Health Care Debates on Live TV

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not true at all. You guys hated on him for this bullshit promise broke. I didn't think it was even 1/50th as important as anything else going on...but hey...you guys needed your hate. I give something to Obama you guys refuse to give him...time. After 3 days you were listing "promises he brokez!!!" threads and it was pathetic. When he does eventually get to these tasks your blood is boiling over about...I will post it in your faces and have your hate REDIRECTED towards some other petty bullshit you want to cry about.

Not to mention, the congressional debates for healthcare were on CSPAN just like any other congressional hearing. The part where there was a disconnect was the committee meetings that are not during a normal session. He took responsibility for not better coordinating that to get those meetings broadcast in some fashion. The logistics of coordinating that would have been interesting given the number of groups that were meeting to discuss it.

I do feel a little better about him being attacked for something like that... vs.. say... invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, on the premise we'd be greated as liberators and that it would only cost 60 billion because oil revenue would pay for reconstruction...because we had to due to weapons of mass destruction that weren't really all that available to be found.

As long as he gets lambasted for only coming through on 1/2 of his promise to broadcast healthcare debates... I think we'll be in good shape.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I guess we can stop using that stupid "he broke a promise" line about this pointless subject now.

He did break his campaign promise. This anecdote, if it actually happens, does not absolve him either. It's still a broken promise. Deal with it.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

He did break his campaign promise. This anecdote, if it actually happens, does not absolve him either. It's still a broken promise. Deal with it.

No, he really didn't. There wasn't a timeline to complete said "promise".

I forgot though...he had 1 day to complete all promises or he'd get attacked.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Swift

yep, that's why they all needed to be televised so at some point they would have to get to the actual subject matter.

Donkey, that was Obama's whole point from the jump. To have these hearings in the open to prove that the government is really looking out for the people. But not doing that, what does it say?

Exactly, a one time grandstanding event doesn't qualify at all for real transparency.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Exactly, a one time grandstanding event doesn't qualify at all for real transparency.

We we go from ZERO to 10% transparency that's progress no?

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We we go from ZERO to 10% transparency that's progress no?

Maybe yes, maybe no. We will see. You are right in thinking it is better than nothing.

I wouldn't count it as fulfilling his promise.

A .3% transparency is insignificant. 10% is also not enough. I would like to see it in the 90%-100% range.

Furthermore, when running a con, you need to show your mark a little something.

Here is what I think Obama hopes to accomplish:
1. Fool his simple minded supporters into believing he actually is trying to fulfill his promises. (Just the simple minded ones.)
2. Show america how stupid the republican politicians are.

My guess is that it will somewhat work out in his favor.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, he really didn't. There wasn't a timeline to complete said "promise".

I forgot though...he had 1 day to complete all promises or he'd get attacked.

He made a campaign promise and broke it. A single anecdote is not a fulfillment of his promise. Sorry. Obama is a liar.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Some new developments have taken place and they are in reference to a previous post I made.
Obama Administration is the next target of Democrats


I was waiting to get home to write about this. Basically, this is all political strategy. Republicans have refused to go along with reforming the current healthcare plan. They want to start over brand new. This does two things, first it dumps all this insane, bullshit spending and stupid reform that no rational minded American wants. Secondly, it gives the Republicans a chance to say they saved America from the shitty healthcare bill the Democrats tried to unethically force on our nation unilaterally. If done correctly, this would destroy the Democrats come November.

So now Obama is throwing out an olive branch to Republicans... publicly of course. He is saying he'll meet with Republicans, but he won't throw out the bill. That bill must be used as the foundation for reform. This is done to save face for Democrats. This way Democrats can say they reformed healthcare in a bipartisan fashion that we all agreed on rather than having to say they failed at passing healthcare reform nobody wanted in the most unethical manner they could possibly dream up.

This is Obama's way of dealing with this situation and it puts the ball in the GOP court. Well the GOP has responded by saying, they'll only show up if they scrap the shitty healthcare reform nobody wants and they can start over with a bipartisan bill. And without their support Democrats will be empty handed in November trying to force a bill on Americans that has been rejected by voters. If they make concessions for Republicans, they'll lose Democrat votes, and aren't guaranteed to pick up and Republican votes. Then when they lose a crap ton of seats in November for being unethical and doing a shitty ass job, Republicans will be in a better position to negotiate.

