought that the American public had had enough of that version of health care.And again, a living will is a pointless document that will not prevent a resusitation attempt.Without a valid DNR “all things are possible”.Without tort reform there will be NO savings-until this is addressed costs will continue to rise.It does not take a brain surgeon to understand this-but it seems beyond the comprehension of the ENT in the White House who thinks that tonsils are responsible for the increasing cost of medical care.

Is the very best that we can do is to be batted back & forth betwen extremes, Socialists and Conservatives? We aren’t really in any of those places but we never have the options that we want. Socialism has never worked and Capitalism sent us over the brink. Obama is a left wing puppet who will put policies into effect that will ruin our country but we have no one to turn to that is moderate and even handed. We have no real representation. I am sick from it and of it.

Honesty on all sides of this issue would be great about now. It would be nice to know the true amount of uninsured,not the 47 million touted. It would be nice to see Insurance Companies held accountable for their cheating practices, it would be nice to see everyone against lawsuits that drive insurance cost so high that doctors abandon states and practices because of cost or refusing medicare patients due to the Government getting too involved in the healing practices.
Yet, all we get is spin, no one willing to give and take. Sad

If KR is right about Germany, then if we adoped the same plan, most Americans would save money on health care. $90k is in the 85th to 90th percentile of incomes, and is about double the median household income, and almost three times the median individual income.
Health care expenditures (which unfortunately include insurance, not just health care) average out to about $7.900 per person in the US. Anyone making less than $65000 a year (about twice what half the people make, and more than 80% of Americans make) would end up paying less for health care.
Sounds like a great solution.

Blue dogs, red dogs, what is the difference? They are all dogs.
The million dollar question is: what drives Mr. Obama, a smart man by any standards, to adapt such a myopic philosophy? Answer: naivete or complete misunderstanding of how economics works and how societies function. There is no other explanation. If this is the case, he is taking this country to an unprecedented catastrophe, which like a black hole, once you come close or fall in, you will never get out! You ask the question: is this possible? Well, take a look at Greece, once the richest place in the universe, where democracy was born. Politics ruined it, so look at it now, a beautiful place to visit but hardly a place you’d want to live. What a shame. Perhaps there is time, if most Americans check romanticism at the door and think of their sons or daughters. If they do, that would be the “audacity of hope”!

Lets see the president, congressmen, senators and their famlies be first in line for this great health plan!! Oh they might need to wait for several weeks or months to see a doctor. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Givemeabreak – Funny. But you know what? You were correct on every statement so maybe NOT so funny.

“OBAMA HAS NO CONCERN ABOUT THE ECONOMY, OR ANYTHING ELSE”
_______________________________________
Hogwash.

danita – I didn’t believe it either – NOW I DO!!

“danita – I didn’t believe it either – NOW I DO!!”
____________________________________
You believe whatever you believe – what you need to provide is something beyond the imaginings of your mind.

TWENTY PERCENT CORRUPTION IN THE CA HEALTH SYSTEM IS CAUSING CHAOS AND BANKRUPTCY – SAME WILL HAPPEN ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL – IT IS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

Alyson: It’s more likely that ABC frowns on copyright infringement. I’m always suspicious when I see ready-to-go bullet points in people’s blog comments. I google paragraphs and invariably (as with your post) come up with multiple word-for-word hits. Read the terms of use here. Copyright infringement is a no-no.

Jerry: Thanks! You’re absolutely right. I didn’t think about that.
Sorry, folks! Now, I know and I’ve actually read the terms of use.

I don’t know which is worse- that our government assumes we’re feebleminded enough to want this socialist claptrap, or that we actually ARE that astoundingly stupid? Can someone please check these clowns into a VA hospital so they can get a feel for the ‘quality healthcare’ we can expect under their new plan?

The gov will never offer better healthcare than the private insurers. Once the money is gone so will the benefits. Over taxing the American people for the few is a crime and will be punish on he next elections. Wanna bet ?

