The Note: Out of the Void — As Obama vacations, GOP courts seniors on health care
Email By RICK KLEIN Where once we had ubiquity, now we’ll have silence. (Maybe.) The health care debate can use some down time, since it’s easier for heads to cool when the temperatures turned down. (And August is usually more pleasant on the Vineyard than in Crawford.) But the incoming — from the right, and, more recently, from the left — doesn’t respect the boundaries of vacation. (And Washington has too many non-vacationing reporters for news cycles to ever stop turning anyway). For the first time in the Obama era, we’re about to experience politics without President Obama himself. What fills the void? For starters — this is looking backward, from a White House that’s always wanted to look forward. But at least the left is going to like most of what it hears this time. “The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects,” David Johnston reports in The New York Times. “The report, significant portions of which are scheduled for release Monday, has been much anticipated in Washington. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is expected as soon as this week to decide whether to launch a probe to determine if guidelines were violated in some cases,” Siobhan Gorman writes in The Wall Street Journal. And the RNC fills the gap, too: Chairman Michael Steele Monday morning unveiled Republicans’ “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights” — an attempt to engage a critical constituency. “This is really another way to make sure we’re having the right debate here in America,” Steele told ABC’s Chris Cuomo on “Good Morning America” Monday. “I thought it was important for us to send an important signal that as we begin this debate in earnest this fall, that we keep in mind the Greatest Generation, and make sure that, at all costs, we do no harm to them and the benefits they’re currently receiving.” Plus: “No one’s talked about ‘death panels’ as a scare tactic,” Steele said. “My view of it is, I don’t need the government rationing health care. I don’t look at it so much as a death panel.” “Under the Democrats’ plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed,” Steele writes in a Washington Post op-ed. “We also believe that any health-care reform should be fully paid for, but not funded on the backs of our nation’s senior citizens.” Almost sounding like a victory lap: “Republicans are discovering just how effective an opposition party can be in Washington,” Fred Barnes writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Their strategy is simply to aggressively and relentlessly oppose the liberal agenda of the president and the Democratic Congress. As a result, Barack Obama’s agenda is in jeopardy, and the president is disconcerted, less popular and on the defensive.” Ross Douthat, in his New York Times column: “If the Congressional Democrats can’t get a health care package through, it won’t prove that President Obama is a sellout or an incompetent. It will prove that Congress’s liberal leaders are lousy tacticians, and that its centrist deal-makers are deal-makers first, poll watchers second and loyal Democrats a distant third. And it will prove that the Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of delivering on its most significant promises.” Almost sounding like an obituary: “It’s hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we’re at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn,” Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times column. “President Barack Obama still may push through an overhaul of the American health care system, but political indicators point to a needed overhaul of his own tactics for selling reform,” the AP’s Steven R. Hurst writes. Pity the vote-counters: “I think it’s a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said on CNN. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on how to get bipartisanship: “I think he’d have to abandon the public option and that I think is what a lot of Americans now are concerned about,” McCain told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” (And McCain isn’t a fan of the phrase “death panels,” but is standing by Sarah Palin: “Doesn’t that lead to a possibility, at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions made such are made in other countries?”) Given the maneuvering — can the president stay completely down? “The temptation to speak his mind may be too much for the president to resist. Just because he’s taking a week’s break doesn’t mean the healthcare debate is doing the same thing,” Tribune Co.’s Christi Parsons and Jim Tankesley report. “Senior White House officials have not ruled out the possibility of a town hall — which, in Obama world, might qualify as a fun vacation activity.” One potential cure: “Kennedy family sources tell ABC News that the Secret Service was at the family compound on Cape Cod [Sunday] and returned in the early evening, possibly preparing for a presidential visit with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass,” ABC’s Stephanie Z. Smith, Yunji de Nies, and Karen Travers report. “Hyannis, where the Kennedy family has had homes for over 50 years, is just a short helicopter ride away from Martha’s Vineyard, where the president is staying on his week-long vacation. White House officials continue to say that there