Republicans are also questioning Obama's sincerity in creating a bipartisan bill by using a shitty bill as the foundation rather than coming together and working on something with Republicans from start to finish and providing the American public with a bill that can gain popular support.

Thus, the ball has been passed back. I suspect the next response will be Obama saying he offered the GOP a chance, and they refused.

Gibbs has responded for Obama, my guess is to protect Obama from any backlash. Gibbs has basically said, Obama supports the current healthcare reform and is unwilling to start over. He also laughably said Obama was bipartisan from the start last March, then conveniently skipped to the state of the union address and said Obama was pushing for bipartisan and transparency "as early as" last week. Nevermind the year of BS inbetween, that's apparently irrelevant to the two instances of bipartisanship.

So the ball has been passed back. GOP's turn.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We we go from ZERO to 10% transparency that's progress no?

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He made a campaign promise and is fulfilling it within the second year of his term. To me that screams success...whatever the reasoning you want to try and give it.

Seriously? 10% "screams success" in your eyes? It's amazing how you enjoy rewarding failure now that Obama is in office.

[absent]

Since we're on the topic of promises kept or broken, here is today's article from msnbc regarding them:

Obama has miles to go to keep all promises

msnbc.com
9:01 AM EST February 9, 2010

If there were a scorecard for the promises President Barack Obama made a year ago in this struggling city in northern Indiana, he would probably get a C. It's a passing grade, but it's not the strong performance that people might have hoped for in a town with one of the highest jobless rates in the country.

One year ago, on Feb. 9, 2009, Obama went to Concord High School in Elkhart to promise jobs for the city and for the nation. He argued the case for the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which Congress would pass just four days later.

Now, a year later, some statements he made in that speech have proven true and a few have proven to be dubious. For several others, it's too soon to judge.

Like the president himself, the Recovery Act and the economic recovery itself haven't yet fully met expectations.

So, with unemployment near 10 percent and elections eight months away, congressional Democrats are reacting. House Democrats passed a second stimulus, dubbed the "Jobs for Main Street Act." At about $159 billion, it's less than one-fifth the size of the stimulus enacted last February.

The Senate is set to begin action on its own job creation bill this week.

Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., whose district includes most of the city of Elkhart, voted for the first stimulus bill in 2009, but against the second bill last December.

"We still have a lot of ARRA funds to spend," Donnelly said. "We're working non-stop to create jobs, but I want to make sure that we give the stimulus funds the opportunity to get out there, and be felt, and create jobs. I said, 'Why don't we just let the stimulus work its way through, rather than adding on even more debt?'"

Some argue the reason to not wait is the 14.8 million unemployed Americans as of January. The Labor Department reported on Friday that the unemployment rate dipped from 10 percent to 9.7 percent last month, but businesses shed 20,000 jobs.

Here are some of the statements Obama made in that speech, and how they're working so far.

Preventing more job losses

Obama told his Elkhart audience on last February that "if we don't act immediately, millions of more jobs will be lost. The national unemployment rates will approach double digits not just here in Elkhart, (but) all across the country."

Since the president spoke on that day, more than 3 million jobs have been lost, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Job losses are no longer running at a pace of nearly 700,000 per month, as they were when Obama spoke in February, however.

"The Recovery Act has already funded about 2 million jobs across the country, and remains on track to meet the President's goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year," said Jim Gilio, White House spokesman for the Recovery Act.

Gilio said that direct stimulus spending (as opposed to tax cuts) for projects overall are expected to double in the first two quarters of 2010 and thus "there is even more employment bang for the buck to come."
In Elkhart County, meanwhile, the unemployment rate has declined from 18 percent last February to 14.8 percent in December, the last month for which the BLS has local data.

But the labor force has shrunk in Elkhart, and around the nation, too. There were 4,365 fewer jobless in Elkhart County in December than there were when Obama spoke last February - a drop of 24 percent in the number of unemployed. But there were also 4,017 fewer people with jobs, a decline of 5 percent in the number employed.

Unemployment benefits

Obama promised to help the jobless back in February with "an additional $100 per month in unemployment benefits that will go to more than 450,000 Indiana workers, extended unemployment benefits for another 89,000 folks who've been laid off and can't find work."

The president has delivered on this promise.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, by the end of September, the Recovery Act will have paid out $58 billion in unemployment benefits, 17 percent of the total stimulus outlays.

Creating or saving jobs

Obama predicted in his Elkhart speech that "the (stimulus) plan that we put forward will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next two years," adding that "we'll create or save nearly 80,000 badly needed jobs for Indiana right here over the next couple of years."

It will take until February 2011 to determine if the president was correct in his claims.

His own Council of Economic Advisors, in its Jan. 13 report, estimated that 48,000 jobs had been created in Indiana due to the Recovery Act. The CEA said the stimulus had "raised employment relative to what it would otherwise have been" by 1.5 million to 2 million nationwide.

The Obama administration's view is that the stimulus dollars are rippling through the economy: the public school teacher kept on the job due to Recovery Act money will spend her paychecks on groceries, car repairs, a new deck for her house - so the grocer, the car repair shop, and the carpenter all benefit from stimulus money. They will in turn spend their income on buying goods and services.

But Jackie Walorski, the Republican state representative whose district includes part of the city of Elkhart and southern Elkhart County, dismisses the stimulus effect.

"Nobody was going to say 'don't bring money here if it's available' but it was a short infusion of cash," she said. "It's not a long-term fix and it hasn't really produced a lot of sustainable, long-term tangible, counted jobs."

Walorski is trying to unseat Donnelly in this November's election.
Donnelly defended the stimulus by pointing to a $689,000 grant to the Heart City Health Center as stimulus money that had an immediate impact, allowing the clinic to hire a doctor and to serve more patients, and to a $39 million grant to Navistar to manufacture electric trucks in Wakarusa, a town just south of Elkhart.

Can you count the jobs?

Obama claimed in Elkhart last February that the federal government's Recovery.gov Web site "gives you a report on where the money is going in your community, how it's being spent, how many jobs (are) being created."

He was somewhat wide of the mark.

Whatever the merits of Recovery.gov may be, it does not make the case that Obama and his aides are trying to make: that the combination of direct and indirect spending - the multiplier effect - has caused 1.5 million to 2 million jobs to be "created or saved."

Here's why: Congress requires private-sector recipients of Recovery Act grants, contracts, and loans to submit their own estimates of the number of jobs created or retained by their funding.

But, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent auditing arm of Congress, explained, "neither individuals nor recipients receiving funds through entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, or through tax programs are required to report."

Of the $173 billion in funds paid out by the end of last October, only 25 percent were covered by the Recovery Act's reporting requirement.

That's one reason why there's a discrepancy between the 48,000 Indiana jobs that Obama's economic advisors claim have been created or saved by the stimulus, and the figure for jobs created or saved in Indiana on the Obama administration's Recovery.gov Web site: 15,278.

Tax cuts

Obama promised in Elkhart "immediate tax relief for 95 percent of American workers."

The Recovery Act has delivered on that pledge.

Although they aren't as visible as the $10 million, ARRA-funded project to widen U.S. highway 33 in Elkhart, for example, the tax cuts in the Recovery Act last fiscal year and this fiscal year are 14 times larger than the transportation projects funded by stimulus money.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 44 percent of the stimulus in FY 2009 and FY 2010 is in the form of tax cuts, ranging from a tax break for first-time home buyers to an $800 tax credit for married couples.

Mostly private-sector jobs?

The president pledged that "more than 90 percent of the jobs created under this Recovery Act will be in the private sector."

That appears to be in some doubt, at least for now.

According to GAO, by Dec. 31, 2009, more than $78 billion in Recovery Act funds had gone to states and localities. More than three quarters of that was matching funds to the states to help pay for Medicaid, the insurance program for the indigent, and to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund which helps states keep public school employees on the payroll.

The GAO said the Recovery Act's Medicaid and education funds freed up money that the states otherwise would have had to spend from their own coffers. This allowed state and local governments to retain some employees that they otherwise would have let go.

States "most commonly reported using or planning to use these freed-up funds in fiscal year 2010 to cover increased Medicaid caseloads, maintain Medicaid eligibility levels, and finance general state budget needs," the GAO said in a report last December.

Elkhart city officials estimate that to date $41 million in direct and indirect stimulus funding has created or saved 385 jobs in Elkhart, with the biggest single amount being the $14.3 million going to the Elkhart public schools.

That overpass the president promised

The biggest unfunded stimulus request so far in Elkhart is a $65 million project to build a new downtown railroad overpass, the same one Obama mentioned in his Feb. 9 speech: "I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

Elkhart applied for stimulus money under the U.S. Department of Transportation's TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants program. The department will announce the winners of the grants in the next few weeks.

Plug-in hybrids

Obama also promised his stimulus would include money "to develop the new battery technologies that will allow not just cars but potentially RVs as well to move into the next generation of plug-in hybrids."

He returned to Elkhart last August to tout a $39 million grant to Navistar, which produces commercial and military trucks and designs and manufactures diesel engines for pickup trucks, vans and SUVs, among other things.

Navistar spokesman Roy Wiley said he could not estimate how many jobs the project would create since it "will depend upon initial daily production rates, among other things."

"When the grant was announced, we stated that our electric truck production would initially create 700 jobs, but not necessarily all in Elkhart County. And some will be suppliers," he said.

Another vehicle manufacturer, the Norwegian firm THINK, is planning to make electric cars in Elkhart, with Recovery Act help.

According to company spokesman Brendan Prebo, THINK received a tax credit of $16.9 million under the Advanced Energy Manufacturing program. The firm has also applied for a loan under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. THINK expects to create 415 manufacturing jobs in Elkhart by 2013. The plant begins operations in the first quarter of next year.

The Obama administration has pointed to the THINK tax break as a prime example of what the president meant when he said in Elkhart last year, "I think it's important for us to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Elkhart."

Prebo noted that THINK was looking at the United States as a manufacturing location prior to the announcement of the Recovery Act's incentives, but the ATVM program encouraged the company to build more vehicles in the U.S. sooner than it would have otherwise.

However, the Recovery Act "had very little impact on the selection of Elkhart specifically. I would attribute our decision to select Indiana almost wholly to the efforts of the state," he said.

Building schools

"We'll also put people to work rebuilding our schools," Obama promised in Elkhart. "This school is a terrific school, but I know there's work to be done here."

Public school construction is one place where Obama had hoped the Recovery Act would create jobs but where it hasn't - at least not directly.

Obama referred three more times in the speech to what he saw as the need for stimulus money to pay for building and rehabilitating public schools.

The House version of the stimulus bill included $20 billion for school construction. But the Senate deleted those funds. This was done largely at the urging of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose vote was needed to get the 60 to pass the bill.

Collins' decisive role last February was an early indicator that even with large Democratic majorities in Congress, Obama's agenda for Elkhart and the rest of America would hinge on a few Republican senators. From health insurance reform to a second stimulus bill, they remain as crucial today as they were last February.


© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints

Given the very biased viewpoint of msnbc though, I suspect analysis by other outlets might give an even bleaker outcome.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Maybe yes, maybe no. We will see. You are right in thinking it is better than nothing.

I wouldn't count it as fulfilling his promise.

A .3% transparency is insignificant. 10% is also not enough. I would like to see it in the 90%-100% range.

Furthermore, when running a con, you need to show your mark a little something.

Here is what I think Obama hopes to accomplish:
1. Fool his simple minded supporters into believing he actually is trying to fulfill his promises. (Just the simple minded ones.)
2. Show america how stupid the republican politicians are.

My guess is that it will somewhat work out in his favor.

When you go from ZERO to something I will take it. You can ask for more but calling him a failure for actually doing something we haven't seen anyone else do is stupid....especially a year into his presidency.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Seriously? 10% "screams success" in your eyes? It's amazing how you enjoy rewarding failure now that Obama is in office.

But according to you progress screams failure. He failed to keep a promise (and he still has 3 years to fulfill said promise) to which he is making progress on and you call him a failure.


Hater. Period.

[absent]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

...calling him a failure for actually doing something we haven't seen anyone else do is stupid....especially a year into his presidency.

Can you please clarify this statement?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by absent

Can you please clarify this statement?

He made a promise to try and be more transparent than everyone else in the past. So far in his presidency he has...but people think it hasn't been good enough. That's their right but to say he's failed at it only a year into his term is stupid. Especially since he's already been more transparent than his predecessor.

[absent]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He made a promise to try and be more transparent than everyone else in the past. So far in his presidency he has... Especially since he's already been more transparent than his predecessor.

I find this statement difficult to quantify and certainly debatable. Is there any way you can support this claim?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by absent

I find this statement difficult to quantify and certainly debatable. Is there any way you can support this claim?

I am not posting every little thing to try and justify it. If you think it's not true, then so be it. Putting the healthcare stuff on tv is one example. I don't recall Bush ever televising a meeting with Democrats like Obama did with the Republicans last week or so. There's two.

