C-SPAN CEO to Democrats: Televise the Health Care Reform Negotiations

I don’t think anybody who watched the proceedings on the Senate floor would have a very good idea about what the bill contained, and what it means for *them*.
For the most part, what’s left will be Democrats negotiating with Democrats to craft a bill. I don’t see why a Democratic White House who campaigned on this very thing would object.

Haven’t you figured out by now that all Obama “promises” come with an expiration date? And Gibbs can spin with the best, or worst, of them. Without so much as a blink he throws out the 1:00 AM and 2:00 AM votes as examples of “public hearings”.

Don’t you just love Gibbs’ back-pedaling on the issue, he is truly a piece of work!
Does Gibbs not realize that was Obama’s cry in the campaign, and that Obama was quite critical of Dubya’s 14 pound Patriot Act being rammed through?
Oh what have we bought under the umbrella of change? Does Gibbs have a clue that according to Rasmussen only 39% approve of the Obamacare plan?

Jake Tapper soon to added to THE list. Better than a Nobel,Heisman,Knighthood, or Sainthood. THe list’s most recent inductee is Scott Rasmussen, Is Jake next. One can only be hopeful as there is no more prestigious list than the Obama enemy list!

===One can only be hopeful as there is no more prestigious list than the Obama enemy list!===
I wonder how Jake feels about that since he is merely doing the job he was hired to do? Jake is as liberal as they are.

It would be good for the American people to see.
This was something that was promised to us anyway.
The negoiations that already took place should have been televised.

Maybe Gibbs is trying to say Obama didn’t know much about the process when he was campaigning, . . . . .after all he was but a community organizer with little experience in the Senate!

And if socilized medicine is such a fine policy, why is it that it has to be snuck in on Christmas Eve?
And why so many Friday night and Saturday votes?
For something so noble as socialized medicine, there seems to be a great deal of effort being given to bury this baby.

Fat chance! They do not want to expose their corrupt negotians to the public. After all, this is the most transparent administration ever.

But as soon as they learn that they will not be able to keep their plan they will revolt. . . And the Democrats don’t want the electorate to actually experience it until AFTER the 2012 election.
James Danley | Jan 5, 2010 10:43:01 AM
So you seem to assume that everyone can keep their current health care plan if nothing is done (an absurdity based on cost increases). And that Democrats don’t care about being elected after 2012 (guess they suddenly stop being career politicians then).

It would be nice for them to go on the C-Span cameras and explain the American people that they will now be FORCED to buy health insurance.
It would be nice to get a detailed explanation as to why this isn’t another major hit on indivual liberty.
Or does that really matter to them?

Confirmed: Obama and the rest of the Marxist democrats are liars and frauds
debate closed

wait…here it comes…Nancy Pelosi calling C-Span..Racist…un-american

We keep hearing that once we learn about
this healthcare bill, people will love
it. So why the secrecy??? If it was so
great, why can’t we see this all happen?
The truth is that is stinks and they
don’t want you to have the names to
connect to the junk. Wake up America.
We are getting screwed.

CONFIRMED….Obama has E.D….excessive dishonesty

===The conference committee bill will likewise be quite public===
There isn’t going to be a conference committee. Ping. Pong.

You do not want to make Brian Lamb angry…

Does anyone care to defend why the health care debate and negotiations are not public as the President promised?Come on Dems, tell us why.

I am e-mailing my senators asking them, why, and what is the mystery in the people not knowing what is going to happen to them with this Health Care Bill
Transparency what a bunch of bull

No, the Democrats understand that the American electorate’s attention span is extremely short.
James Danley | Jan 5, 2010 11:29:28 AM
You mean like how the Republicans vehemently campaigned against *Medicare* as being the government taking over all healthcare and killing grandma in 1965 only to suddenly turn into it’s greatest defenders now that all their fear mongering has been proven to be lies?
Yup, the public does have short memories. It keeps loving Democratically enacted efforts, from Social Security to Medicare to funding ARPANET/NSFNET (aka, the birth of the internet) – and hating Republican efforts, from the deficit-funded tax cuts to the rich, our current historic recession immediately following all those ‘job creating’ tax cuts, and the bumbling war of choice), yet still believing Republican lies disproven by Medicare when they’re dusted off and used against today’s healthcare.
Amazing how well the Republican ‘conservative’ philosophy is faring after Bush and his rubber stamp Congress demonstrated in reality what it leads to (military quagmires, Bin Laden alive and free, recession, unprecedented deficit growth, exceptionally poor job creation, etc.).