are ‘no plans’ for Obama to meet with Kennedy this week.” “A family source says a visit might be in the offing, depending on the senator’s health, saying he has good days and bad days,” Yunji de Nies reported on “GMA” Monday. “A visit to the legendary senator — who has made health care a central focus of his nearly 47 years in the Senate — would almost certainly rally forces in favor of the health care legislation Obama is pushing Congress to adopt,” Susan Milligan reports in The Boston Globe. “But such a visit would be difficult to make without huge attention from both the public and the press, a scene the Kennedy family has sought to avoid since the lawmaker became ill last year.” Parting words, from Bill Burton, aboard Air Force One en route to Martha’s Vineyard: “I have specific instructions from the president for the press corps. He wants you to relax and have a good time. Take some walks on the beaches. Nobody is looking to make any news.” Making news anyway: “President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation,” Anne E. Kornblut reports in The Washington Post. “Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council — shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.” All those empty chairs: “Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both,” Peter Baker reports in The New York Times. “While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission.” Obama’s war: “With the nation’s top military officer calling the situation in Afghanistan dire, President Barack Obama soon may face two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that’s not enough,”the AP’s Richard Lardner reports. “American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Obama’s chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operate across borders,” The New York Times’ Helene Cooper reports. “The possibility that more troops will be needed in Afghanistan presents the Obama administration with another problem in dealing with a nearly eight-year war that has lost popularity at home, compounded by new questions over the credibility of the Afghan government, which has just held an as-yet inconclusive presidential election beset by complaints of fraud.” In Nevada — just waiting for a candidate: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid famously ignores polls, but he might be paying attention to this one,” Lisa Mascaro writes in the Las Vegas Sun. “Results released today show not only does Reid remain unpopular in Nevada, he would be clobbered in next fall’s election by either of two potential Republican challengers.” “The poll shows Reid being beat by 11 percentage points (38 percent to 49 percent, with 13 undecided) by Republican Danny Tarkanian, a real estate professional who has run twice unsuccessfully for public office. His father was the legendary basketball coach at UNLV. If the matchup were today, Reid also would fall to Sue Lowden (40 percent to 45 percent, with 15 undecided), the chair of the state’s struggling Republican Party who has not yet entered the race. The former state legislator and television news journalist is expected to announce in the next few weeks if she will run.” In New Jersey — GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie’s bad, bad stretch: “It is unclear what the misstep will mean for Mr. Christie, who quickly and profusely apologized. But the gaffe marked a pivotal moment, with both sides battling not only over the issue, but also about what this expensive, marquee governor’s race will be fought over,” The New York Times’ David M. Halbfinger writes. Said David Plouffe: “”There’s a lot more optimism around Jon Corzine’s candidacy now.” Look who popped down to Florida: “Referencing the discontent within party ranks, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty Saturday night urged Florida Republicans not to miss the chance to seize on the political opportunity Democrats in Washington have given them by bickering internally,” per the Orlando Sentinel.
The Kicker: “Can’t say anything about that really. But I can say it would be amazing.” — Edgartown School Principal John W. Stevens, telling the Vineyard Gazette that a team of locals is ready to take on President Obama and some friends if and when they want a game this week. “We were hoping Bo would show up because Bryce really wanted to sniff his butt.” — Ellen Jacobsen of Albany, N.Y., a disappointed dog owner at the Martha’s Vineyard Dog Parade.
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
So the “death panels” and “pull the plug on grandma” stuff was just a warm-up act? Yikes…
Posted by: matt | August 24, 2009, 8:17 am 8:17 am
I read that there is 10 billion in the bill to assist health care plans (such as the UAWs) of early (typically forced) retirees. Now everybody is eligible for Medicare at age 65. Many workers do not get health care in retirement. White collar workers that get pushed out are often in this position. While the job market stinks (and a perverted immigration policy granted 1.5 million Visas last year), workers that are less than 65 should normally be expected to look for work. Congress is so full of deceit. They bury all sorts of things in these big bills. Another example, They exclude illegal immigrants from coverage and also defeat amendments that would require checking of eligibility-the Pelosi path to health care fraud.