In bazzaro land where the President and Congress reside where they accept no responsibility and remove all common sense from their decision making process. Most successful people imulate successful people, in Washington they seek to follow everything that is broken. California is broken and this idiot Waxman thinks we should all follow their lead. These peolpe need to learn some basic life facts the rest of us have learned STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE! They are playing a shell game that will fall on our children, just like we inherited the failings of social security and medicare. My children manage money better than these idiots.

PappyHappy
What about the Billions of spending in this bill that they have exempted from the budget. BILLIONS are allocated for the union paybacks and community organizers (ACORN) to conduct surveys. Bilions for education so long as the union gets a cut and reimbursement for employers with unions.

Give me a break, you left out a few things
***
Get Real,
Absolutely! Nice representation from the other side of the over-the-top, finger-pointing fence. Lately, I’m seeing more of the other which is why I went there, but fairplay is fair play:)

Blame, Blame, Blame Barack..Blame Barack, Blame Barack…Blame,Blame,Blame Barack because Limbaugh tells you too..Health care for the rich..that’s good! don’t worry about the struggling Americans..I got mine they got to get there’s too..the essence of Capitalism and Republicanism..Its sick and getting sicker!

Jonathon Alter has a great piece up at the Time website about supporting the status quo in health care. He writes
that he likes “the status quo on health care in the United States. I’ve got health insurance and I don’t give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don’t. ” And he goes on. It’s very funny and gets at the heart of some of the more ridiculous reasons for supporting the status quo.
Posted by: Alyson | Aug 2, 2009 11:17:23 AM
**
Oops. The article is at Newsweek. Just checked after mentioning it.

I can’t believe that there are still some people out there lifting the old “tort reform” canard, after it has been so thouroughly debunked. Its like a zombie that arises whenever its politically convienient.
Malpractice costs (both torts and malpractice insurance) are less than 2% of health care costs.
In other words, tort costs are comperable to the TOTAL administrative costs in Medicare.
Or compare this to the costs of medical billing. An error-free internal billing function for a medical practice would average around 9% of collections. Outsourcing it would cost between 4% and 8%. These costs dwarf the cost of torts.
Also, what alot of people forget is that insurance companies don’t just take their premiums and pay out benefits with them. It is just as likely that premiums rise because of insurance company stock market losses as it is likely that they rise because of rising medical costs. The same holds true with medical malpractice insurance.
The cost of malpractice insurance has as much to do with stock market losses as it has to do with the courts.

Its like a zombie that arises whenever its politically convienient.
***
Flash, I love that analogy especially since zombies are all the rage lately. Zombie party and Phoney Figure jam at Pence’s pad!! Bring a canard to pass!

FAT CATS, RICH, CORRUPT CEOs? PROBABLY, BUT WHAT THEY GET IN BUCKS IS A TINY DROP IN THE BUCKET AS OPPOSED TO THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WHICH WILL BE ILL SPENT ON A GOV RUN HEALTH CARE PROGRAM THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY SUCCEED. LIKE ANOTHER BLOGGER ASKED, WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAM TAKEN OVER BY THE FED HAS EVER SUCCEEDED? SS, MEDICARE ARE BOTH ALMOST BELLY-UP. THE VA AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN GOV RUN HEALTH PROGRAMS ARE A DISCRACE!! DROP THIS STUPID IDEA – IT WONT WORK AND WILL BANKRUPT THE FED ANYWAY, PROBABLY TAKING DOWN SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH IT – SO WONDERFUL.

“Jonathon Alter has a great piece … about supporting the status quo in health care.”
Alter has two speeds: slavish adoration of those in political power, and sarcastic mockery in furtherance of their aims. No matter how er stupid those aims may be, nor — as in the case of OblablaCare — how deliberately misrepresented.
Alter should be traded in, and sent to the Cash for Clunker Pundits crusher.
Opposing the mindless imposition of ObamaCare isn’t “supporting the status quo in health care”: doing something dubious “for” those who have medical insurance, and calling it “health care reform” is NOT better than doing nothing.
The corporate-sponsored Congress should scrap this pig bill and start over — or convert it to Single Payer, and forego some of the $ that comes their way from the insurance companies.

If someone were really concerned about malpractice costs, they would focus not on tort reform, but on malpractice reform. 5% of doctors are the source of more than half of the malpractice claims. Seems a fairly easy situation to remedy. Its not like they have tenure, why is it easier to de-liscence a teacher than a doctor?