Obscure? The Dems just passed a bill that mandates all Americans must buy private insurance.
Foghorn Leghorn | Jan 5, 2010 12:03:23 PM
There’s that passing the buck. Every single Republican Senator is on record early and often as being against ANY government health insurance plan (oops, except Medicare of course). Yet it is the Democrat’s fault that they bowed to that unanimous voice of minority opinion. How hypocritical – you want Democrats to listen to the minority (actually to bow, scrape, and cater entirely to the minority) yet condemn them for their major concession to them?
Keep passing the buck.

While reading all these comments. Most people don’t seem to be totally happy with all this. So why does ABC continue to say the American people support this bill??

They don’t want the American people to know exactly what’s in the bill, or there would be a huge revolt against this huge government takeover of 1/6th of the economy. There are many better ways to “fix” what’s wrong with healthcare. This is pure and simple, the first step to SOCIALISM. The people don’t want it.

===1. Require all have some base level of insurance.===
So why are 18 million not going to have some base level of insurance? Assuming there are 48 million uninsured, as democrats and the president have claimed, and only 30 million will be covered as the bill(s) are written?

It is considered bad manners to quote someone in their entirety without giving them attribution for their words.

Thanks to C-SPAN! It’s refreshing to see some part of the media having the guts to step out and force the Obama administration’s hand. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc. should tuck their heads down a couple of notches for not doing the same. Then again, they would lose their “place” in the Obama WH graces if they did.
Having said that, good luck C-SPAN… you’re going to need it to have this broadcast happen.

What is the other choice? Why don’t you answer the question? The choices I see are:
1. Require all have some base level of insurance.
2. Provide ER care for free.
3. Leave people to die unless they show proof of paid insurance.
WHAT IS YOUR OTHER CHOICE?
Do you want to force people to pay for insurance (just like they’re forced to pay for the military, roads, enforcement of food quality standards, etc), do you want to force responsible people to pay for those too irresponsible to buy insurance (like the young healthy guy who get testicular cancer without insurance, as Lance Armstrong did), or do you want to leave people to die from treatable conditions?
What is your other choice? Does it have any basis or precedent in reality?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you really this unimaginiative? Seriously?
A couple of different things:
1) Another simple solution is to garnish people’s wages if they refuse or can’t to pay their medical bills at the time of service. (this is in addition to payment plans, etc. that I’m sure are already being tried.)
2) Another thought is to actually think about the actual problem – not the symptoms of the actual problem. The actual problem that should be addressed is the underlying cost of providing health care – not the cost to the government – but the actual cost to provide the health care. (this is a long topic that we can discuss – but the point is IT IS NOT HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, BUT HEALTHCARE ITSELF THAT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT OF.)
3) As a primary tool to address point 2, HSAs should be expanded – and their use should be encouraged. This was one of the best things to come out of Washington in many years – and it is actually going to be eviserated by this stupid legislation.
4) Recognize that it is not the government’s responsibility to solve all of life’s problems. Respect that people can and should take care of themselves.
5) Recognize that problems that do exist are exploded into “crises” in order to achieve alterier goals. Despite the spin, we don’t have anything approaching a health care “crisis”.
6) Be cognizent of anything that would trample on individual freedom – and avoid it like the plague.
For some more specific ideas, that avoid trampling on human liberty and massively expanding government, you might want to check out John Mackey’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal from back in August.

===What is the other choice? ===
Apparently Candidate Obama had another choice in mind since it was Candidate Obama making fun of Candidate Clinton for proposing exactly what President Obama is now willing to sign.

And then, once elected, run around the country claiming he was elected to do what he is doing.

It’s really hilarious to watch the Obamacrats on this thread supporting and defending this Democrat Administration’s and this Democrat Congress’s incredible and unprecedented lack of transparency on a piece of legislation that radically alters every citizen’s relationship to the central government try to spin C-SPAN’s perfectly reasonable request that Democrats honor their campaign promises for transparency as some kind of threat that needs to be dealt with.
The hysterical rhetoric, the knee-jerk reflex to blame Bush for things Democrats are doing and the attacks on a powerless Republican minority are just indications that the Obamacrats are becoming aware that their domestic agenda (according to nearly all public opinion polls) is being rejected by the American people and that all their screeching is doing nothing to change that.
Put a camera on every Democrat Congressperson and in the White House for 24-7 feeds if you really want them to scream. They talked a good game about transparency during the Bush years, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they don’t walk the walk.

