Health Care Debates on Live TV

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 01:05 PM

White House official: Feb. 25 health care meeting to be televised - CNN.com

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

Originally Posted by article

White House official: Feb. 25 health care meeting to be televised
From Dan Lothian, CNN White House correspondent
February 8, 2010 11:16 a.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama's bipartisan meeting on health care reform planned for February 25 will be broadcast live, a senior administration official said Monday.
Coverage details were not complete, but the official said the White House expected "the whole thing to be live."
The half-day meeting is an attempt by the Obama administration to rescue health care legislation, a top domestic priority for the president. Televising it also would help fulfill a campaign promise by Obama that health care negotiations would be broadcast live.
On Tuesday, Obama will meet with Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate for bipartisan talks that the president promised in his State of the Union address last month. Tuesday's meeting now will help prepare for the February 25 health care talks.
In a CBS interview broadcast nationally Sunday, Obama said: "What I'd like to do is have a meeting whereby I'm sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts, and let's just go through these bills -- their ideas, our ideas -- let's walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense."
Obama first floated the idea of face-to-face, televised talks with Republicans to seek a health care compromise last week. In a speech Thursday at a fundraising crowd, he said that whatever legislation emerges from the talks should then go to Congress for a vote.
Video: Clinton talks health care
RELATED TOPICS
Health Care Policy
Health Care Issues
Barack Obama
"If Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, after all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," Obama said Thursday. "That's how democracy works."
The senior administration official said Obama was determined to keep pushing for a health care bill.
Obama will not "let this moment slip away," the official said. The president "hopes to have Republican support in doing so -- but he is going to move forward on health reform."
The planned talks with Republicans are the first clear strategy by Obama and Democrats on how to proceed on health care after losing their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate.
Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as the new U.S. senator from Massachusetts last week, leaving the Democrats one vote shy of being able to overcome GOP filibusters of health care reform and other major initiatives.
The House and Senate have passed separate health care bills supported by Democrats. Obama said last week that Democratic leaders were completing work on merging the two bills into a single Democratic proposal for the talks with Republicans.
In the interview Sunday with Katie Couric of CBS News, Obama said he planned to ask Republican leaders "to put their ideas on the table."
"What I want to do is look at the Republican ideas that are out there, and I want to be very specific," Obama said. "How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so that people with pre-existing conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don't have health insurance can get it?
"If we can go step by step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then procedurally, there's no reason why we can't do it a lot faster than the process took last year," Obama said.
Leaders in both chambers reacted to Obama's remarks along party lines.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement that while Republicans "appreciate the opportunity to share ideas with the president," to reach a bipartisan consensus, "the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill, and with it their goal of slashing a half trillion dollars from Medicare and raising a half trillion in new taxes."
"Setting these goals aside would be a sign that the administration and Democrats in Congress are listening to the country and are truly interested in a bipartisan approach," McConnell said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a statement that Senate Democrats "have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one.
"As we continue our work to fix our broken health care system, Senate Democrats will not relent on our commitment to protecting consumers from insurance company abuses, reducing health care costs, saving Medicare and cutting the deficit," Reid said.
On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a Sunday statement, "The House-passed health insurance reform legislation included a number of Republican amendments -- added as the bill worked its way through three committees. ... We remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face."
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement that he was "pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care."
But he added, "The problem with the Democrats' health care bills is not that the American people don't understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don't like them. The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access."
Republicans say the comprehensive Democratic health care bills would lead to a government takeover of health care. They call for smaller steps focused on individual issues, such as limiting medical malpractice lawsuits.
Democrats, however, say that spiraling health care costs that threaten the nation's future economic stability can be addressed only through comprehensive reform.
Obama said Thursday that a merged Democratic bill would expand coverage to 30 million Americans who lack health insurance while reducing long-term health care costs.
It would include an insurance exchange to allow people and small-business owners to pool resources to purchase coverage, Obama said, but he made no mention of a government-run public health insurance option that Republicans have rallied against.
Obama said the Democratic bill would include reforms that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions or capping lifetime benefits.
"And by the way, all of it is paid for," Obama said Thursday. "Not only is it deficit-neutral, but the Congressional Budget Office, which is the bipartisan office that is the scorekeeper for [how much] things cost in Congress, says it is going to reduce the costs by $1 trillion."
Obama called health care reform the "single best way to bring down our deficits," adding that "nobody has disputed that."
"Nobody can dispute the fact that if we don't tackle surging health care costs, then we can't control our budget," he said.

