Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 8/20/2009

“Yes. He talked with Senator Olympia Snowe yesterday. He talked with Senator Conrad yesterday. And, as we’ve discussed, talked with Senator Baucus on — on Friday.”
That’s an unusually straight answer. Clearly the President still is working to get a bipartisan bill.

“Robert, just picking up on that point, the House Republican leaders, Boehner and Cantor, said that they sent a letter to the president in May asking to work together on health care reform and there was no follow-up by the White House in terms of meetings.”
Clearly the President is not working to get a bipartisan bill.

jhw539 -
Since you nor any one else other than those behind closed doors know what the conversation entailed how can you assume that Obama is still seeking a bipartisan bill?
If he stated “Our way or the highway” I guess that is a conversation, but not a bipartisan approach. If you noticed in Trapper’s question above, Gibbs was not even sure if a letter requesting to meet from the “other side” written in May had been responded to yet. If a true bipartisan approach was being attempted Gibbs would have been all over that letter and how they responded, etc.

The President is trying to be Bi- Partisan but the Republicans are so determined to destroy him He should just give up on the Republicans they dont want to work with him THEY WANT TO DESTROY HIM!

Of course, the last Republican idea that was incorporated into the health care bill was the coverage for end of life counseling, which was widely derided by these same people as “setting up death panels”.

“Of course, the last Republican idea that was incorporated into the health care bill was the coverage for end of life counseling, which was widely derided by these same people as “setting up death panels”.”
Not entirely true.
Republicans also came up with taxing people’s employer provided health benefits.

Ryan C:”Republicans also came up with taxing people’s employer provided health benefits. ”
I wouldn’t go throwing that in their faces though. It is actually a solid idea, if you can get it through the bleating masses.

Ryan C
Not sure passing a Bill that no one had read at the time is bipartisan. Maybe you could explain what the benefit to the American people is in such an approach.
The Waterloo remark was stupid for anybody to say. Should I drag up some stupid comments from Pelosi and Reed, etc. or should we stay on topic.

Foghorn Leghorn:”"Yes. He talked with Senator Olympia Snowe yesterday. He talked with Senator Conrad yesterday. And, as we’ve discussed, talked with Senator Baucus on — on Friday.”
That’s an unusually straight answer. Clearly the President still is working to get a bipartisan bill.
Posted by: jhw539 |
That’s some pretty appalling logic there. On the basis of one phone call to one R senator you get a bi-partisan tingle up your leg.”
Can you count? One phone call? He called all three Republican Senators currently active in negotiating that chamber’s bill in the last week. I understand you have a different opinion, but I have trouble respecting it when it appears entirely divorced from any reality or facts.

“The Waterloo remark was stupid for anybody to say. Should I drag up some stupid comments from Pelosi and Reed, etc. or should we stay on topic.”
The topic is bipartisanship.
And comments by Republicans leaders indicating they have no intention of doing bipartisanship are relevant.
Plumline:”I noted this morning that Roy Blunt, the chair of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group, had seemed to suggest that Republicans would be better off politically if they didn’t release their own bill, though he later clarified this statement. Left unclear was the question of whether any such bill exists.
Now House GOP leader John Boehner has weighed in, and he has confirmed that, yes, there is such a bill — and it’s almost finished, too. As Boehner put it a little while ago: “We’re continuing to put the final touches on our bill as the Democrats are continuing to put the finishing touches on their bill.” “

Posted by: jhw539 |
Didn’t mean to imply it only takes one phone call to tingle you if in fact it took three but I don’t see anything in this report that says he has talked to all three R’s in the last week.
Your respect for the opinions of those who don’t agree with you is legendary…if by respect you mean contempt.