Funny how everyone knows this Healthcare bill is going to screw the public, whether it is Unions, middle class, the young, the poor, and even the rich who are going to pay more. Yet some think this is the best thing since sliced bread because they think it is going to help people that don’t have insurance now so they can have a clear conscience. Nobody thinks about the fact that other than allowing people to buy insurance without being denied everyone is paying for this for 3 years or more before any benefits from this bill do anything. And still everyone that supports this bill thinks it is great. One year into this implemented bill everyone is going to really see the negatives of this. The taxes levied on the medical device makers is going to be passed onto the consumer so everyone needing anything from them will be paying more which will hit the elderly the hardest. Hospitals will stop taking Medicare patients because the government doesn’t pay the same as private insurance does and they can’t survive in business servicing Medicare patients. The saddest thing about this bill is it does nothing to address lowering of Healthcare costs.

C-Span is incorrect in having the socialist pigs in the democrat party televise these proceeding… you CANNOT broadcast prostitution

There’s that passing the buck. Every single Republican Senator is on record early and often as being against ANY government health insurance plan (oops, except Medicare of course). Yet it is the Democrat’s fault that they bowed to that unanimous voice of minority opinion. How hypocritical – you want Democrats to listen to the minority (actually to bow, scrape, and cater entirely to the minority) yet condemn them for their major concession to them?
Keep passing the buck.
———–
jhw, it would be nice to just get invited to the meetings. How about just one Republican suggestion be included in either of these bills?
Do you even understand what bi-partisonship is? From your post, I understand you to believe it means one side (the biggest) gets to tell the other side (the smallest) to shut up, accept what we tell you to do, and suck it up. Sounds like the true American way.
And please, if you respond, do try to respond with something to convince me you are right without the a rant of “Bush was worse!” Like children caught stealing candy: “But he stole TWO pieces”.

Has there ever been more of an obvious one-term president? Seriously, even if you support this idiot–between napolitano, holder, transgeners, health care fiasco, jobs “created or saved”, the attacks we know are coming — admit it–this guy is the ultimate lame duck — he is done -

The Republican’s who led the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses sold out their conservative principles for power and personal gain. They listened to the Beltway “experts” and tried to govern from the middle instead of keeping true to their principles. In other words they tried to govern like Democrats.
President Bush never was a fiscal conservative. In fact, that is why the 2000 election was so close–many Conservatives stayed home. The only reason that Bush was re-elected in 2004 was because Conservatives trusted his foreign policy and feared what a President Kerry would be like. If the Democrats had nominated a fiscal moderate who supported the War on Terror in 2004, President Bush would not have been re-elected.

It is considered bad manners to quote someone in their entirety without giving them attribution for their words.
Axey | Jan 5, 2010 12:28:05 PM
And in forums it is considered bad manners to reply to a person without including their handle so they can reply by searching for their name.

So why are 18 million not going to have some base level of insurance? Assuming there are 48 million uninsured, as democrats and the president have claimed, and only 30 million will be covered as the bill(s) are written?
Axey | Jan 5, 2010 12:21:17 PM
Classic ‘perfect being the enemy of the good’. A vaccine is only 95% effective so no one should get it until it’s 100%, right?
And that 48 million Americans doesn’t include any illegal aliens (explicitly barred even from paying fully for their own insurance due to more pandering to the demands of Republicans), right?

If the government can force people to buy insurance in the name of the public good, is there any line at all? Is there any way they can’t direct you to spend your money, as long as it benefits others?
MayBee | Jan 5, 2010 12:44:39 PM
Yes there is a line, America has walked it well for two centuries and counting.
Now, can you answer my question or is that too reality based?
What is the other choice? The choices I see are:
1. Require all have some base level of insurance.
2. Provide ER care for free.
3. Leave people to die unless they show proof of paid insurance.
WHAT IS YOUR OTHER CHOICE?

Classic ‘perfect being the enemy of the good’.
+++
As is your entire farcical quest to take over the US health care system.
The privatized health care system that has provided the best care in the world to over 5 of 6 Americans is not perfect, and yet, the Obamcrats want to scrap it altogether and replace it with (blank/Washington control).
Remove the beam from thine own eye, Obamacrat.