DosEquis · 02-08-2010, 01:19 PM

I can't wait to see it. I just hope they keep the rambling to a minimum for both parties.

I can see 75% of the time being wasted for campaign statements instead of legitimate healthcare related things.

Swift · 02-08-2010, 02:18 PM

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?

JaJae · 02-08-2010, 02:22 PM

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?

He's only doing it now because Brown won in MA. That's all this says, but I'm glad he's finally doing the right thing... Even if just out of necessity when all other options failed.

Swift · 02-08-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's only doing it now because Brown won in MA. That's all this says, but I'm glad he's finally doing the right thing... Even if just out of necessity when all other options failed.

Thank you. so now, how is Obama different from any other politician or president that we've had? Rhetorical...

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's only doing it now because Brown won in MA. That's all this says, but I'm glad he's finally doing the right thing... Even if just out of necessity when all other options failed.

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.

absent · 02-08-2010, 04:24 PM

I think this article puts this thread into perspective:

Obama’s never-before-seen 2010 strategy

This master plan was clearly hatched in super-secret, high-level, eyes-only briefings. But the wait is finally over. The plan to prevent every single last Democrat from being bodily thrown into the Capitol fountain on November 2, is, wait for it . . . to be more bipartisan. Obama is going to offer to include Republicans in the governing process, and if they don’t vote for his legislation, he’ll call them obstructionists.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s campaign strategy for Democrats in the November elections is taking shape — appeal to Republicans to make compromises and if they do not, accuse them of obstruction.
Obama is basically angling to call the bluff of Republicans who he believes have done nothing but stand in opposition to his proposals on revamping the U.S. healthcare system and stimulating the economy. . . .
“I told my Republican friends I want to work together with them where I can — and I meant it,” Obama said at a Democratic event on Thursday. “And I told them I will also call them out if they say they want to work on something then when I offer a hand, I get nothing in return.”

Sounds great . . . and rather familiar.
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane. This was from one year ago, February 11, 2009.
Despite a pledge to bridge the partisan divide in Washington, President Obama left the capital this week to deploy a battle-tested strategy of bypassing Congress and taking his policy proposals to the people.
The result was a political scene that more resembled the hard-knuckle presidential campaign than the diplomatic transition period.
Obama hit the stump and the airwaves to talk up his economic recovery package and shame its foes into supporting it. Republicans countered with press conferences blasting the Democratic agenda. Both sides traded fire in the editorial pages.

And from March 2009.
Sen. John McCain says President Obama is breaking campaign promises he made to the American people and has passed up numerous opportunities to reach out to Republicans — a pledge the Democrat made repeatedly during their battle for the presidency. . . .
The Arizona senator said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “put it best” when she described the lack of bipartisanship in the drafting of the $787 billion bailout bill, which garnered just three Republican votes in the Senate.
” ‘We won, we wrote the bill.’ That applies not just to that bill, but it does to all of the other pieces of legislation, too,” he said, clearly exasperated.

And let’s not forget that when Obama brings Republicans in to hear their suggestions, it’s all just for show. After all, when one Republican questioned Obama’s spending priorities last year, Obama, reading from the same script as Pelosi, replied in classic bipartisan fashion, “I won.”
The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.
But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Then there was this classic bipartisan, reach-across-the-aisle moment from August of last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA

Transcript.
We’ve got some work to do. I don’t mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I’m the president. But I don’t want the folks that created the mess — I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.
I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.

So we have seen what Obama’s “bipartisan” approach before. It amounts to, “I won, so shut up and get out of the way.”
It worked great for him last year. His signature domestic initiative, health care, is dead. Cap and Trade is dead. He lost Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. And that was when he had supermajorities in both houses of Congress.
So while President Obama says he has a new plan for 2010 in which he plans to be bipartisan and shame the Republicans if they oppose his initiatives, that was the same plan as last year and it didn’t work out all that well.
Maybe if he actually meant what he said, he’d have a little better luck.

So how will these "new" attempts at bipartisanship go? Much like they have in the past, I would assume. My guess is that he depended on the supermajority for so long that he didn't really care to keep his promise of bipartisanhip. That this attempt is now following the realization that he no longer has a supermajority, and he must do SOMETHING to keep Dems from dropping like flies. But in the end it'll likely look like every other attempt at "bipartisanship" like the article describes.

However, if he is FINALLY serious about it this time, the I have only a few words about it: what took him so long?

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by absent

I think this article puts this thread into perspective:

So how will these "new" attempts at bipartisanship go? Much like they have in the past, I would assume. My guess is that he depended on the supermajority for so long that he didn't really care to keep his promise of bipartisanhip. That this attempt is now following the realization that he no longer has a supermajority, and he must do SOMETHING to keep Dems from dropping like flies. But in the end it'll likely look like every other attempt at "bipartisanship" like the article describes.

However, if he is FINALLY serious about it this time, the I have only a few words about it: what took him so long?

So long? Bush couldn't do it in 8 years and Obama did it in 1. That seems like a good accomplishment to me.

absent · 02-08-2010, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So long? Bush couldn't do it in 8 years and Obama did it in 1. That seems like a good accomplishment to me.

With all due respect, Bush had a Democratic Congress. I don't see how he could have passed anything without them. On top of that, Bush didn't run on promises of bipartisanship to the extent that Obama did. That was one of Obama's talking points of "change". One would think it would be one of the first things he does when getting into office.

When Obama lost the supermajority, everyone felt like nothing was going to get done. John Stewart does a good job ripping into this notion, as seen in this video.

Transcript:

And the reason it will die … [pauses for effect] … Let’s continue … The reason it will die is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only then have an eighteen-vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate, when he did whatever the f*** he wanted to do! [Applause] In fact, the Democrats have a greater majority than the Republicans have had since 1923! But for Democrats, apparently a majority of 100 is … sixty.

The point is, Bush, in order to pass anything (which he did), had to be bipartisan, rendering your statement false.

If anyone can help me embed the video that would be much appreciated.

Stylerod · 02-08-2010, 05:09 PM

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.

Well, he is doing it reluctantly. He didn't want to do it as proven by his past actions. Also putting up bills before they are signed, he has broken that promise as well. I'm glad he was forced to to do this finally. I hope he posts bills before signing them now too.

stolz25 · 02-08-2010, 05:19 PM

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.

Wow, that's certainly a 180 for you there. This didn't matter at all when it looked like he wasn't going to do it and now it's a screaming success?

You definitely are entertaining.

DosEquis · 02-08-2010, 05:59 PM

I recognize he said one thing and is waffling but when you look at the 'why' its really understandable.

Anything that had to do with democrats was automatically destroying america. There is no room for bipartisan work.

Its like negotiating for a car...and going into the toyota dealer with your fingers in your ears yelling "IT HAS NO BREAKS AND THE GAS STICKS I DONT CARE LALALALALA I WILL ONLY PAY $10,000 for the $30,000 CAR LALALLALA I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY IT WILL DESTROY STOP SIGNS AND MAILBOXES WHEN IT GOES OUT OF CONTROL"

Then expect to leave with a car for your asking price.

absent · 02-08-2010, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I recognize he said one thing and is waffling but when you look at the 'why' its really understandable.

Anything that had to do with democrats was automatically destroying america. There is no room for bipartisan work.

Its like negotiating for a car...and going into the toyota dealer with your fingers in your ears yelling "IT HAS NO BREAKS AND THE GAS STICKS I DONT CARE LALALALALA I WILL ONLY PAY $10,000 for the $30,000 CAR LALALLALA I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY IT WILL DESTROY STOP SIGNS AND MAILBOXES WHEN IT GOES OUT OF CONTROL"

Then expect to leave with a car for your asking price.

Alternatively, the "why" could be seen from a different perspective. Because the Democrats had a supermajority, they took a "may-way-or-the-highway" approach. Naturally, the Republicans would dig their heels in and say "that is no way to negotiate" as it leaves no room for compromise. The Republicans have had an alternative healthcare plan since 2008, with the latest revision just recently coming out. They have been ready and willing to talk since 2008, but only now has the door been open to such discussions.

JaJae · 02-08-2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Wow, that's certainly a 180 for you there. This didn't matter at all when it looked like he wasn't going to do it and now it's a screaming success? You definitely are entertaining.

Right when Obama says and does one thing he is 100% right. The naysayers are just haters.

When Obama admits he was wrong and does the exact opposite he is still right.

So no matter what Obama does, even when he admits he was wrong, he was still right all along.

Stylerod · 02-08-2010, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right when Obama says and does one thing he is 100% right. The naysayers are just haters.

When Obama admits he was wrong and does the exact opposite he is still right.

So no matter what Obama does, even when he admits he was wrong, he was still right all along.

JaJae · 02-08-2010, 07:17 PM

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

Originally Posted by JaJae

As a follow-up to this story, the Democrats have found themselves in a serious pickle here. Pelosi has said she does not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill because of all the concessions in the bill made for Republicans. But when I see the roll call of the vote I see Democrats voting yes. The biggest issue for her personally is the tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans that Obama and other Democrats have promoted for well over a year. With Brown now elected in Massachusetts the Democrats are unable to modify the bill and have it pass in the Senate. They are also unable to pass the current bill sent to them from the Senate.

This leaves the Democrats in a tough spot. They can no longer pass a healthcare bill unless they have some Republican support. And in order to get Republican support they have to actually start giving in to Republicans rather than bribing their own members and blaming the changes on Republicans who didn't vote the bill. The problem with this scenario is that they then can't take full credit for it. Basically, a majority of Americans are so disgruntled with what Democrats are trying to do with healthcare that they would would prefer our government to give up and move on to other issues. Only 30% of voters believe Congress should move forward with healthcare. In actuality, Americans are more concerned about issues involving government expansion, overspending and our economy... basically the "teabagger" mentality. However, the Democrats have spent the past year dismissing such claims are irrelevant.

Democrats are finally starting to wise up to this and they are beginning to address these issues. However, Obama is having a lot of difficulty with his new bank plan, a falling stock market and calls for heads of his economic team to start rolling.

Anyway, back to healthcare. The Democrats are caught in a catch 22 situation right now. They promised Americans healthcare reform and Americans want healthcare reform, they just do not want what the Democrats have been selling. Now that Brown has been elected the Democrats are forced to step back and work with Republicans to "fix" the bill in order to get it to pass. However, if they make changes to bill to get Republicans on board they know its popularity among Americans may surge in support. Republicans will only get on board if the current bill is scraped entirely and new reform is created from the ground up. If this happens, come November elections the Republicans will eat the Democrats alive. The Republicans simply have to say "We saved you from the Democrats trying to force shitty healthcare reform on you and provided you with a decent bill. Vote for us." Meanwhile the Democrats are left sitting on a year's worth of unethical, non-transparent and blatantly foul behavior pushing an agenda that has been rejected by the American public. However, if they don't pass a bill they have nothing positive to show for the past year. They put the economy on hold, they're expanding the wars in the Middle East and Americans are no better off than they were before Democrats won in 08. Those aren't things that will convince independents to vote for a D over an R. They want improvement in the economy, they want smaller government and if both parties are expanding overseas war it leaves them with nothing holding them to the Democratic party. Americans voted for change in 08, and they'll likely do the same later this year.

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.

DosEquis · 02-08-2010, 08:10 PM

Or they want to scrap it to have this take even longer and drag it out beyond the political will to do anything healthcare related.

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Wow, that's certainly a 180 for you there. This didn't matter at all when it looked like he wasn't going to do it and now it's a screaming success? You definitely are entertaining.

Well I am glad you even get why I am posting it. I think the whole "I'll put it on CSPAN" promise was stupid and who gives a fuck? But people that LOVE to attack him about every little fucking thing now need to accept that as a promise kept and move the fuck on. Period. This isn't about me...it's about the haters.

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right when Obama says and does one thing he is 100% right. The naysayers are just haters.

When Obama admits he was wrong and does the exact opposite he is still right.

So no matter what Obama does, even when he admits he was wrong, he was still right all along.

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.

Donkey® · 02-08-2010, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by absent

With all due respect, Bush had a Democratic Congress. I don't see how he could have passed anything without them. On top of that, Bush didn't run on promises of bipartisanship to the extent that Obama did. That was one of Obama's talking points of "change". One would think it would be one of the first things he does when getting into office.

When Obama lost the supermajority, everyone felt like nothing was going to get done. John Stewart does a good job ripping into this notion, as seen in this video.

Transcript:

The point is, Bush, in order to pass anything (which he did), had to be bipartisan, rendering your statement false.

If anyone can help me embed the video that would be much appreciated.

So you're acknowledging the fact that not only is Obama fighting the do nothing Republicans....he's fighting the "do what we want" Democrats at the same time? Glad to know we agree.