Posted by: merchantilist | August 24, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
And the RNC fills the gap, too: Chairman Michael Steele Monday morning unveiled Republicans’ “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights” — an attempt to engage a critical constituency.
****************************************
I thought we didn’t have health care rights? When was there ever a right to health care promoted by the GOP?
I challenge you in the media to come up with any statement made by the GOP that would Guarantee any rights to health care to all Americans.
Why do you guys just pariot what our politicians say?
Posted by: Thinking | August 24, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Okay Republicans show me how you will insure 40 million un-insured will become insured under your plan. Show me how insurance companies will be required to cover pre-existing conditions. Show me how health care costs will be reduced and insurance companies will reduce insurance premiums both for doctors and patients. Show me where insurance companies will not restrict access to health care by forcing into HMO’s. Lastly show me what you will do if none proposals actually do what they are intended to do and if they don’t what is the impact to the economy and citizens…In addition, as a party who opposed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid show me where you willing to give more lip service to the issue. I am Independent voter…I am listening..Right now, I see only party debating HealthCare while the other sits on the sidelines and snipes..
Posted by: indy_voter | August 24, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am
It seems that the Democrats are coming up with most of the ideas for health care and the Republicans are only there to criticize the ideas. The most known Republican addition to the bill was chastized by the Republicans. Now the republicans are trying to scare seniors about the threat to a government run healthcare system. They are for public health care and agaisnt it. How can the GOP even survive relavency?
Posted by: KsDevil | August 24, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
There is no question, that Obama’s Health care Plan, will be bad for seniors. There will be more restrictions, and less care provided, and seniors will, in effect, be short-changed, in the heath care plan proposed.
If there is anyone who actually needs government consideration for health care, it is seniors.
It is interesting to note, that the main beneficiaries of the CHIPS health care plan, provided by the Clinton Administration, are illegal immigrants!
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | August 24, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
The media continues its march towards irrelevancy. What do I care if Obama visists Kennedy or not? And, yet, the reporters cover this “mystery” as if it signals something portentious…What?
Meanwhile, ABC News reports the success of the Republican’s latest smear campaign as some kind of “victory” for the right. And that looking into how the CIA may have broken the law in interrpgating prisoners is some kind of “victory” for the left. When do the American people get to be “victorious?” I do not believe the values of real people are so far apart that every issue has to become a “victory” for some political side.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
Rick McDaniel
Every statement you made in your post is, to put it charitably, inaccurate.
Are you getting your news from FOX? FOX is in the business of defeating health care reform, they are not an objective news source (well, neither is ABC.)
Try to get your news from a number of sources. FACTCHECK.ORG is a good place to look for non-partisan answers. I have visited the websites of the AMA and the AARP. Naturally, these orginizations have a sake in passing reform, however, I have found some credible inforamtion there as well.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
Obama is taking a vaction? Oil is on the rise and we are paying more at the pump, We are at war and kids are dieing, Trillions and trillions of dollars to be spent on Obamas insuarnace pals companies when they force health care on us and he is taking a vacation?? Millions out of work and he is slapping htem in the face taking a paid vacation?? Cindy Shehan where is your big stupid mouth now? You where all over Bush when he took his???
Posted by: Jim Rod | August 24, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
I’m a senior that’s not falling for this load of B.S. the GOP is trying to sell. The Republicans offer NOTHING but more of the same old horsehockey. Republicans are in the pocket of big Insurance companies, and IF the Blue Dog Dems don’t catch a clue and join getting this reform passed, they can kiss their butts goodbye. Got THAT Congressman Cooper in TN??
Posted by: Slim | August 24, 2009, 10:23 am 10:23 am
Slim I agree with you. Medicare will cover seniors. It’s the people not on Medicare who need the help. I know so many people who do not have ins. or have very little and are in trouble. I’m so tired of this whole thing, the Republicans are a bunch of sour old men and I would never ever vote for one. I used to look at both sides but when I see what they have been doing over and over again I’m fed up. They are in with the big ins. companies…People wake up!