I think CSPAN should provide coverage of the debates whether or not the Dems give them access. If it’s behind closed doors, then provide hours of coverage of the door leading to the smoke-filled room.

Yes there is a line, America has walked it well for two centuries and counting.
=======
We haven’t walked it the same for two centuries, and many don’t want to walk on the mandate side of the line.
You are basically saying we’ve walked that line, and the line is wherever we’ve decided to walk this time.

What is the other choice? Why don’t you answer the question? The choices I see are:
1. Require all have some base level of insurance.
2. Provide ER care for free.
3. Leave people to die unless they show proof of paid insurance.
WHAT IS YOUR OTHER CHOICE?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you really this unimaginiative? Seriously?
A couple of different things:
1) Another simple solution is to garnish people’s wages if they refuse or can’t to pay their medical bills at the time of service. (this is in addition to payment plans, etc. that I’m sure are already being tried.)
2) Another thought is to actually think about the actual problem – not the symptoms of the actual problem. The actual problem that should be addressed is the underlying cost of providing health care – not the cost to the government – but the actual cost to provide the health care. (this is a long topic that we can discuss – but the point is IT IS NOT HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, BUT HEALTHCARE ITSELF THAT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT OF.)
3) As a primary tool to address point 2, HSAs should be expanded – and their use should be encouraged. This was one of the best things to come out of Washington in many years – and it is actually going to be eviserated by this stupid legislation.
4) Recognize that it is not the government’s responsibility to solve all of life’s problems. Respect that people can and should take care of themselves.
5) Recognize that problems that do exist are exploded into “crises” in order to achieve alterier goals. Despite the spin, we don’t have anything approaching a health care “crisis”.
6) Be cognizent of anything that would trample on individual freedom – and avoid it like the plague.
For some more specific ideas, that avoid trampling on human liberty and massively expanding government, you might want to check out John Mackey’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal from back in August.
Arg! The blog ate my reply. Well in short:
1.Been done. Failed. See bankruptcy and lack of debtors prison for invalids.
2. Does absolutely nothing about freeloader problem. Doesn’t require people to have ability to pay for emergency treatment.
3. Does absolutely nothing about freeloader problem. Doesn’t require people to have ability to pay for emergency treatment.
4. The ‘leave corpses in the street’ third world solution. Not responsible enough to have your papers showing proof of insurance on you when in a car accident? Well, that’s your mistake. Try to die quietly (unless someone responsible choses to risk paying for your treatment).
5. Support of the current ‘Provide ER care for free’ approach rather than requiring people pay for this basic service of living in a first world nation (like they pay for military or keeping industrial dumping of toxics out of public rivers).
6. Praise of anarchy. I can almost hear the longing for a Somalia-like paradise (certainly not the slightest strain of Hobbs, Rosseau, or any of the other critical analysis and definition of modern society).
The reason the GOP did not bother to implement these ideas when they had total power is because they are best left on bumperstickers rather than proven as failures when put into practice. (Sorta like the last 8 years of the GOP’s ‘tax cuts for the rich make jobs’ program has been shown to be an utter failure.)

Apparently Candidate Obama had another choice in mind since it was Candidate Obama making fun of Candidate Clinton for proposing exactly what President Obama is now willing to sign.
Axey | Jan 5, 2010 12:56:01 PM
The Republicans and a few key (bought off) Democrats quickly shot down what canidate Obama had in mind, opening the healthcare provided to Congress for anyone to buy into (but that’d be government provided health insurance / evil).

It’ll be fun when Republicans take the government over and force everyone to buy a copy of Sarah Palin’s book. A commodity is a commodity.

The current bills leave at least 13-20 million uninsured.
This bill is as much about health care as buying a comb for is helpful for a snake.
Posted by: drjohn |
We are going from 87% to 94% insured over 10 years by spending 2 trillion dollars. And insurance doesn’t always mean care. You can get Botox though.

opening the healthcare provided to Congress for anyone to buy into (but that’d be government provided health insurance / evil).
==========
Not necessarily.
Congress selects from a number of private plans. Members of Congress have access to the Capitol doctor, but their families do not.

It’s also funny how the concept of respecting individual freedom is described as, “in praise of anarchy”.
People – please pay attention to these liberals. You will be owned – lock,stock, and barrel by “our protectors”.
Seriously – your liberties are in extreme peril at this moment.

It’ll be fun when Republicans take the government over and force everyone to buy a copy of Sarah Palin’s book. A commodity is a commodity.
Posted by: drjohn | Jan 5, 2010 1:36:32 PM
=====================
The only “forcing” going on is coming from the Democrat Party……..sad

It’s really hilarious to watch the Obamacrats on this thread supporting and defending this Democrat Administration’s and this Democrat Congress’s incredible and unprecedented lack of transparency on a piece of legislation
Good Lt. | Jan 5, 2010 12:58:30 PM
Why do you have to lie to support your hatred of Obama? This isn’t unprecedented lack of transparency by any means at all. It is unprecedented transparency (thanks in part to the internet and modern television, most of the past decade of Congressional activity has been near this bar – the incredible interest, town halls, rallies, media coverage, etc on health care push this over the top though). Please rejoin reality.

4. Provide temporary, safety-net coverage only for those who want it and also can’t afford it.
The idea that we must cover everyone in order to cover those who can’t afford insurance is a lie designed to socialize our health care system and take over roughly 1/6 of our economy. It’s a whopper of lie indeed and also the reason why Democrats still don’t have the health care bill passed.
Anonymous | Jan 5, 2010 1:35:41 PM
That temporary, safety-net insurance option would be government healthcare and has been killed on that basis. As for “only for those who want it,” when someone is lying unconscious and bleeding from a bike accident, how do we know whether they wanted it? Do we treat them ($) or leave them to die? If we treat them, how is this different from ER freeloading now?
If I don’t want military protection, and think Bin Laden just needs a good hug, do I have the option not to pay my share to support our troops who protect me regardless of my delusions?

Also ask them why they are willing to wait to 2014 to begin covering some of the currently uninsured.
Foghorn Leghorn | Jan 5, 2010 1:42:33 PM
Can you please be consistent – are Democrats ‘rushing this through’ or ‘taking too long’?
Posted by: jhw539
Given a choice between answering a serious question or putting words in my mouth you chose B.

I wonder if Mrs. Doubtfire(Bob Gibbs) believes any of the gibberish he utters to reporters and the American people.

“4. The ‘leave corpses in the street’ third world solution. Not responsible enough to have your papers showing proof of insurance on you when in a car accident? Well, that’s your mistake. Try to die quietly (unless someone responsible choses to risk paying for your treatment). ”
—————
This is the kind of language that helps one to understand what you are dealing with generally with liberal democrats. A reasoned response was provided to his question about “what other choice is there”. And this hot-headed hyperbole was his reply. This simple flicking away of any other suggestions with “I declare that this will mean corpses in the street” – leaves any reasoned person little choice but to take this poster with a grain of salt.
One gets the impression that he has “That wouln’t work” ready to cut and paste for any suggestion other than one that came from congressional democrats.
By the way -

539, what part confuses you, 1. the dems keep trying to rush this through or 2. coverage won’t take effect until 2013? Both are true and only an idiot would try to deny it. Oh wait…..

jhw539, your incessant regurgitating of Democrat talking points really gets old. Pathetic, really.
W. Axl Rose | Jan 5, 2010 1:55:56 PM
You mean my obnoxious use of facts, verifiable reality and supported arguments? I can see how that would grate on Republicans seeing as how ‘reality has a liberal bias’.

(I simply don’t believe you’re unable to grasp why a program of this nature would require time to ramp up in a controlled nature.)
Posted by: jhw539 |
Really? How long did it take in Massachusetts?

This is the kind of language that helps one to understand what you are dealing with generally with liberal democrats. A reasoned response was provided to his question about “what other choice is there”. And this hot-headed hyperbole was his reply.
william | Jan 5, 2010 1:56:58 PM
That is not a response to my question. Third world nations show clearly that literally corpses in the street is the result of having no free emergency care. Wave your hands all you want, but you have not answered the question nor addressed the factual basis of my reply.

Anyone else remember Obama, Reid and Pelosi behind a podium stating “Honest, Open Government”?
What a horrible joke on the country. We are in dire straits.
Now Barney Frank says Fannie and Freddie are policy arms of the government? How long before ALL private industry is a policy arm of the government?
God help us.