“The Obama organization’s converted a supposedly-”democratic” government into the Single Payer for every financial corporation in the world, to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars”
________________________________
So much inaccurate information – the TARP bail outs were put in place during the Bush administration.

“zillions of doctors, along with the vast majority of civilians, support Single Payer” Posted by: Bet Noir | Aug 2, 2009 2:43:55 PM
______________________________________
It’s just one lie after another with you. And all to discredit the Democratic party.
I stick with my assessment of the nonsense you post – your words are not believable nor credible (read the ones above).

“I stick with my assessment … ”
–> And I with mine. :^|
Difference of opinion’s what makes horse races.

“Denouncing as ‘lies’ every opinion you keyboard puppets don’t find useful in advancing the Oblabla cult isn’t a particularly imaginative or convincing tzctic — especially when your prose style is not. so. hot.”
But they get time and a half on weekends and holidays, and enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country.
They can choose from among Consumer-Driven and High Deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health savings/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) if they live (or sometimes if they work) within the area serviced by the plan.

To all those who voted for Obama thinking he was a moderate–aren’t you angry that he deceived you?
I assume you had the same chances to research his background. Did you not do your homework?
Or were you just caught up in the hype, and thought he was too charming to be such a liar.
He lied to you.
And now all of us are paying for your mistake.

@Nephron, you do realize that this is exactly what Obama was talking about when he refers to “comparative effectiveness research”?
The points you bring up are in fact an argument that the Obama plan DOES address the issue of malpractice, if you are correct in your assumption that the lack of data in these cases is related to malpractice concerns.

THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE IT WILL TAKE ALL YOUR RIGHTS AWAY IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT AGAINEST THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY NEED TO IMPEACH OBAMA THE SANATORS BILL HILLARY CLINTON PELOSI NEEDS A LIFE TIME IN PRISON DONT LET PASS YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY HEALTH CARE IT WILL BE GOVERNMENT TOTLE DOT LET THIS HAPPEN

“THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE IT WILL TAKE ALL YOUR RIGHTS AWAY”
___________________________________
Nonsense.

Stanley, don’t worry, I am plenty capable of educating myself on the health care reform bill. But I think you may be in need of some education yourself. You wrote, “I think America needs to focus on educating our people to understand simple english..what is so difficult for people to understand the health reform bill..” Ah, but it is not simple English. The bill is complex and filled with legalese, as it should be. That means we can read it for ourselves but fail to understand its intricacies. So in addition to reading the bills– plural at the moment, don’t forget, with three having passed out of committee on the House side and two in the works in the Senate– we need to read the discussion of the bills by a wide range of experts– medical, legal, political, etc. And the experts, particularly the politicians who are pushing for or against the bills, put their own spin on the material. It is not as simple as, “The president says this will save us money so that must be true.”
You then get into your interpretation of what would happen should the Democrats’ health plan pass: “If you are satisfied with your doctor and insurance company then keep it but this bill would offer another option which will stimulate competition and keep prices down…YOU LIKE YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PLAN! then keep it but don’t try to stop the extra public health option that other people have…” I assume you are talking about the public option. Well, again, this is not as simple as you apparently think. “Another option” is not needed to stimulate competition– we already have numerous health insurance providers, and that doe not seem to have reduced prices through competition. Yet we are to believe that when one of the competitors is the US government, that will change. Well, yeah, because the government gets to both make the rules and play the game. That is not a level playing field. The government can lose money on coverage indefinitely, because the taxpayers will be on the hook to cover any losses. It is rather like what happens when Walmart moves into a small town in the midwest and drives local competitors out of the marketplace by being able to offer lower prices, even if Walmart suffers temporarily reduced margins and less profit in the meantime. In the long run, Wally World wins. People flock to the lower prices and soon there’s no competitor, so Wally World raises prices. Yes, people are still getting what WalMart offers cheaper than they could get it elsewhere, but they are stuck with what WalMart offers, because there no longer is an “elsewhere.”
Even the president has backed off his once categorical declaration that “if you like your current plan, you can keep it.” Now he says the government doesn’t want to make you change it. True, as far as it goes. But if your employer doesn’t offer it, or the insurance company has to change it to comply with new mandates and regulation, or if your health care provider drop out of the system rather than deal with the brave new world of health care, then you can’t “keep it.” Your current health care will possibly (I will hedge rather than write ‘certainly,’ although that is my opinion) become more expensive and harder to come by.
I am all for health care/insurance reform that provides coverage for the currently uninsured who want health care coverage. I support high-risk pools, government subsidies of premiums for private insurance, co-ops that group small businesses and individuals to make their insurance more affordable. That is not the same as backing the current plan that came out of the Energy committee, for example.
You then show a real bias, by writing,
“Don’t be fooled by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity..read for yourself and understand..WHEW! your hatred for Obama is clouding your objectivity and sense of reasoning.” WHEW indeed. I do read and understand for myself. I do not follow Sean Hannity, who is not intellectually stimulating, and could not tell you what he thinks specifically about the health care reform issue if you held a gun to my head. I have heard Rush a time or two while I am driving, but since I’m not teaching this summer, I haven’t been commuting to work at the time he is on, so I have no idea what specific ideas about the issue he is talking up, either. If you are going to spend time trying to see what conservatives think about the bills, I would suggest you focus on folks like Kruthhammer, the National Review crowd, the Heritage Foundation, etc. I keep up with them, with leading liberal sources, and with those who do not lead with their political identification. On this issue, I’m reading a lot of info from medical journals and the CBO, for example. Try it — it’s good for you.
I can’t speak for everyone who opposed the current health care legislation, to be sure, but for myself, I can honestly say that my concerns are not driven by “hatred for Obama.” Is your position driven by your adoration for him? I would hope not. The message is far more important than the messenger.