Posted by: Barb | August 24, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
Amy in Maine: You are also correct. I’m so tired of these gullible people believing everything the Republicans can. Check the facts on ACTUAL FACTUAL websites. Anyone can post a website…check with AARP and the like.
Posted by: Barb | August 24, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am
Sorry anything the republicans SAY.
Posted by: Barb | August 24, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am
news is out that social security will be cut….sure cut the people who have paid into social security and medicare for years……so they can raise the welfare checks and medicaid……so many of these people make more money than the rest of us ….not wrking…get rent paid, cars paid, healthcare paid, foodstamps…….and oh yes…we have to pay the same thing for the illegals…NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE UPSET
Posted by: Mary B | August 24, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
if you depend on what the aarp spews….you are mislead….they are not out for their clients…..just trying to feed the obama ego
Posted by: Mary B | August 24, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
People need to realize (I’m talking about normal folks) just ONE catastrophic (sp) illness can wipe you out. Insurance Companies will drop you like a hot potato, and there goes your life savings, house, kids educations etc. etc. If you want to be scared, you better be scared of the GOP and their big contributers the Insurance Companies.
Posted by: Slim | August 24, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
Where are these people getting that social security will be cut? Bet it’s another one of the scare tactics. yes people better realize that if you don’t have Meidcare, one huge illness, and you are out of luck. And God help you if you have prior problems.
Posted by: Barb | August 24, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Barb wrote “Where are these people getting that social security will be cut”?
That’s just a Republican trying the scare tactics. SS may not see an increase in the cost of living, BUT there is a LAW that SS payments cannot be cut to a lower payment.
Posted by: Slim | August 24, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
Mary B
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you don’t mean to spread misinformation, you are just not getting “the rest of the story”.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. In other words, Social Security benefits cannot be “cut.”
The headlines refer to the fact Social Security recipients will not be getting a raise this year. Hello? We are in a recession.
Medicare Prescription premiums are going up to $30.00 a month, from $28.00.
Premiums are deducted from Social Security benefits, so , yes, in that way seniors are having their incomes cut….by rising healthcare costs. Which is why we need healthcare reform.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Amy in Maine: See people just believe what the likes of Palin and Gingrich say…they do not get the honest truth. Pres. Obama wants a good healthcare system. Does anyone really think he wants a bad one? Why would he want a bad one? It would make him look bad…he wants to look good. He is trying to fix this awful mess this country is in and healthcare is eating us alive.
Posted by: Barb | August 24, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
He sold healthcare reform on the basis of healthcare cost reduction. Now we see he wants to build a new bureaucracy with over 150,000 new government jobs and a support system for them including a government employee benefits package. There are no provisions of the Democrats proposals that would address healthcare costs. He intends to rob an already stressed medicare program to help pay for his bureaucracy. Increased medicare premiums deducted from social security benefits would deny many Americans the opportunity to retire after having paid into a social security retirement account for 45 or more years. All this out of the goodness of his heart with our vested benefits being taken away. And who benefits? People who have not paid in anything, people who have earned nothing. Sorry but that’s just wrong. Just wait until the elections of 2010 and 2012. He will pay dearly for the political capital he’s burning.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
That’s just a Republican trying the scare tactics. SS may not see an increase in the cost of living, BUT there is a LAW that SS payments cannot be cut to a lower payment.
****************************************
Not to mention that it is the GOP who behind privatization of SS, and is the party that wants to cut SS benefits, so they can cut taxes. Not that SS is a tax, it really is an insurance.
What should be asked is what has the GOP done with the money? Did they along with the Dems raid the SS trust fund to support any number of wars, industrial give a ways, Tax relief for the rich and powerful?
Posted by: Thinking | August 24, 2009, 11:01 am 11:01 am
“He intends to rob an already stressed medicare program to help pay for his bureaucracy.”