I’m not here to pretend I have all the answers.
I think it would be AMAZING, though, to watch the House, Senate, and POTUS negotiate the final bill.
I want to hear them talk about the pros and cons of mandates, how they decide to set the penalties, and whom they decide to exclude (and why).
I want to hear them talk about the IMAC panel, and whether they really think they can make laws non-revocable.
I have wanted nothing more than a really good, thorough debate from our lawmakers on this. I want to be informed.
This is a huge bill, and a huge opportunity for our lawmakers to let us in.

===but you have not answered the question nor addressed the factual basis of my reply.===
And neither have you. Republicans couldn’t stop a go-cart in Washington, but you will blame them for Obama’s failure to get his version of healthcare passed. Instead, we get Hillary’s version.

Oh gawd! Can you imagine how upset Obama is that his version of healthcare reform failed but Hillary’s is going to prevail?
Posted by: Axey |
Not to mention the taxing of health care benefits which McCain proposed and Obama ran ads against.

Re: “Republicans couldn’t stop a go-cart in Washington, but you will blame them for Obama’s failure to get his version of healthcare passed. Instead, we get Hillary’s version.”
Huh? This IS Obama’s version! You Obamabots need to get it out of your heads that Obama is a liberal who really wants the public option. Obama never wanted the public option. He has always been for the corporate giveaway that he is about to unleash on our country.
Obama will sign this lousy bill and then pretend that he on the same level as FDR or LBJ.
Dream on!

“That is not a response to my question. Third world nations show clearly that literally corpses in the street is the result of having no free emergency care. Wave your hands all you want, but you have not answered the question nor addressed the factual basis of my reply. ”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Preposterious assertion. If you read the “wage garneshment” point – you would understand that the discussion is not about simply throwing out someone in a pitiable condition into the streets if they can’t pay on the spot.
But it also addresses (mostly) the free ride aspect.
Were “corpses in the streets” before current policies? Are there corpses in the streets now – without socialized medicine?
More fundamentally, allowing market forces to apply price pressure at the time of service would put downward pressure on medical costs. Downward pressure that doesn’t exist now.
With less expensive costs for care, there would be no need the government to “help” and therefore no need to trample on individual liberties.

You Obamabots need to get it out of your heads that Obama is a liberal who really wants the public option. Obama never wanted the public option. He has always been for the corporate giveaway that he is about to unleash on our country
_________________________________
Aha! Another one weighs in on the great debate. Is the current President an evil commie, redistributor of the wealth to the poor, who pals around with commie terrorists like Ayers – or is he an evil capitalist stooge in the pocket of the great capitalist Wall Street corporations and Big Pharma ready for resdistribution of the wealth to the corporations?

However, is the current administration a policy arm of the capitalist banks? Or a tool of the international redistributor of the wealth to the poor zoranian socialist movement?
Stop conflating corporatism and capitalism.
They are not the same thing. Corporatism is what Obama does – taking over industries at the point of a bribe or gun and using those industries for political or economic ends in exchange for favorable legislation and favoritism.
That’s not capitalism. That’s what looters do.
Obama’s not interested in capitalism. Except when he sells his books, of course – then he expects to get a check.

Posted by: Good Lt. | Jan 5, 2010 3:10:37 PM
“Um, most, if not all, second and third world countries have socialized, government-run care. It’s those systems that have bodies in the streets en masse in the manner which you’re describing. People who come in off the streets for care in America’s ER’s GET TREATMENT BY LAW ALREADY..”
+++++++
Right.
Not mention that they are third world countries. If you find corpses in the street – there are probably a lot of reasons leading to that.
Starvation, dehidration, mileria, AIDS, lack of clean drinking water, acts of violence, etc. etc. etc. Living conditions far,far worse than those in industrialized nations.
But no, I’m sure the only reason is that all of the third world countries don’t have free health care.
I’m sure we have some documentation that clarifies all the “corpses in the streets” are there because – and only because – there is no free health care.

Corporatism is what Obama does – taking over industries at the point of a bribe or gun and using those industries for political or economic ends in exchange for favorable legislation and favoritism.
_____________________________________
Oh, so what industries has President Obama ‘taken over’ then? You mean he now owns Halliburton? Black Water? Lougheed? Raytheon? Walmart? Macdonalds? Which industries did Obama take over at ‘the point of a gun’?
Isn’t it funny how all the Health Insurance Industry executives are badmouthing him as a commie? And many of the right wing bloggers on here doing the same. I guess they’re all part of the plot.
And actually he’s shovelling money into the big capitalist corporations. What? And now you’re saying big corporations are not capitalist? So the top 1% of the population that owns so much is not capitalist? Should we bring them down?