Gibbs claims the President has spoken to three members of the Senate. Only one, Snowe, is considered a Republican, and a squish at that. Conrad is the Democratic Senator from North Dakota, and Baucus is the Democratic Senator from Montana. And he considers that “bipartisanship”??

tanarg:”The death panel is the panel that decides who gets what and “what works best for whom.” It’s more “worth it” to pay for a young person’s needs than an older person’s, according to the “ethicist” brother of Rahm. Nazi ethics, if you ask a sane person’s reaction.”
So how every private insurance company in America works is “Nazi ethics” according to a “sane person”? And if you are unable to understand papers written at a collegiate level, you probably shouldn’t be reading them.

Foghorn Leghorn:”Didn’t mean to imply it only takes one phone call to tingle you if in fact it took three but I don’t see anything in this report that says he has talked to all three R’s in the last week. ”
No, you stated clearly that he had only talked to a single senator, as if that were a true fact.
GIBBS: “He talked with Senator Olympia Snowe yesterday. He talked with Senator Conrad yesterday. And, as we’ve discussed, talked with Senator Baucus on — on Friday.”
Just another datapoint on the credibility of the right wing in this debate.

“Rahm’s brother is expressly against euthanasia and the scenario he described was when medical resources were absurdly scarce. It was dealing with the horrible decisions one must make when you can only save so many lives.”
Won’t medical resources become “absurdly scarce” if 47 million U.S. residents (not necessarily all U.S. citizens) are provided “free” healthcare? Primary care physicians are in short supply in some areas of the country and this problem will get significantly worse with introduction of “free” healthcare (coupled with declining enrollment in med schools of aspiring physicians who are specializing in primary care, choosing instead to pursue more lucrative medical specialties that have less government interference).
It’s a simple supply vs. demand economic analysis. And less not forget that as the price of a resource drops (in this case, healthcare), consumption inevitably rises.
p.s. There is a good article on CNN.com from a NH physician who shares his insight on what has happened in MA since healthcare coverage has expanded to 97%+ of state residents.

Obama communicated pretty clearly his the degree to which he desired bipartisanship to Republican congressional leaders in two small words:
“I won.”

@ Ryan C
“The stupid it burns.”
Care to elaborate? Care to refute my point? Didn’t think so…
“So I guess MA has started euthanizing old people and denying care to the young. Oh yeah that didn’t happen. All the right wing has are fear and lies.”
Did I or the article (if you read it, obviously you didn’t – sounds like someone else I know: passing judgement without the facts – your Messiah) claim euthanasia was occuring in MA? Nope.
Can you coherently explain why the “reforms” Obama is pushing will be good for America? Can you convince us naysayers that it will be deficit-neutral? Can you present any government program that is operated in a cost-effective manner? Didn’t think so…

“The above is the real reason the right wing fears a public option and why they are so desperately fighting for insurance company profits.”
Nonsensical. Incoherent. Detached from reality.

“Can you convince us naysayers that it will be deficit-neutral?”
When presented with facts you ignore them is favor of distorting hyperbole.
“Can you present any government program that is operated in a cost-effective manner? Didn’t think so…”
Yeah who needs government, look at the paradise that is Somalia.

Nonsensical. Incoherent. Detached from reality.”
Not at all.
The right wing fears the public option because they know it will be incredibly popular like Medicare and Social Security.
And even though right wingers would love to take away Medicare and Social Security from seniors they fear them at the ballot box.
Hence the dishonest attacks on government healthcare.
Its all about protecting insurance company profits which ration care based on one thing…money.

“You had a point beyond smearing Dr. Rahm?”
Actually, my point was not directed at “Dr. Rahm.” My point was that increasing demand (“free” healthcare”) without addressing supply (physicians) will inevitably lead to rationing. Try to tell me differently.
You are demagogue. Your preordained beliefs hamper your efforts to rational, reasoned debate, instead limiting you to lazy stand-by lines such as “right wingers lie”. Bring some substance. Defend your beliefs.

“Its all about protecting insurance company profits which ration care based on one thing…money. ”
lol…So, tell us – What is “free” government healthcare rationed by?