Not true. He wants to cut the waste and fraud endemic in the Medicare system, in order to get more people covered.
The public option, which the Republican’s are intent on shooting down, would have the effect of lowering health insurance costs across the board because it would provide competition to private insurance, which currently has us over a barrel. The public option would be paid for by premiums, it would NOT be taxpayer funded.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
mmonroeeliveson wrote:”Increased medicare premiums deducted from social security benefits would deny many Americans the opportunity to retire after having paid into a social security retirement account for 45 or more years.”
Bull, you must have this President mixed up with Bush. In 2007 Bush took at least 186 BILLION out of SS. If ya want more info on what he stole from this group of Seniors we can sure look it up for you.
Posted by: Slim | August 24, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
mmonroeliveson
The federal government currently spends $17 billion a year in subsidies to private health insurance for administrating Medicare Advantage. This subsidy program was created by Republicans years ago, to supposedly lower costs. Instead, its a windfall for private industry and does not give seniors any noticable “advatage.” Obama wants to cut that program.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
The reduction in social security net income would come as the result of increased medicare premium deductions from the gross social security benefit. Nobody said social security benefits would be cut. Thimk. And I don’t care what kind of smokescreen you throw up about which party did what to social security and medicare in the past. We’re talking about what this administration is doing to those programs in the future. I have paid money into two programs advertised to do certain things for me when I’m beyond employment age. I cannot plan for the future with those promises being altered and/or broken.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
I say attack the causes of the high cost of healthcare. Make sure those fixes are working. Then work on ways to get that affordable healthcare to everyone.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
Some one back there said the public option would cover people who paid premiums so it wouldn’t cost the taxpayer anything. What a deception! The premiums paid would come from where? The taxpayers. If the uninsured have money to pay healthcare premiums, problem solved. Just require everyone to buy insurance. DUH!
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
The reduction in social security net income would come as the result of increased medicare premium deductions from the gross social security benefit.
****************************************
It is not a reduction in SS. It pays at the same rate. What does increase is the premium on Medicare, that increase is automaticaly taken from your SS. Can we make that clear? Everyone’s premium on Health Care has been increasing year in and year out, Why should Seniors be excluded?
You are beingt less thasn honest.
Posted by: Thinking | August 24, 2009, 11:34 am 11:34 am
“Nobody said social security benefits would be cut.”
Yes, sombedody did say Social Security benefits would be cut. Its the latest in the Republican smear and lie campaign.
I was not sold on healthcare reform until I realized Republicans were fighting it with lies. Death panels? Socialism? Why can’t opponents come up with valid and truthful objections to Obama’s policies? Most people don’t have the inclination to research this stuff on their own. Believe it or not, I am not a kneejerk liberal, I was skeptical of reform, but the more I learn the more I am outraged by the lies coming from the Right. And I like Obama. So, yes I support reform.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
Thinking: Glad you agree. Us old folks are getting scrod.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
When I was young, America was the richest nation on the face of the planet. In my lifetime, bad choices by our leaders have left America the world’s biggest debtor nation. Would you hire someone with that resume to fix the healthcare problem?
Providing universal health care is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. So, why isn’t Obama following the constitutionally proscribed amendment process?
If Bill and Hillary had initiated their bid for universal care as an amendment to the constitution, the debate might be coming to a close now. And if enormous, costly, new responsibilities are to be given the federal government, shouldn’t the debate be long, deliberate and involve the States and the people?
If government requires all Americans to buy health care, doesn’t it have to be accomplished via a huge new tax? Can we the people permit government to tell us how to spend after tax dollars? What would define disposable income?
Obama uses the analogy of if you want to drive you must buy auto insurance. However, driving is a privilege and a choice, while individual existence was a choice made by our parents and suicide is a sin and a crime.
I wish all Americans life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the constraints of our Republic’s constitution.
Bring John Shadegg’s ‘Enumerated Powers Act’ to a Vote
It’s time for Congress to, “Cite it, chapter and verse.” Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that. Help us bring this bill to a vote.