Corporatism is what Obama does – taking over industries at the point of a bribe or gun and using those industries for political or economic ends in exchange for favorable legislation and favoritism.
_____________________________________
Oh, so what industries has President Obama ‘taken over’ then? You mean he now owns Halliburton? Black Water? Lougheed? Raytheon? Walmart? Macdonalds? Which industries did Obama take over at ‘the point of a gun’?
Isn’t it funny how all the Health Insurance Industry executives are badmouthing him as a commie? And many of the right wing bloggers on here doing the same. I guess they’re all part of the plot.
And actually he’s shovelling money into the big capitalist corporations. What? And now you’re saying big corporations are not capitalist? So the top 1% of the population that owns so much is not capitalist? Should we bring them down?
Posted by: tierra | Jan 5, 2010 3:31:56 PM
=====================================
GM
Chrysler
Any bank that voluntarily or was forced to take TARP funds.
With all the liberal jabbering about “big powerful fat cat CEOs” the government showed who really has the power with GMs CEO who didn’t want to go along with looting the investors to hand the company to the UAW.

Fannie/Freddie are perfect examples of semi private government controlled entities.
By the way did you know that FF now have an unlimited bailout figure as of Christmas Eve thanks to Obama signing it behind the scenes of health care?
Some info from bloomberg article. Funny how pretty much no domestic MSM coverage of the biggest bailout cost.
“”Washington-based Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac own or guarantee about $5.5 trillion of the $11.8 trillion in U.S. residential mortgage debt. They have financed as much as 75 percent of new U.S. mortgages this year.
They have been run for more than 40 years as shareholder- owned companies that also have a federally chartered mission to promote the housing market. Those dual mandates have collided and contributed to the companies’ failure, said Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.
“Go one way or the other,” Bair said in an interview this month. “Either completely privatize them and get them completely out or run them as public utilities.” The hybrid structure, with private shareholders, public mandates and federal backstopping, “is classic too big to fail.”
The Federal Reserve has bought $1.1 trillion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s home-loan bonds and $124.1 billion of their corporate debt this year. Those actions have lowered the companies’ funding costs and pushed mortgage rates to a record low 4.71 percent this month.
For the year, interest rates on typical 30-year fixed-rate mortgages have averaged 5.04 percent, down from 6.05 percent last year, according to weekly surveys by Freddie Mac.
To help keep the GSEs solvent, the Treasury has also bought $191 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage bonds, and made $112 billion of preferred stock purchases.

Posted by: Cryos | Jan 5, 2010 3:43:48 PM
“Fannie/Freddie are perfect examples of semi private government controlled entities.
By the way did you know that FF now have an unlimited bailout figure as of Christmas Eve thanks to Obama signing it behind the scenes of health care?”
+++++++++++++++++++++
Good point Cryos.
These, plus Amtrak, plus the Post Office should be GIANT red flags to everyone.
Even some of the profit-killing decisions that GM has been making over the last year should be warning signs.

Yeah GM is pretty much toast. The Obama administration trying pulling smooth move by converting UAWs health care funds into cash (stocks) before health care legislation so that other americans can pay their health care costs for UAW members, but it will backfire.
Most of the people cheering on the unions and the GM bankruptcy corruption buy Hondas and Toyotas anyways and most of the people who did buy GMs want nothing to do with Government Motors.

Posted by: tierra | Jan 5, 2010 4:04:39 PM
======================
But I thought no one could name one? Pretty quick transition to a “modest list” without admitting you are wrong.
Also ignore the fact banks WERE FORCED to take Tarp funds. Ignore Fannie/Freddie.
I expect no less from a liberal. Ignore the facts you don’t like and try to dismiss others with YOUR ideals and excuses.

Jhw539, you want another choice? How about the federal government help subsidizing existing free clinics (possibly with grants equal to one-fourth of private contributions during the preceding year) and encouraging the starting up of more free clinics. Continue to let individuals decide whether we want health insurance or want to pay cash when we see a doctor (which if I understand correctly, the Senate bill prohibits since it mandates everyone obtain healthcare insurance). And instead of banning coverage for pre-existing conditions for the private sector (which will jack up the premiums) the government can offer a catastrophic insurance–although individuals will be charged a monthly premium equal to the typical non-catastrophic insurance coverage by the private sector.

So what Gibbs is saying is that they will not negotiate on C-Span. Just another broken campaign promise. They can spin this like they like, but that’s what it amounts to.
By the way, Jake, you and Major Garrett are the best reporters on the beat. Keep fighting the good fight.
Posted by: bellagrazi
================================
Yeah agreed. Tapper is one of the few abc reporters I will even read. Most of the others are so ridiculously biased I only glance over their articles to try to see if there is any wheat among the chaff.

jhw539: “As for “only for those who want it,” when someone is lying unconscious and bleeding from a bike accident, how do we know whether they wanted it?”
If they have health insurance or the cash to pay for their treatment.
jhw539: “Do we treat them ($) or leave them to die? If we treat them, how is this different from ER freeloading now?”
Of course, we treat them, but then they need to pay for the services rendered — even if that means for the rest of their life. Maybe they should have been responsible and obtained catastrophic health insurance like the majority of the rest of Americans. Treatment isn’t free, and those who obtain treatment need to pay their own way.
jhw539: “If I don’t want military protection, and think Bin Laden just needs a good hug, do I have the option not to pay my share to support our troops who protect me regardless of my delusions?”
Personal responsibility in obtaining catastrophic health insurance isn’t congruent to the responsibility our government has to protect us from military and other national security threats. Most would agree that the job of defending our nation could not possibly be done by individual citizens, but instead the federal government. On the other hand, citizens have been successfully utilizing health insurance from the private sector for a long time now and a majority are happy with their coverage. In the case of national defense, government intervention is a requirement. In the case of health insurance, government intervention is optional. That’s the fundamental point that seems to escape you liberals — health insurance is not an entitlement, but an option for those responsible enough to obtain it.

Is there any single part of transparency that the President actually believes in now that the promises he made and so many voted (for him) in the hopes for actual integrity? All that we get is blame on the Bush Administration and personal attacks against anyone who dares to question the process or the outcome of this political and societal travesty. The ends justify the means, and Washington again assumes its role is to rule rather than lead. GOP proposals to improve health care through opening markets to increase competition and tort reform were completely ignored. Right now, both parties are an embarrassment, but the left, lead by this president are trampling on the constitution and the arrogance is appalling. God help us as the debt climbs and incentives for business to invest, expand and produce are left behind in favor of power and control and ever increasing debt that we and our children will HAVE TO PAY FOR.

“people have a pretty good sense of who is battling on behalf of thousands of lobbyists that are trying to protect drugs profits and insurance profits, and who’s fighting on behalf of middle-class Americans hoping once and for all to have access to affordable insurance and removing insurance company restrictions”
You can’t reform health care without reforming the food industry.
You can’t reform anything without reforming the Lobby industry. A Lobbyist’s job is to (legally?) bribe representatives. Our elected representatives don’t write our legislation, they don’t even read it before they vote on what the lobbyists pay them to vote for.
Health insurance companies withhold (ration) healthcare for profits.
We have the best propaganda services in the world. rah

I’m 23 years old. I have struggled to get out on my own and pull myself up in this world. I’ve lost YOUNG friends to war, to suicide (mostly money issues), and I have a lot that are just struggling to survive. Just to get a stable roof over their heads, and eat this month. And they want us to pay for everyone?! WE CAN’T EVEN PAY FOR OURSELVES!! I don’t have cable (nor do my friends) I don’t drive a new car, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to keep my job this year! Last month I gave my brother my last 10 dollars because he hadn’t eaten longer than I hadn’t. What happens when this whole “Ponzi scheme” falls apart? When the next generation finally wises up and they reform to NOT pay for our health care when we’re old?? (I would if I was them!!) Then we’re stuck, old, with no money because it was sucked out of us for the generation before!! No! No no no! Please! Youth of America, look at what this really means for us, and how it’s going to affect OUR future. Obama doesn’t care about OUR future cause he won’t be in office! Let some other president worry about us when the time comes… He just sees us as a way to put a quick patch on the situation! Don’t let him make us the patch on the Titanic! IT SHOULD NOT SOLEY RELY ON US!! He needs to build a NEW ship, not force us youth to hold together the leaking one until we break ourselves.

At least 8 speeches through the campaign Obama stated he believed in trasparancey he will have everyone see the process on C-span
.
IF THERE IS NOT TRUTH IN THIS, WHAT MORE UNTRUTHS HAVE WE BEEN FEED?????
WERE IS THE TRUST IN REPRESENTATION