We could sit here all day, day after day attacking the politics of this health care bill, but the main question I have is…why aren’t any concerns being addressed? Back and forth we go. He said this, she said that. Until somebody can tell us exactly WHO is going to get this government insurance (illegals included), until somebody can show us where the savings are going to come from, until somebody can tell us how it’s going to be paid for, until somebody starts talking about how they are going to take care of the massive fraud where so called “disabled” people (those with “hurt backs” who are out there playing ball, splitting wood, etc.) are draining the system dry, until somebody can explain why doctors need to carry millions of dollars in malpractice insurance to cover fradulent lawsuits…until these matters (and alot more) can be explained, then the blowhards wanting to pass this incredibly hideous bill need to just shut up.
Liberals can scream all they want to that those folks at town hall meetings are Nazi’s, un-American and whatever else their word of the moment is, but at the end of the day, these people, and the rest of us deserve explinations. If this administration is all about transparency, then my next home will be built from transparent supplies. It will never be penetrated.

Posted by: Shoe | Aug 20, 2009 5:51:47 PM
Great post. Obama and the Dems have not been able to effectively address the points you have raised…which is why they are losing control of the message and why they are in such disarray.
Remember, Obama doesn’t need Republicans to get what he wants.

Shoe:”Until somebody can tell us exactly WHO is going to get this government insurance (illegals included), ”
You’ve been told repeatedly. You have been pointed to the section in the bill in black and white. Dozens of news sites have provided fact checks in plain language. If you are still thinking that illegals are getting health care benefits from this bill, then there is just nothing left that will convince you.
“H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
It just cannot be made clearer within the confines of legal document structure.

jhw539
Your comments:
That is NOT what you said. You said:
“Not sure passing a Bill that no one had read at the time is bipartisan. ”
“Every bill passed has been completely read by at a theoretical minimum it’s authors, and at a realistic minimum the staffers of every legislator’s office (who are professionals in breaking up bills to read, analyze and brief their employer on overnight).”
Now My comments:
I was using the Cap and Trade Bill as an example to question your comments. That is why I specifically named the Bill I was referring to and did not refer to the unread, unfinished healthcare bill that was hijacked according to your statements by the partisan right. Do you really think that the Cap and Trade Bill which came out of the House is fully understood by those who are voted on the Bill or even their designates? Why the delay in the 60% Democratic Senate if is has been so well vetted? Those in Committe might understand but for a far reaching bill I would expect all of the House and Senate to understand the basics of Bills in which they vote. My point, and I will try to simplify, is that the healthcare bill was not ready to be voted on but Pelosi, et al were still trying to push it through as they did with the Cap and Trade bill. Is that bipartisan? Trying to push through a Bill that is not even finished and there are how many versions out there? That is what I wanted you to explain. How is pushing through legislation that has to be force fed to even Democrats (or the other way around if it were by the Republicans) a benefit to Americans? How is that trying to be bipartisan?
If the party who is pushing a Bill through can not explain it then I question the validity of the discussion used to create the bill and understanding of what the bill will really do. The healhcare fiasco is because there is no clear definition at this time, but until the last day of the House session there was a push to get a vote.
Works for me though, the inability to explain something that is not finished but was to be voted on only hurts the Dems. Maybe next time putting a clear plan in place will help. If you can not explain it it is very hard to stop interpretations, which I am sure you will respond to as lies. So, watching the Dems fall all over themselves because the far left and the middle left can not agree on a bipartisan Bill has been very entertaining. Maybe we should dicuss tripartisan?

ROBERT GIBBS: Well, I said this morning. I have — I read the story in the Journal. I’ve tried to get guidance from people. I have not been able to, largely because many people we get that from are — are on vacation. We’ll try to get you better guidance on that, in terms of splitting up bills.
TAPPER: Jonathan (Weisman of the Wall Street Journal), would you give Gibbs their numbers?
Again, I have to say how pathetic and ill informed or intentionally obfuscatory Glibbs has been. He is the worst press secretary ever. If he is going to intentionally mislead the press, he needs to be more believable than this.

Luv you, Jason. Thanks for speaking the truth.