For The General Welfare:
1. International and interstate commerce (trade)
2. Naturalization
3. Bankruptcy
4. Coin Money, establish its value
5. Weights and Measures
6. Punish counterfeiting
7. Postal Service
8. Issue patents and copyrights
9. Establish Federal Courts
10. Govern District of Columbia
11. Purchase real estate for necessary buildings
Posted by: BenDoubleCrossed | August 24, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
Where in our constitution is affordable healthcare listed as a right? I’m for getting the cost down. That’s what our elected officials should be doing. Affect tort reform. The fear of litigation, the reality of litigation and the costs of hedging against litigation coupled with the settlements resulting from litigation are all major factors in healthcare costs. Collectively they account for far greater than 1.5% of the costs of healthcare as our Democrats would state. Eliminate fraudulent healthcare claims to whatever extent elimination is possible. Stop the advertisement of prescription drugs. We pay for those ads. Stop the kickbacks to physicians from pharmaceutical companies. Open up the state lines to competition between insurance companies. My employer puts coverage out to bid every year, but we’re limited to companies that operate within this state. We have the highest quality healthcare system in the world. Does anyone really think we can pay less than is paid in other countries for more than they get? Logically we cannot expect to pay less than foreign countries but there are ways to reduce the costs to the consumer without increasing the costs of providing services. The key is to reduce the costs of providing services so insurance premiums can justifiably be reduced without destroying the best healthcare system in the world. When the government competes with private business it’s like an alligator competing with a duck. The duck gets gobbled up every time. No public option. No taxpayer funded insurance for those who don’t pay taxes. We taxpayers are geting the double whammy. Our government wants us to pay for our insurance and someone elses too.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
“Us old folks are getting scrod.”
No, you old folks are not getting “scrod.” You are part of one of the most powerful special interest blocks – because seniors vote! – in the country.
That’s why Seniors are being targeted by the Republican Party, scared and lied to. Do you really think Republicans care about old folks? Certainly not middle class and poor old folks!
If opponents can scare seniors, they think they can “win.” (A “win” for the Republicans means higher insurance premiums, unchecked healthcare costs, higher profits for private industries, more bankruptcys for people with medical bills, etc. But they are happy to pay that price, because the health insurance idustry pays the politicians.)
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
Dont you mean Gop Fear Mongers, Lies, and Twist, and Scare the daylights out of Seniors? Shame on them scaring the Elderley they are disgusting!
Posted by: Angie in Pa | August 24, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
oblahblah sold healthcare on the4 premise we would have the same healthcare as members of congress with no addittional taxes unless you make over 250k. WHOSE LYING? THE STIMULAS WAS TO CREATE MILLION PLUS JOBS….show me one. IM SO GLAD THIS BILL DIDNT PASS BEFORE RECESS>
Posted by: catman | August 24, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Amy in Maine; Think about what you just said. Isn’t the Democratic party pushing for the health insurance industry to have more clients? Who is getting their pockets lined in this universal healthcare push? The Democrats! Our choices are to feed the biggest business in America, the insurance industry, by increasing taxes for those who pay taxes or else to go with a public option which would require a new bureaucracy and payment for services rendered out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Either way the taxpayer is the source of the money to support the program. I say get the costs down since we the taxpayers must pay for ourselves and everyone else who will attain new coverage.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
“Where in our constitution is affordable healthcare listed as a right?’
It doesn’t have to be a “right” for us to attempt it. Putting a man on the moon wasn’t the fulfillment of some “right,” it was an achievement of a government agency.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
“Our government wants us to pay for our insurance and someone elses too.”
You are already paying for the uninsured – $1000.00 a year tacked on to your premium due to higher costs of treating the uninsured.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
And Amy dearest, it’s not a matter of which party cares about the little guy. Neither party cares. It’s a matter of which party is interested in preserving this nation and which party is willing to bankrupt the country by plunging deeper and deeper into debt in the interest of votes that yield power in the form of control of the money and the people who provide it. Basically, the government owns all those individuals who rely on the government for support.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | August 24, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
“The fear of litigation, the reality of litigation and the costs of hedging against litigation coupled with the settlements resulting from litigation are all major factors in healthcare costs.”