Why are vouchers good for cars but not for health care or inner city kids?

The USA founding fathers envisioned a federal government in which it would serve the people. In a socialist society which obama is the trying to build, the people serve the government. Ideally socialism does not advocate that, unlike communism, but that is the net result anyway.

“On Sept. 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. proposed a sweeping bailout of financial institutions battered by bad mortgages and a loss of investor confidence. In Mr. Paulson’s original proposal — called the Troubled Asset Relief Program — he asked Congress for $700 billion to use to buy up mortgage-backed securities whose value had dropped sharply or had become impossible to sell.”
Henry Paulson was appointed by George Bush and a member of the Bush administration. The TARP funding came out of the Bush administration.
And later . . “To the dismay of many economists, no strings were attached to the Treasury infusions, and many of the banks appeared to be using the funds to bolster their balance sheets rather than to make new loans.”
P.S. – my original post was in response to someone attempting to blame the bail out of banks on Obama and the Democrats – that is simply not true, and some Republicans and some Democrats ended up supporting the bill that enabled the funds. It was NOT Obama’s initiative, nor was it the Democrats’ initiative.

Flash, have you ever been in a courtroom as a defendent? My father had 3 meritless lawsuits filed against him-he won them all,but still he paid a price in anxiety,time taken from seeing patients and self-doubt.Nothing in this bill will stop frivilous lawsuits.How many suits are settled so they just “go away”?Medicine is not an exact science,but I am willing to believe that the most intelligent members of a community are probably the physicians that practice in that community.The aim is not to win a lawsuit,but to deliver the best medical care that they can.The AMA may support this plan,but the vast majority of physicians do not.(The AMA has been a joke since it tried to endorse Sunbeam products without any approval of its members).If the president wants a European health plan, then go all the way-loser pays trials, resuits of lawyers who lose malpractice suits,etc.Of course,he should also review the current literature on appropriate therapy for streptococcal pharyngitis so those greedy doctors are kept honest.

Lots of interesting posts on tort reform. It may be worthwhile to mention Tom Baker’s take in “The Medical Myth.” Baker, who worked with law firms, insurance companies, and health care providers as the director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law, writes that the actual problem is “too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation.”
I’m sure this is old news for many of you, but if not, you may want to check out a perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine written by none other than Hillary and Barack back in 2006 regarding their take on tort reform: making patient safety the centerpiece. It refers to their MEDiC bill and gives additional context to the tort reform debate between the parties.

Danita,
Your last argument would be much more compelling if President Obama didn’t just simply pick up President Bush’s economic playbook and amplify it.
The hubris of President Obama and his apologists just amazes me these days. “Well, we’ve inherited 8 years of failed economic policy!”
Ok, then…Why are you spending 10 times more your predecessor while still following his lead? And if HIS policies were such failures, you know like TARP which started under Bush, then why are YOU running around claiming success now that the market’s have upticked for something you didn’t institute.
Can you say eating your cake?
Right. Hope and Change.

Danita wrote: “This, as you know, he did while illegally attacking a country on the pretence of WMDs and a connection to 9/11 – both of which turned out to be wrong.”
First of all, the Democrats were just as adamant that Iraq had WMDs and even helped pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It passed 360-38 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Second, Iraq refused for 12 years to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. The UN Security Council issued a final ultimatum in 2002 demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with the conditions (one of which was to prove that he no longer had WMDs). When the UN Security Council made it known that they had no intention of following through on their ultimatum, President Bush issued his own ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein again failed to comply with the conditions, as a party to the original 1991 Gulf War, the United States rescinded the 1991 cease fire and resumed the war.
Third, the Bush Administration NEVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration DID HOWEVER say that there were meetings between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission confirmed these meetings, but added that there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on the attacks of 9/11.

“the TARP bail outs were put in place during the Bush administration.”
With the help of mob-friendly then-Senator Obama.

Oh, great: while pushing his latest book on Martha’s Vineyard, Imminent Skip claims he told Sergeant Crowley he’ll help his kids get into Harvard (“if he doesn’t arrest me any more”).
Obama and Gates — two middle-aged professionally-”black” guys who are long on cute — have managed to make Harvard itself seem as unsavory as they are.

Alyson, following the attacks of 9/11, the Bush Administration changed our policy from being “reactive” to one of being “proactive.” Knowing that there were meetings between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda, the Bush Administration was seeking additional information on what was being discussed in these meeting. Believing that Iraq still had WMDs the Bush Administration was deeply concerned that al Qaeda might be seeking WMDs from Iraq. WMDs that could subsequently be used against the United States or our allies.
We learned that Iraq no longer had WMDs only because we invaded Iraq.
Had we not invaded Iraq we would still not know for certain whether Iraq had WMDs. That’s because it was in Saddam Hussein’s best interest to have his neighbors continue to believe that he had WMDs. And the threat that Iraq could give these WMDs to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda would still be hanging over our heads.

James, I’m with you on the WMD’s but I think there was some misleading, purposeful or not, on the connection between al qaeda and Iraq, and very little in the way of clarification to the American people when it came to Iraq and 911. Registered repulicans made it a regular habit to tell me that the Iraqis had something to do 911, and they’d point to things Republicans in office said. There was a disconnect there in commmunication– that was my only point.

Oh, wait. Yikes. It was the right place. Sigh. Signing off now, trying to do too many things at once.

I’m with you on the WMD’s
***
That doesn’t mean I agreed with everything the government did or the way it was done (torturing to press for proof of an al-qaeda -Iraq connection? Not my cuppa.) I just agree that’s what happened.

Alyson, first of all I know exactly what you mean about “trying to do too many things at once.” No matter how many times I proof read my comments, I am usually in such a rush (to get to some of the other things on my plate) that invariably I miss typos and grammatical errors. Of course I immediately see them as soon as I post the comment.
Could the Bush Administration have been more clear on what they were doing and saying? Absolutely! It would drive me nuts when they would fail to communicate clearly. Just like with the “Mission Accomplished” banner. The mission that was accomplished was the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein. But when the Left and the media jumped all over that trying to exploit the banner as meaning the entire operation–an operation that the Bush Administration consistently stated was going to be difficult and take years to accomplish–the Bush Administration totally underestimated the controversy and failed to distinguish the difference. They erroneously assumed that the American people knew from their previous comments what they meant.
You are correct that there was a communication disconnect. I firmly believe that was due, at least in part, to their obsession with preventing any future attacks. They were more concerned about seeking intelligence then about communicating to the American people.
Another example of a communication disconnect was the warrantless searches. The 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The fact that the amendment refers to “unreasonable” searches and seizures cleary implies that there is such a thing as “reasonable” searches and seizures that would not require warrants. These are conducted every day. When a police officer pulls someone over suspecting the driver of driving under the influence, the officer is not required to obtain a search warrant in order to administer the breathalyzer test–seizing one’s breath in order to determine whether alcohol is present. In the context of the War on Terror, what could be more reasonable then seizing communications between the enemy and others during time of war?

KR, to add to your excellent comment, Saddam Hussein gave over $10 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (up to $25,000 per family). THAT clearly is supporting terrorism.
President Bush stated on Nov. 21, 2001: “We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”

No one claimed Iraq had any connection to 911, that was a deliberate narrowing of the perspective from the anti-war crowd.
****
KR,
Your explanation was a good one, and yes, I know what the deal was, and agree with your assessment except for the communication aspect. I don’t think it was just the anti-war crowd narrowing the perspective– while no one in the administration said Iraq was part of 911, everyday Republicans said it all the time. To me!! In his press conferences, in 2003 President Bush would mention Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein multiple times, usually in the same breath . Although he never pinned blame for the attacks directly on Saddam Hussein, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persisted among much of the American public. A New York Times/CBS poll taken in 2003 showed that 45 percent of Americans believed Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11. So,in my opinion, there was a communication disconnect that initially served the admin’s purpose, and there was very little in the way of clarification till the war became unpopular.
but, yeah, in 2006 when a reporter asked Bush what Iraq had to do with 911, he said “nothing.” He also said, at a public forum in response to a question, “I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”
But, to me, he seems less sure than you that NO ONE said it, or implied it.
I’m being nitpicky, I guess, but I do think there was misleading going on. It was a pet peeve of mine and I can’t let it go. LOL.

You are correct that there was a communication disconnect. I firmly believe that was due, at least in part, to their obsession with preventing any future attacks. They were more concerned about seeking intelligence then about communicating to the American people.
***
I believe that too, at least in part, stressing the latter as I think sometimes in the short term it served their purposes– though certainly not when it came to the Mission Accomplished matter.

” In his press conferences, in 2003 President Bush would mention Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein multiple times, usually in the same breath.”
___________________________________
Alyson . . .you’re far to kind to call it poor communication.
Bush, Cheney and their cohorts deliberately mentioned 9/11, terrorism, and Saddam Hussein repeatedly together . . . in an attempt to soften the American public and law makers for an illegal attack on Iraq.
They also threw in a few ‘mushroom clouds’ just to help things along.

“…illegal attack on Iraq.”
There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. Iraq never met any of the conditions of the 1991 Cease Fire. Therefore, as a party of the original 1991 Gulf War, the United States had the legal right to rescind the cease fire.

“IF we had not invaded Iraq; IF Iraq had had WMDs; IF Iraq had given WMDs to al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group); and IF there had been an attack in the United States or one of our allies using WMDs, ALL OF YOU ON THE LEFT WOULD HAVE BLAMED BUSH FOR NOT CONNECTING THE DOTS.”
So what we should really be upset about is the Bush admin getting caught with their pants down on 9/11.
If they had not suffered that humiliating attack, they would not have overreacted to the threat posed by Iraq and WMD.
Son instead of learning from their incompetence on 9/11, they made a whole new slew of mistakes.

“As I wrote earlier, the Bush Administration knew that there were meetings between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda (confirmed by the 9/11 Commission)”
WaPO: “The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.”
“The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

The following excerpt is from the 9/11 Commission Report–10.3 “Phase Two” and the Question of Iraq, pg. 334:
“Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.”

Mark E. wrote: “…since when does that mean there was nothing to worry about?”
On that same note, I love the logic that since Syria and Iran gave so much more financial support to terrorists than Iraq that Iraq was “barely involved in terrorism.” I wonder if that “barely involved” would creep up slightly knowing that Saddam Hussein had his own terrorist training camps?