And lastly, a direct order to government agencies to be more transparent.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...penGovernment/

Progress. Hate on it if you must.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

But according to you progress screams failure. He failed to keep a promise (and he still has 3 years to fulfill said promise) to which he is making progress on and you call him a failure.


Hater. Period.

Why is it that some people refuse to look at Obama's current behavior rationally and objectively. Rather than doing this they rant and rave about how perfect he is and wait until his last day in office to judge him on the last decision he makes? For some reason I am unconvinced that even then they will be rational, it is just a means to deflect.

I have stated this is an improvement, but forgive me if I can't ignore the past year of unethical BS that he condoned. The only reason he is moving forward in this direction is because he already failed at the alternative. If he hadn't failed at reforming healthcare in the manner he wanted to pursue it we wouldn't be here right now.

[absent]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am not posting every little thing to try and justify it. If you think it's not true, then so be it. Putting the healthcare stuff on tv is one example. I don't recall Bush ever televising a meeting with Democrats like Obama did with the Republicans last week or so. There's two.

And lastly, a direct order to government agencies to be more transparent.

Transparency and Open Government | The White House

Progress. Hate on it if you must.

I would suggest that the reason you don't recall the Bush administration ever having these "transparent" affairs is because he didn't campaign on transparency like Obama did. Bush never got himself into a position where the people expected him to be more transparent based on a promise he made to do so. Obama is being forced now to seem transparent because the level of expectations were set so high...by Obama himself:

In an era of constant information sharing, and after a campaign built on lofty promises, Mr. Obama must be measured against the highest standards of transparency. A year into his presidency, it may still be too early to tell if he meets them.

"Direct orders" are fine and all, but remember, he's made a few of those already and few have followed through.

The questions over this transparency don't arise because we don't like it. The questions arise because of the timing of it. You raise valid points that he can't fulfill every promise in a short amount of time. However, he CAN fulfill even the simple ones, such as posting bills online days before they are made into law. Even something as simple as this, he did not do, nor is he likely to.

While the healthcare talks are much more complex and involved and complicated, he campaigned on making them available to CSPAN.

YouTube- President Obama Making C-SPAN Promise 8...

Is that really difficult to have a camera set up in the discussions? Even when CSPAN requested to have access, he gave them only one hour of televised talks. Clearly he was in control over who got to see what, and decided against full transparency.

Perhaps it can be chalked up to naivety or inexperience as a politician, but these expectations were a result of his campaigning and promises to the people. He now realizes that he cannot achieve the lofty goals and promises he's made. In fact, many suggest that he is no different than Bush, and his transparency is little changed. It's obvious his terror policies have not changed.

To me, it seems we've had a driven, ambitious, and successful politician get into the White House before he was ready, and realizing, with full exposure to the details and inner-workings of a presidency, that he cannot in fact do what he thought he could. And, those things he can do, he's decided not to, as it will make him look bad.

Many on the left and right are criticizing now his decision to hold these transparent healthcare talks with the Republicans. Nobody really believes it is sincere, or that it will achieve what he wants. And that, my friend, is an unfortunate circumstance to which the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

UPDATE: Politico sees "no high hopes for health care summit"

So what’s the point? A jaded Washington wondered how a single meeting — in front of live TV cameras, no less — could change the fundamentals of the debate.

Many concluded it won’t.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think others see this as nothing but a show as well.

For Obama, it fits neatly into his post-Massachusetts strategy of painting the GOP as do-nothing obstructionists. The Republicans have spent the year almost uniformly opposing Obama’s agenda — and being rewarded by voters for doing it.


Now Obama wants to use the meeting to call them out in public, to question whether they have any plans to fix the nation’s health care system and any willingness to help him do it.

Obama is trying to make the Republicans look bad. If the point is to make them look like they don't have a solution, he'll have to be very good at disregarding their plan they've proposed. It's just as important for him to be sincerely willing to work with Republicans as much as they are willing to work with him to make it happen. If he doesn't budge on any of it, then he can't expect them to either. That's not how a compromise works.

[Donkey®]

"A year into his presidency, it may still be too early to tell if he meets them."


It's too early to give him credit for doing SOMETHING but not too early to hate on him for everything.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

"A year into his presidency, it may still be too early to tell if he meets them."


It's too early to give him credit for doing SOMETHING but not too early to hate on him for everything.

So what you are saying is that last year it was too early for him to keep his promise. But this year will make up for him breaking his promise last year? If he in fact even keeps this promise?