Not according to a study done on the descrepancy of healthcare costs across the country. Why can the Mayo Clinic deliver better outcomes for significantly less money than other clinics? Other clinics pay physicians according to how many procedures and tests they order. The system rewards ordering unnecessary work: and these tests and procedures all carry an element of risk, which leads to poorer outcomes. The Mayo Clinic is organized so physicans are paid a flat rate, and they work together with other professionals to deliver better results.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
PS I learned about the Mayo clinic study on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross.
You don’t get this kind of information on the mainstream media. You have to dig to find out the facts. Healthcare reform is complicated, don’t let the Republicans flimflam you.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
“It’s a matter of which party is interested in preserving this nation ”
That would be the Democrats, apparently. They are trying to do something about our energy policy, the sky rocketing costs of the health care system, the housing market crisis, banking crisis, military intervention in the Middle East…all inherited from an eight year Republican spectacle of mismanagment and neglect. I’d say the Republicans have done quite enough “saving” of the nation, thank you
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
LOL,
Here goes Amy once again, Dems are the heros, Republicans hate people!
You should run of office Amy! You already have the talking points and lies down pat!
The public option, which the Republican’s are intent on shooting down, would have the effect of lowering health insurance costs across the board because it would provide competition to private insurance, which currently has us over a barrel. The public option would be paid for by premiums, it would NOT be taxpayer funded.
For once instead of spewing garbage from your mouth, EXPLAIN EXACTLY how you think a gov’t plan will provide competetion. My current insurance costs @950/month for a family of 4.
Here is your big chance – CONVINCE ME how a gov’t plan will do what you say.
Posted by: Mike_C | August 24, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Mike_C
71% of all health insurance in Maine is provided by one supplier, Well Point. Aetna gets 12% of the market.
Wouldn’t you agree that competition in the marketplace pushes prices down?
In this case, WellPoint pretty much sets the premium rate, and companies who want to provide insurance, pay it.
But here’s the even trickier part to understand: there is no incentive for healthcare providers to negotiate with Wellpoint to bring down prices. A supplier can say, “we are charging $250 for a pair of crutches,” the hospital gets WellPoint to pay it, and Well Point just passes the cost on to you by raising your premium. If there were a public option, WellPoint could say to the hospital: negotiate with your supplier to lower the price of crutches, or you will be forced to work with the public option insurers, and THEY don’t pay doctors as much for services. Hospitals and doctors will WANT to work with private insurance agencies, so they will find ways to lower their costs: right now, there is no incentive to do so.
I just read an article by the AP on MSNBC that explains this
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Amy,
Well, as i completely expected, YOU could not come up with any answers. Good job googling though.
The article is trying to claim that using the same method that the gov’t currently uses to provide cheaper insurance for federal employees be used for those who are uninsured is the way to go.
That does not decrease costs. take a look at the federal employess website and the pdf files there that SHOW exactly what the gov’t really is doing. They are paying 75% of the premiums for federal employess up to $1000 and the capping the amount at $768 for any plans that are over $1000/per month.
Then plans are from the same insrunace companies that exsist in the open market.
What this article & YOU fail to bring into account. By the way, Liberals ALWAYS omit this factor.
The government can run its program forever at a loss. There is NO LAW that says they must run the program only from a premium-based revenue stream.
In order to “compete” the way you & others claim it will (to bring down premium costs in any significant manner) they will have to undercut the current price structures significantly.
In time, that will without question force out of the market ALL the other players. Why you ask? – Because there is no way for any company not even Microsoft to compete with a gov’t that has NO bottom line. Every single company currently out there has certain minimum operating costs that they have to meet. Profit or non-profit, they all have employees to pay, and basic suplies & services to buy. The gov’t NEVER has to worry about that. They can just keep grinding away allowing the losses to pile up on the books.
Now, if this public option enters the market palce in the same price ranges as those plans currently out there, not much will change at all. So why bother creating another gov’t mess!
In either scenario, you are only talking about premium costs. NOT the cost of the services! I have not looked to see if any Liberlas have changed and are now supporting Tort reform. Thatis ESSENTIAL to any REAL attempt at getting costs under control.
Surely the level of fraud we KNOW exisits in the current systems run by the government will exisit in any new one! So far, the gov’t has shown it cant track, catch and prosecute those perpetrating this fraud. So how many BILLIONS more will it cost us to create another agency to try to control fraud?
America has spoken loud & CLEAR! They want healthcare reform, NOT the destruction of the current system in hopes you liberals can actually create the Phoenix from its ashes!
Time for Liberals to do something they normally NEVER consider. Listen to the People! Stop thinking YOU have the answers because EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DO NOT!
Posted by: Mike_C | August 24, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Mike_C
Healthcare reform is a very complicated issue, I’m not surprised you don’t understand it.
The public option plan would help lower costs of SERVICES as well as premiums, because providers either have to lower what they charge to private insurers, so that insurers can then lower their premiums to comete with the public otion for clients, or businesses will switch to the public option plan which pays providers LESS than the private insurers will reimburse. THat gives providers for the first time, the incentive to negotiate with their supplies to lower costs.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
Mike_C
Letsd see if I can explain it more clearly:
A supplier charges a hospital .77 for one q-tip. The hospital pays the supplier, then bills the private insurer. THe private insurer pays the hospital, then turns around and tells an employer: look how much it costs for hospital supplies! I have to raise your premiums so I can continue to make a prifit.
Enter the Public Option. The Public Option administrator says to the employer: we are going to charge less for insuring your employees. We don’t need to make a profit. But it will be a pretty basic plan, nothing gold plate. The employer says to the insurance company: hey, the public option is cheaper, but less attractive. I don’t want to go with it, but if you don’t lower your rates I will.
The private insurers go to the hospitals and says: you’re killing me. Lower your prices or I can’t afford to lower my rates. Meanwhile, the public option plan says to the hospital: we only pay X an hour for your doctor’s fee. The hospital says: yikes! We better negotiate with our suppliers to get better prices, or we will be stuck with public option plan, and we prefer to get paid by private insurers.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
I really do know how to spell, but my typing is lousy and I’m doing two things at once here. :)
Posted by: Amy in Maine | August 24, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
This from the stimulus bill:
Sec. 804. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research
(a) ESTABLISHMENT— There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Council’).
(b) PURPOSE— The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.
(c) DUTIES— The Council shall—
(1) assist the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research; and
(2) advise the President and Congress on—
(A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal Government; and
(B) organizational expenditures for comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies.
(d) MEMBERSHIP—
(1) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT— The Council shall be composed of not more than 15 members, all of whom are senior Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health-related programs, appointed by the President, acting through the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ‘Secretary’). Members shall first be appointed to the Council not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) MEMBERS—
(A) IN GENERAL— The members of the Council shall include one senior officer or employee from each of the following agencies:
(i) The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
(ii) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
(iii) The National Institutes of Health.
(iv) The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
(v) The Food and Drug Administration.
(vi) The Veterans Health Administration within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(vii) The office within the Department of Defense responsible for management of the Department of Defense Military Health Care System.
Posted by: Ed Taylor | August 25, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Mike_C | Aug 24, 2009 4:48:26 PM
You said to “Amy In Maine; … “Time for Liberals to do something they normally NEVER consider. Listen to the People! Stop thinking YOU have the answers because EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DO NOT!”
_______________
Mike_C, Will you ever learn? You REALLY SHOULD ‘Back Off’ of “Amy In Maine”, she REALLY MAKES YOU LOOK FOOLISH! Your Knowledge Base is at “Elementary School Level”, compared to her highly knowledgeable, documented, factual research.
Posted by: bobj72 | August 25, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm