TPMDC
Obama To GOP On Health Care Summit: Come Here In Good Faith
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
President Obama used his weekly address to the nation to ask members of Congress to "move forward together" on health care reform after his White House summit next week.
"We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system. We know where the broad areas of agreement are. And we know where the sources of disagreement lie," Obama said.
"After debating this issue exhaustively for a year, let's move forward together. Next week is our chance to finally reform our health insurance system so it works for families and small businesses. It's our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they'll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most," he said.
Citing the rate hikes proposed by Anthem Blue Cross and the new report showing more increases are expected across the country, Obama called on Democrats and Republicans to do something about it.
"That's what the future is on track to look like. But it's not what the future has to look like," he said.
Read the address in full here or watch below.
Late Update: Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) gave the Republican address today, which also focused on health care.
He said:
Americans are demanding that President Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress scrap their misguided plan of a government takeover of health care. They don't want a 2,000-page bill that threatens jobs and drives up health premiums; they already have enough challenges to deal with in their daily lives. They want Washington to start over with a step-by-step approach to health care reform that begins with reducing costs and ensures they can keep their current plan if they like it.
And more:
Just as important, Republicans get the job done without cutting Medicare, without raising taxes, and without piling more debt on our kids and grandkids. All the details of our plan are available at healthcare.gop.gov.Republicans remain ready to discuss these ideas with President Obama and move forward in a bipartisan way to lower health care costs.
Watch:
Comments (137) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
shooter242
February 20, 2010 9:54 AM
Considering that the premium hikes are largely driven by Government regulation, that's not such a good argument.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069833643345608.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 20, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to shooter242
Nope they are not. If that was the case it wouldn't explain by Wellpoint made $2.7 billion in profits in the last quarter. If it was just be regulation then these companies shouldn't have ANY profit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
February 20, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to Maritza
Which part of losing money in California are you not understanding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sTiVo
February 20, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to shooter242
They're losing money?
Boo fucking hoo. Let them go out of business. Isn't that what you free-marketeers always are calling for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to sTiVo
Yes -- but they don't actually mean it. If Democrats are in control, and they bail out such as GM, they'll stupidly bawl and holler about "so-shul-ism" -- but take the money and run.
Show them a profitable lie, and they'll whore for it publicly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
February 20, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to shooter242
wow, then they really must be bending over people in other states, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnitaBee
February 20, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to shooter242
Shooter, Wellpoint, parent company of Anthem Blue Cross, is NOT losing money.It had record profits last year.
As you'd find if you ran the numbers, four of the five major health insurers had record profits last year.
Now you can certainly find pockets where receipts were either higher or lower and surely they did better in states where the regulations were toothless or nonexistent. But Wellpoint spreads its risk across a huge pool of insureds (that's what insurance is about, remember), and it's making record profits.
Other insurers raking in record profits include: United Health ($3.8 billion); Cigna ($1.3 billion); Humana ($1 billion).
The only major insurer who didn't increase profits to record highs last year is Aetna, which saw profit decline 8 percent to a still, very healthy $1.28 billion.
We're talking profit in all the above, not net income.
And how do four out of five of the major health insurers enjoy record profits during the deepest recession since the Great Depression? Answer that one for yourself, Shooter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to AnitaBee
AnitaBee, you are correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to AnitaBee
He's frantically searching WSJ editorial pages for the answer. Meanwhile cue the music from Jepardy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 20, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to expat46
You'd think, though, it wouldn't take too overly long to find a comforting false "fact" in that propaganda/groupthink/cheerlearding venue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 20, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to shooter242
But overall they are GAINING HUGE PROFITS so they afford to lose a little money in one state if they overall are making HUGE profits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 20, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to shooter242
This is what I do not understand about the wingnuts. They are soooooo concerned and worried about making sure companies make obscene profits. Why? What positive impact on people or society does the fact that an insurance company is making obscene profits. That means they are taking more money from families. Why is that a good thing? I don't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 20, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to Michael A
Well, some might say it depends on the company and what they do with the profits.
Without profits--or at least the theoretical possibility of making one someday--no one would make or sell cars or grow food beyond that necessary for their own means or do a lot of other socially useful things. And, likewise, if profit is banned, all you do is drive the free market into the criminal underground and out of reach of regulation or social pressure. That's why the dividing line between business and criminal conspiracy is so thin in Russia even today.
However, the health insurance market, like a lot of insurance markets, is such that non-profits do at least as good a job, and usually a better one, than the for-profits. Even the bloated evil nonprofits like Bleu Cross-Blue Shield of North Carolina do a better job than for-profit insurers by any measure you care to look at. And if they weren't competing with the Anthems of the world, they'd do better still. (If only because a lot of their excuses for being evil would vanish.)
To a conservative, however, a for-profit private enterprise company will always do a better job in every respect than government or a non-profit and the thought that they might be deprived of profit is abhorrent to them. Like most of their beliefs, empericism doesn't enter into it. Their faith tells them it must be so, so it is so.
But then, in fairness, there are also a certain number of Progressives who seem to lay awake at night tormenting themselves with the fear that someone, somewhere is making a profit and who would explicitly say they'd rather see millions go with no insurance than risk enriching a for-profit insurer. (Which is why they have to soothe their consciences with the demonstrably false yet pervasive myth that for-profit insurers never pay out on any claims ever, so their insurance is "worthless." )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 20, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Oh, I don't think anyone is against a company making profits. That's not the point. The point is why all the handwringing to make sure a company makes obscene profits at the expense of people and workers. That is the problem.
Blue cross and blue shield are "non-profit" in name only. The government does a better job than the private sector in many areas, including insurance, see medicare.
The government being more inefficient, and thus more costly, than the private sector is a myth. The "privatization" of government services has ratified that myth. I remember reading a CBO study a few years ago where they compared auditing functions between the private sector and government auditors for a department. The private sector auditing cost 5 times more than having a government worker do it.
Part of the problem, notwithstanding the no-bid issue, is that there really is no competition in many sectors of our economy. None. The huge combinations in businesses over the last 30 years has destroyed any competition. There is none in banking and accounting for instance. There are not enough players to create competition. The mentality of the companies is f you, you don't like it go elsewhere and there is nowhere else to go, so there is no competition.
Of course the concept of capitalism, which we do not technically have, is that monopolies will fail due to competition over time, which can take decades. Problem with that is that as opposed to the government regulating industries and leveling the playing field to foment competition, the government has been coopted in many sectors of the economy by lobbying and ownership of the regulatory agencies by the industries. The government protects the monopolies, as opposed to keeping their feet to the fire and breaking them up. If there were true competition, then the private sector in theory might be more efficient than the government, but their isn't true competition, so it is a myth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to Michael A
There's your oligarchic fascism right there. Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
February 21, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to Michael A
In addition, even Republicans don't really believe the private sector is more effective than government. Look at airport security. When the government got nervous about airport security they took over the whole industry and federalized all the workers. Obviously they thought big government was going to be more effective. I don't remember anyone hollering about socialism then.
The GOP loves big government, as long as they are running it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 20, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to Michael A
While you're at it, you might ask why wingers are terribly worried that tax rates remain artificially low (thus breaking the budget) for the fabulously wealthy -- who couldn't give a monkey's toss if a given winger died an excruciating death this very night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
They're all wealthy in their dreams. Corporations create and sell those dreams to keep the sheeple down. Best thing they ever did was create free TV to advertise their corporate propaganda into the sheeple's home every single day. "You, too, can be a billionaire!" And the sheeple believe it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 21, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Seems exactly so, Cal Girl. Sheeple reason -- "wait, what if I become a billionaire like I want? What, they're to *tax* me??!! Don't seem right!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 21, 2010 2:11 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Part of the "american dream", another myth. Sure there are a handful of people not born into wealth and privilege that get lucky. You have a better shot at getting struck by lightening or hitting the lottery than you have at experiencing the "american dream." However, the propoganda and myth are promoted by the upper class to keep the rest of us slaving away for their wealth a privilege. It really is disgusting when analyzed. All bullsh*t.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
February 21, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Michael A
That's just bunk. There is an American Dream, you can get a decent education and work hard and make it here better than plenty of other places. We still have one of if not the best public university system for example. Denying that is just obnoxious.
We're on the blog of someone who made it. I know plenty of ppl who grew up poor, many immigrants, who got top notch educations are are now making a good living and happy.
Yes they get screwed on their insurance, would like to see the economy in better shape, are tired of companies picking their pockets, etc.
But it's not that America lacks opportunity or meritocracy. It's just that there's too much concentration of power and wealth at the top by ill gotten means, such as corruption, monopoly, etc. That's a subtle but very important distinction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MichaelG1986
February 20, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to shooter242
They're losing money because they're in an insurance death spiral. In a bad economy, healthy people drop out of the individual health insurance market - they decide to risk it for the sake of saving money (maybe even money they don't have). That leaves a higher ratio of sicker people on their books - with resulting higher costs. The insurance companies raise premiums and the same thing happens, etc. A death spiral.
You need some way to keep healthier people on the insurance rolls. If only someone had a plan to do that....(snark)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
February 20, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to shooter242
Are there any of the Senators or congress people on the right side of the aisle that can define ' good faith'! Past years behavior seems to indicate not!
This will be a turning point following the CPAC fiasco..A wealth of talking points coming out of the group!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
February 20, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to shooter242
What part of "creative accounting" are you not understanding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrookJolley
February 21, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to shooter242
I'm not understanding the part where they aren't losing money at all, they just didn't think the % of profits was high enough. That was the reason for the rate hike.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
February 20, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to shooter242
you sure, shooter? maybe it's the estate tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeW67
February 20, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to benjoya
It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. It's wrong to expect small business to absorb exorbitant insurance costs also.
GOP cannards about "over-regulation", hold up about as well as they do on the mortgage crisis.
...hey, while the GOP was in total power 2001-06, why a few minority Democrats see, made banks loan to the poor and those handfull of loans were the whole collapse! ;^)
Today's GOP: Must be over 18 and a complete moron...
Balkingpoints.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
February 20, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to shooter242
Shooter knows the reason the United States has the highest per capita health care costs in the world and some of the worst health outcomes is too much government control over the for-profits and their hedge fund fat cat owners on Wall Street.
European countries and Australia/NZ with universal coverage get better health results for less cost because with more socialist governments they believe health care should be run by the private sector and for profit, letting the free market run loose and unregulated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
February 20, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
Shooter is so smart. A Rush Puppy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 20, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
Shooter? More like Shitter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
February 20, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I was thinking more like "tool".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 20, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to CityGuy
Wow...not even a wink of self respect. People that fucking pig ignorant just dont know when to give up. And that BS default of enjoying pissing people off and smiling as they get angry is full on asshole/brat thinking. I think he's the love baby of Sailordouchekit and Silence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 20, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Peashooter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
February 20, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 20, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to shooter242
"Considering that the premium hikes are largely driven by Government regulation, that's not such a good argument."
Yeah, premium hikes wouldn't have anything to do with MAKING MONEY!!! WTF?
After all, that's what capitalism is all about - making as much money as possible. People don't set a price to be "fair", they set a price as high as the market will bear. You lower prices if your customers stop paying or competitors underprice you.
Health cos are price gouging and you know it. We've had 30-40 years of govt DEREGULATION of the health industry, and prices have only gone up. At some point, the argument that govts are distorting the markets is ridiculous. How many decades should we give you clowns to let Mr. Market make it work??? All we get are failures upon failure, and excuse after excuse.
Meanwhile, Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe .... all have more affordable care and spend less of GDP to get equivalent or better care. We're up to 16% GDP, where as Britain is like 11%. The numbers don't lie -- this is pure and utter failure even looked at purely in fiscal terms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 20, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Wait, wait a minute. Shooter is absolutely right. Without regulations, insurance companies wouldn't have to pay claims for all these sick people. They could just drop everyone when they got sick or deny the claims and pocket all the premiums. So, regulation does cost them profits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to cawleybo
But not for long. After a while (years probably) there would be no one left to pay premiums!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Shreiner
February 20, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to shooter242
If you bothered to read your own link you would see that it is the State of California that regulates their insurance rates, not the federal government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to Rick Shreiner
Many if not all states regulate the insurance monopolies. Our system of law is based upon balancing the interests between interested parties: you get to have a monopoly, We the people get to regulate your ass to prevent you being the only unregulated game in town.
ShitheadX2 doesn't believe the majority has the right to protect itself from money crimes committed by a minority.
I suspect ShitheadX2 is in the same predicament as everyone else vis-a-vis the Federally-subsidized insurance monopoly, becasue he deludes himself he can bullshit them by spewing mmemorized cliches that are contrary to reality and reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
subzer0epsil0n
February 20, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to Rick Shreiner
Actually the proposed Anthem hike is generating quite a stir in Sacramento since the insurance commissioner (IC) of California does not regular health insurance rates. According to state law, the IC only has authority to regulate premiums related to auto, property and casualty policies as directed in Proposition 103 (1988), which established the statewide-elected office of Insurance Commissioner. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0500-about-us/0500-organization/0400-rate-regulation/
With regard to health insurance, the IC has investigative authority only when the ratio of premium dollars to claim payments drops below 70 percent.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-16/opinion/17889327_1_health-insurance-premiums-property-insurance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:09 PM in reply to Rick Shreiner
Um, no. California does NOT regulate health insurance rates (though the Mall Stree Journal may think we do). That's part of the problem. Our only "regulation" is that 70% of premiums must go to provide health care. Not sure HOW our ReThuglican Insurance Commissioner is going to interpret that.
I'm betting one of the few things less popular than the "2,000 page health bill" is health insurance companies.
BTW, how many pages in the Pentagon budget?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 20, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to shooter242
Premium hikes are kept in check by government regulation, not driven by it. Either you're a liar or a fool, shooter. You choose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
February 20, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to EastWest
He is both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to farnsworth
ShitheadX2 is too stupid to be even stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Derek Stodghill
February 20, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to shooter242
That's because government regulation forces companies to ensure sick people. If insurance companies weren't forced by regulation to cover sick customers and only covered healthy ones, they would make even more profit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to shooter242
It's gov't regulation that PREVENTS such increases.
You have it ass-backward. You must re a reincarnation of Ronnie Reagan after the onset of Alzheimer's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to shooter242
Clue, stupid asshole:
It isn't regulators, or the medical malpractice bar, that raises insurance rates. It is the insurance monopoly that raises the rates.
Now lecture us about the following:
1. Republicans are the party of responsibility; and,
2. No right, including that of profiting off the misery of the vast majority of We the people, can have any limits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluemeanie
February 20, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to shooter242
By its own assessment, Anthem's rate increase are driven by a loss of healthy people from the insurance pool. It has nothing to do with regulation. It's anti-selection.
Ironically, of course, raising rates will cause more good risks to bail on Anthem. Unless something happens to reverse the trend, it becomes self-perpetuating - a death spiral. It's the way the business works, and the less-obvious reason insurance companies favor mandatory coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:13 PM in reply to bluemeanie
Could be that these rate hikes (not price fixing, no) are a stealth move to get people to urge Congress to pass the bill.
Because then people would HAVE to buy insurance, and the healthy would come back into the system.
Of course, they'd still reap massive profits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluemeanie
February 20, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Health insurance is in fact not a particularly profitable industry. That is not to say that health insurers to return a good profit; they do. They're just middling performers compared to other sectors.
The bizarre timing of the rate increases suggests to me that they're coming from actuarial departments, not lobbying offices. Other than universal coverage, the industry is strongly opposed to the reforms in both the Senate and House bills. It is interesting to me that the "consumer-driven" proposals favored by conservatives would likely exacerbate the anti-selection problem and accelerate the death spiral.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
February 20, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to shooter242
"Considering that the premium hikes are largely driven by Government regulation, that's not such a good argument.
. . . .
Which part of losing money in California are you not understanding?"
So now the GOP mantra adds one more item to its list of:
Hot is Cold
War is Peace
Losing is Winning
Worse is Better
Bad is Good
Up is Down
Big is Small
More is Less
Quitting is Fighting (Palin)
. . . and now, the new entry to the GOP lexicon . . .
Record Profits is Losing Money
This is rich; Dave Camp describing a Democratic bill on health care reform as being a massive unfunded bill.
These Reprobates know no bounds to their mendacity and they have abject amnesia when it comes to their own legislative actions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
February 21, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to FreemanW
don't forget: a 3% increase is is "gutting" the defense budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
February 21, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to shooter242
Leave it to shooter. Whatever BS is on the web he'll find it and cite it as fact!
First of all, the article cites COBRA as the evil gov'ment regulation that's hurting CA insurers. Nonsense. Typical amoral WSJ laissez faire blather.
COBRA is a national program. COBRA allows people who lose their job to buy into the same heath insurance they got from work, out of their own pocket. It's supposed to be revenue neutral for insurers as they have the same person insured as before, paying the same amount.
The only reason insurers are against things like COBRA is because they prefer having any and all opportunities to cherry pick the market! i.e. charge people for more insurance while they're healthier and don't need it, then denying them coverage when they do need it. Cherry picking is a major source of profit in the insurance industry and job turnover is a great time to screw people from insurer's perspective.
Secondly, CA is have problems disproportionately due to the economy: the collapses of the housing and finance bubbles, not to mention ENRON raping the state on energy.
All of which were created directly due to deregulation! Housing and finance bubbles were created due to deregulation of banking/investment practices. ENRON was created directly due to deregulation of energy markets. All of which received majority laissez faire ideology, Republican votes.
So it's especially moronic for laissez faire Republican types at WSJ to be calling for more deregulation now and citing CA. Obnoxious!
Lastly, the main reason healthcare insurance is so expensive is because the insurance industry is so inefficient and most markets across the country are defacto monopolies or duopolies, so insurers have no incentive to be more efficient. Actually they have incentive to be more inefficient, because the greater their costs the more overhead and ultimately profit they can justify.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 21, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to shooter242
This is the usual ass-backward and upside-down pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rant --
It is the existence of prisons the creates criminals, rather than criminals pre-existing society's awareness that it needs prisons by means of which to separate them out from the law-abiding.
It is the simpleton's view that, if everything were legal, then nothing would be illegal. Duh!
It's corollary that were everything legal, and nothing illegal, everyone would suddenly adopt a perfect individual responsibility.
As if the human race didn't try that, at the very beginning, and learn the hard way that that delusion does not under any circumstances become the reality.
But were that the reality -- everything legal, therefore nothing illegal -- they'd demand the establishment of gov't, and then lobby for the enacting of criminal laws and penalties, and prisons, the moment their daughter were raped.
There's a recommended PBS series -- "Justice" -- which is essentially a Harvard law school class in which the relevant philosophical views are discussed. The class takes place in a very large lecture hall stuffed with at least several hundred students.
The latest I saw contrasted utilitarianism, and Locke, with "libertarianism". Out of all those classmates, only at most five held the "libertarian" -- absolutist -- position. And three of those allowed for some "coercion" in behalf of the greater good.
If the "libertarian" pseudo-philosophy made sense to other than greedy sociopaths, one would certainly see it being at least as popular as greedy "libertarian" sociopaths falsely insist it is.
That series is worth watching, expecially, for those who've never been to university yet swallow the view that the professors "preach" "Liberalism" (and "so-shul-ism"?), and minority views are suppressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
February 20, 2010 9:55 AM
Right, by all means Mr. President, sit and chat a while longer with a bunch of people who have every intention of simply voting NO on anything you propose.
Good fucking grief, haven't you figured it out already? These people are a waste of time. They were a waste last spring and summer before this whole "shouting at the townhall" things ever began, and they are still a waste now. Fuck the Reeps, fuck the teabaggers, nobody gives a shit about them except a handful of cable news outlets. But even they will stop paying attention to them if YOU SACK UP and stop waiting around for all these Senate ditherers to get their acts together and tell them what you want and when you want it.
You're the President, remember? Stop acting like a Senator and lead!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwp
February 20, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to psyclone
Agreed..As Bill Maher says act more like George Bush(obviously only as it relates to toughness) and be firmer for god sakes already..Its like the boy who cried wolf already--get your party in line and push forward your agenda or move to the side..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 20, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to psyclone
I actually think that he is leading for the first time on this topic. He will have the summit and see if Republicans want to participate for the last time. Then as we know they won't, a bill has already been written that can pass via reconciliation and according to WSJ, the Senate believes that they have the 50 votes needed to do reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
February 20, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to Maritza
Yes, that televised meeting will provide plenty of TV commercials for Dems to challange Repub incumbants. I can see "gridlock" and "party of NO" and "obtuse" being used a lot this fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Maritza
I'm with you Maritza. I think that after this summit the polls will swing heavily in favor of reform. However, a mandate without a public option is awful bitter pill. The house should fix the bill, include a public option and send it to the Senate. No reconciliation necessary.
Let them filibuster, Mr. Smith style for 56 days if that's what it takes. While they're doing it the Dems need to hold press conference after press conference, an anti-filibuster if you will, on the steps of the capital for as long the filibuster goes on. What's the risk? If the damn thing fails the insurance death spiral mentioned above will force action eventually.
Then move on to financial reform just in time for election season.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
February 20, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to psyclone
Absolutely!
Well said. The truth is that if Obama were to support a huge batch of tax cuts for the rich, the Republicans would still oppose him. Their No. 1 goal is to defeat anything that Obama backs regardless of the cost to the country.
My only hope is that Obama does get it and he's using this health care summit dog and pony show as political cover so the country can watch the Rethugs say "no" one last time. Then the Dems should pass health care through reconciliation and include the public option while they're at it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to psyclone
He has obviously "figured it out". He isn't stupid, asshole.
Grow up --
There're more ways to lead than by the constant demanded authoritarian Strong Leader -- to which you object when the Strong Leader is a Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 20, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to psyclone
I love it when people talk like they're smarter and more politically savvy than Obama is based upon an a degree of literalism when interpreting his statements and actions that would cause a six year old to roll his eyes at their naivete.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
February 20, 2010 10:08 AM
"Obama To GOP On Health Care Summit: Come Here In Good Faith;" have the gop changed from "we want you to fail," and i just didn't notice? while there obviously is a disconnect from his words to his actions, even president obama surely can see what the gop is doing (and as clearly stated at the CPAC will continue to do because politically they are being rewarded) so the question is, what is going on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
February 20, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to sbv
is all this, just a ploy to give cover to the democrats when they are forced to get something done, anything done, by reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to sbv
No, it's not JUST a ploy. But it is a necessary step of good faith on the part of the post-partisan Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Including minority voices with whom we disagree is an important Democratic Party principle. Perhaps most importantly, it allows independent voters yet another opportunity to see Democrats making overtures to include the GOP. When the GOP fails to bring any good ideas, we will see what Obama said in 2008 - the GOP is out of ideas and they are on the wrong side of history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
February 20, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to benintn
well said and i agree; however why is it then: if the inside-the-beltway cw espoused by the politically motivated pundits and the ginned up polls, the all important independents want the two parties to work together, the "we want you to fail" party of nope is winning?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 20, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to sbv
That's a really good point. The reason that the "Party of No" is going to retake both houses of Congress this fall (my humble opinion) is because they have successfully trashed Obama and the Democrats' plans -- on everything. Stimulus, health care, banking reform, cap and trade: all these and more are now disapproved of by the voters as bad legislation and harmful to the nation.
So, when you, the Party of No, are actively, relentlessly, successfully stopping someone from doing harm to the nation, the voters are going to thank you for it.
I know I would have thanked the Democrats for stopping George Bush, but that's not what Democrats do. If they're the party of anything, it's "We're Sorry We Upset You."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Chisholm
How exactly is this doing harm to the nation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 20, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to expat46
It's not. But Republicans have decried and vilified health care reform -- and the rest of the Democratic agenda -- so successfully that majorities now believe them.
Therefore, now that the Republicans have convinced Americans that the Obama plan sucks, people are thanking the Republicans for blocking it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 9:50 PM in reply to Chisholm
Sorry Chisholm, for second there I thought you were making that argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to Chisholm
And don't forget the breadth and depth of racism in this country. The tea baggers have a visceral hate of Obama because he appears to be black.
They want their country back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:24 PM in reply to Chisholm
Sounds kind of Canadian to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 20, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to sbv
Because those folks are so used to measuring things in the metrics of unilateralism and zero sum gaming the system (I win, you lose) that they still don't know what to make of someone who really tries to proceed on a path of directed consensus and is trying to change the political culture. Remember how those same folks thought Obama was too passive in responding to attacks in the primaries and the general? Just like the same people screaming here that he has to "get tough" those commenters didn't think beyond the immediate desire to go on offense to the overall strategy and reality that he has to try and govern for at least four years, not just pass one bill.
I do believe that Obama has made miscalculations at times on how willing the GOP is to act against the country's interest for short term political gains, and to be utterly duplicitous in their messaging. Like how they thank him profusely for speaking to their meetings, then go out and villify him publicly. Still, he's not stupid or weak - he just is thinking in a different timescale than folks in DC are used to.
FDR, by the way, took years to pass many of what we now consider key pieces of legislation (like Social Security and unemployment insurance, passed several years into his administration). That's because he had to first address an economic crises, deal with an unpopular and unduly conservative Supreme Court that struck down many of his first efforts, and wrestle with internal divisions among Democrats between liberals and conservatives (mainly southerners who today would be core GOP types). Sound at all familiar? And he didn't have two wars to deal with but did have much bigger majorities in both houses of Congrss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fleetlord Atvar
February 20, 2010 9:04 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
I agree with the general spirit of your remarks. I hold in especial contempt the complaints that Obama is some how too "professorial" or "cerebral" that you hear from some sectors of the media these days. For the last eight years, people complained about knee-jerk reactions and gut instinct. Now we're hearing the diametric opposite. That said, I do think Obama has made concession after concession, at the expense of his own base sometimes, and every open hand he has extended has been slapped away. Being willing to reconcile with your opponents is naturally a good thing in this system, but if your opponents are absolutely fanatical in their resistance, how much good can not striking back really do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to sbv
Well, a majority of Americans oppose the Senate bill and the House bill. That's mostly because, instead of talking about the important reforms in each bill, the conversation has been dominated by what is NOT in the bill ... public option being chief among them. About half of the bills' opponents think that the reform doesn't go far enough. Half of the opponents just don't want reform at all, or don't know anything about the bills.
You also have to remember who pays the bills for the CW mainstream media. It's the oil and gas companies, the drug companies, Walmart, and other well-funded business groups that are united in opposition to the President's agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 20, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to sbv
You make it sound like the use of reconciliation is only the result of failure, and something to be ashamed of. Bush used it plenty and was reelected. No one gives a shit about reconciliation. That's been Obama's greatest miscalculation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 20, 2010 10:14 AM
Get this thing done already. I am tired of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 20, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to Maritza
Cosign. I was tired of this 6 months ago. 6 months wasted on yapping, whining, complaining, distorting, lying and we are at the exact same place we were 6 months ago. Get it done already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to Michael A
I cosign your cosign. I know far more about this shit than I ever wanted to. If I had to deal in these arcane policy details day in and day out I'd don the dress blues and put an exit wound in the back of head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to expat46
The House passing the damn Senate bill is always there as a fall-back position.
Might as well try to get a better bill until after the November elections, if necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 10:14 AM
I was just thinking about this last night. GOP has been saying "Slow down" for a year. Now they're saying, "Start over." What more do we need to discuss? Obama is right - we need healthcare reform. We need it now. And every day we wait, we run out of options.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 20, 2010 10:37 AM
Next headline I expect to see:
"Republicans completely reject Obama proposals - tell him to 'drop dead'"
Obama responds "Let's work together"
We're all stuck in a play by Sam Beckett.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 20, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to theWalrus
Endgame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 20, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to theWalrus
I'd like to think its more like we are in something out of "Parenthood" where the modern dad, Obama, is trying to teach his selfish little brat (the GOP) that they can't always get what they want, but if they stop yealling and screaming and start playing well with others they can eventually get something they like.
It isn't that he doesn't realize that smacking the kid would feel good, and maybe even get them to shut up for now, its just that he doesn't want to resort to anything he doesn't have to. Plus in this case he's really trying to correct ingrained bad behavior, so he's trying to be extra careful. So he gives them every chance he can, but when its clear they won't play nice/can't stop themselves from acting inappropriately, he'll reward the children who do play nice (Dems) and cut out the fit thrower (by passing the bill through reconciliation).
At least, that's what I hope is going on. He and Michelle seem to know something about dealing with kids, based on what we have seen of Sasha and Malia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 20, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to calbearinillinois
I seriously doubt all the recent talk about reconciliation will amount to anything. The rightwing will ramp up the propaganda and demonization and the Dems will cave. That's the pattern. I'm more concerned about this "ingrained bad behavior" of the Dems.
Real leadership depends on having a sober, realistic view of the world around you and taking appropriate actions based on that. I just don't see that coming from Obama. Seeing this as a parent/child relationship is simplistic and dangerous. The rightwing forces in the U.S. are out to destroy Obama and the Democratic Party. They are planting the seeds for a Civil War.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 20, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to theWalrus
It is a long way from a sober calculation to claim the GOP is seeking or even inadvertantly seeding a civil war. While there are very disturbing extremists in the Tea Party and related movements, they represent a tiny faction. In almost every age, from the Whiskey Rebellion on, we've had such people. In the 1930s they included Father Flanagan and his very popular facist supporting radio broadcasts and the Fortress America crowd. In the 1950s it was the McCarthyites, in the 60s Gov. Wallace and the die hard segregationists, in the 70s and 80s the Lyndon LaRouche libertarians, the Freeman movemant, White Aryan Resistance, in the 90s the various militias that eventually gave rise to Ruby Ridge and the OKC bombing, as well as the Koresh followers. Those people, while individually violent and dangerous, did not then and do not now pose an existential threat to America. Only the massive incongruity of slavery, an issue that simmered for 80 years before finally reaching a head, could. The GOP doesn't have a core issue they'd split the country over or reject the Federal government - they just want to oppose everything the Dems do on principle in the hope of regaining power over the government.
I'd suggest you take your own advice, rather than leaping to a conclusion that just isn't supportable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 20, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
You don't view Dick Cheney as a "disturbing extremist"??
The National Socialists began as a "tiny faction" and within a few short years...well we all know what happened. OK, these teabaggers may be small in numbers and perceived as "fringy" right now but they are the uncensored voice of those "disturbing extremists" that occupied the WH from 2000-2008 and steered the country in a tragic, horrible direction. The toothpaste has been squeezed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KennyBoy
February 20, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Father Flanagan started BoysTown and was a pretty good guy. Father Coughlin was the Rush Limbaugh of the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to theWalrus
The effort to plant seeds for a civil war began at latest in the latest 1980s. If you're only seeing that effort now, then you are behind the times by several decades.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 21, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to JNagarya
Of course, I understand that and am well aware of it. I was just responding to the other poster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raiatean
February 20, 2010 10:48 AM
Yeppers Shooter, bawling over the poor, downtrodden, for profit health care insurers. Those very same companies who bankrolled the lobbyists, the teabaggers and the Senate and the House. Let the effing cards fall where they may. If Government regulation were the cause of the rate increases, why wouldn't these very same bastions of capitalism be shouting that from the rooftops? They spew their bullshit on everything else. I would dearly love to see those sons of bitches jumping out of their top floor corner offices when their world comes to an end.
As far as futility goes, I think that President Obama needs to put on a chain mail glove and give the Repigliklanns a good dental massage. The only reaching across the aisle I would be doing is to rip off arms and beat the bastards to death with them.
I believe that it's time that the Democratic Party went Viking. Nothing like a little Search and Destroy to get the Bullies attention and even might make them (the survivors), a wee tad more attentive to the problems that they have caused over the past 50 years or so.
Just this old Chief's 2¢
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NuttyProf
February 20, 2010 11:49 AM
I wonder if our President is going to be a one-termer, like Cheney says. Is it too early to tell?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SavannahGA
February 20, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to NuttyProf
Not too early to tell at all- PBO still, still, still calling for/expecting somehow the Repubs to bargain in good faith? In this political climate? And the predictable result of same?
Yeah, one lousy PBO term before the Grand Old Nutter Party takes over & drags all the lowly citizens they don't agree with into their special economic hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to SavannahGA
At this point, I'm not sure I'm entirely against finishing this thing off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to SavannahGA
Only problem, they have to come up with a credible candidate, and with their purity test and with them driving all the "moderates" out of their party, I don't see who they can nominate who would have a chance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 20, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to NuttyProf
Way too early. Ronald Reagan at this point in his presidency had approval ratings in the 30s and there were articles written about him being a one term president yet Reagan is heraled as one of the great Republican presidents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 20, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to Maritza
He sucked though, but Republicans dont live in reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 20, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to musgrove
He was also a draft-dodging war-mongerer who got hundreds of marines killed then turned tail and ran.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 20, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to NuttyProf
Well given Cheney's track record on being correct then Obama should be just fine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
February 20, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to NuttyProf
No Nutty, it's not to early to tell. We just have to wait a week. Next Friday it will be obvious; the train wreck will begin and Mr. Audacity and the rest of us will all be out of hope. Would love to be wrong but he's (POTUS) going to turn this into a classic clusterfuck, legislation so convoluted, messages so full of cross currents, politicians caught in a free-fire zone, public sausage-making at it's finest, and once it goes off the rails the mad hatters (Tan Man & Co) will be .... well you never know what there going to do, so by next Friday the only thing that can save HCR (and the Dems) will be if the progressive coalition takes a stand and tells the rest of the running scared wimps that they will blow up the whole effing thing if they don't get legislation they can live with. Otherwise it will be every pol for him/her self come November and every wannabe challenger to the Pres and every potential 3rd party possibility ritual will begin. Throw in Palin and the Repubs and it will be a classic "what a long strange trip it's been".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 20, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Cornelius
Cheese and farging rice. I'd hate to share a foxhole with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 20, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to NuttyProf
Of Course It Is!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 12:04 PM
Barack, if they ask you to go camping....say no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
doggie daddy
February 20, 2010 12:04 PM
Come here in good faith?
Tsk tsk, BHO shouldn't bite the hand that slaps him.
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me.
But what about the 58th time??
Grow a spine and do some work without your 'friends across the aisle'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
February 20, 2010 12:40 PM
Ins. Co's argument...
We don't profit as much as Yahoo.
As long as they can confuse health care with other businesses, they think they got an argument. This is not like selling widgets or any other services. This is human beings health and lives their trafficking in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
February 20, 2010 12:42 PM
Hahaha, you can't make up hypocrisy this naked. Come in good faith? This from a guy who is preparing a bill for reconciliation and from a leader of party that is preparing its own bills in advance of this "summit" that have no GOP support.
What hypocritical nonsense is he going to pull next? The only thing that could be more hypocritical is if he were to go to a Democratic fundraiser and chastise politicians for blaming others for their problems, but given the fact all he does is blame Bush for everything, surely he wouldn't be that hypocritical. Oh, wait...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 20, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to masanf
Repukes hypocrisy has been blatantly naked for at least the last 9 years and it wasn't made up. Where have you been? Living under a rock?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 20, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Michael A
Under a rock? This troll has had his head so far up his ass he has gills by now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to masanf
Obama is a Democrat. He won over the Republican.
Just because he's willing to work across the aisle doesn't mean he needs to give up on his principles.
It is entirely possible to take new ideas into account and consider them.
In reality, here's the problem: The GOP plan for healthcare reform - the most popular plan written by Tom Price (R-GA) would leave 52 million Americans without insurance. And at the same time you've got the GOP talking out of one side of their mouth about protecting Medicare, they're talking out of the other side of their mouth (Paul Ryan, sponsored by others) about cutting Medicare and Social Security.
The GOP should bring their best ideas, hold them up to the light, and try to show the American people that their ideas are superior.
So far, all they've done is complain about the other side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to benintn
Uhhhh, you haven't been paying attention. They've shown their ideas....tax cuts and tax credits. Have they ever offered anything else....or you're being disingenuous?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Look up Tom Price's plan. Look up the CBO report on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to benintn
I'm not doing your work. Give a brief summary. I'm not Barack Obama, I assume from jump street that you're being disingenuous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Oh, and we shouldn't forget tort reform, that great red herring from the Red States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to masanf
Remember when the Repukes in Congress wouldn't even tell the Dems where the committee meetings were going to be held?
You don't.
Why am I not surprised?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 20, 2010 12:58 PM
Just saw Camp's response. He leaves out the tiny little fact that the GOP plan leaves 52 million people uninsured, cuts future benefits on Medicare, and fails to do anything to curb rising costs. Their plan is the best for anyone who can afford to pay for it. The problem is that about 20% of Americans can't afford it. And that's an unacceptable figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 12:59 PM
Also, Barack, if they offer you chocolates, make sure 'Ex Lax' isn't stamped on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
February 20, 2010 1:28 PM
Democrats are TERRIBLE at framing any issue. Why don't they call the insurance industry out and call them what they are? They are domestic terrorists. They extort from those that have private insurance. They bankrupt those with not enough insurance. They play a huge role in the death and suffering of those without insurance. They do it all for selfish outlandish profits for a select few at the top of the corporate chain. If you get sick and you don't have generous insurance through your employer, you become a terror victum of this industry. My family had a small business before we retired. We were in the private market our whole lives and I still am in the private market. Processing a legitimate claim is a major hurdle more than half the time, and I have been forced to work through the state insurance commission on two occassions over the years to get legitimate claims paid. (The last took more than year to settle even though the tests and procedures were clearly covered in writing in the policy.) A person without a knowledgeable advocate, a willingness to fight and learn the system, a determination not be defeated is simply runover by this industry. If you are the sick person trying to fight them you are a double victum. This industry is not running a business. They are organized crime and they are paying protection money to members of Congress. Call your Senators office EVERYDAY and voice your outrage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to xargaw
...and it would be so easy too. Makes you wonder if the desire is really there or not. I would have drummed the phrase 'country club conservative' into the narrative the way 'limousine liberal' was a few years back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
February 20, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to xargaw
Agreed, They must begin to fight the hyperbolic BS with an even greater hyperbolic truth. Take the R's "ideas" to their furthest most disastrous possibility. Latch onto the Ryan plan and tell people what will happen to their SS & MC. Point to the fact that they want nothing to do with Real middle class America, let alone the poor. Reid may be a fine legislator but they need their own Dem attack dog to keep the beast at bay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 20, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to xargaw
Democrats have been so intimidated by and internalized Reaganism that if they have their own arguments they don't seem to believe them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 20, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to bluebell
Calling all Hollywood liberals! Take a break from destroying America and everything good and decent and paper every retirement home in the state of Florida with flyers detailing recent statements regarding Social Security by the GOP! WTF does it take?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 20, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Are you still a Green or are you back to pretending to be a Democrat?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
February 20, 2010 1:40 PM
Shooter = Dumbass
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 20, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
No Buckeye...Shooter = Dumbass Bigot
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
February 20, 2010 3:16 PM
When the NYT reported on Obama's request for good faith, they followed it with the line, "Republicans fired back...."
So no wonder nothing works. Republicans -- and their enablers like the Press -- are demanding that EVERYTHING be seen as a blood sport.
How long do you think people will keep watching this farce, with Republicans as some kind of tough guys, firing, hammering, pounding, shouting and the Democrats as 'weak' and 'wimpy' if they play by the rules.
We've had too heavy a dose of mafia-love in this country. If so the media is squarely to blame for glamorizing force and gangsterism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
February 20, 2010 3:33 PM
John Boehner's nothing but a mouse,
Afraid to go to the White House.
"Is this a trap?", he asks with dread.
And then,
With trembling hand and face so red,
Jumps back into his tanning bed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
February 20, 2010 7:41 PM
I sincerely hope this summit will finally be the "nut up, or shut up" moment for dems. It could be the beginning to a record number of reconciliations. Since the GOP changed reconciliation back in the 90's to include any legislation whether in decreases or increases the deficit. Heck, they even tried to use it for drilling in ANWAR. Reconciliation can be used for just about anything a smart legislator can write it for. Dems need to shift the narrative to GOP doubled the national debt, starts unnecessary wars, and turns their back on the average American. There is plenty of history to prove these truths. Dems must start using these facts that is historical proof. Otherwise they should just leave DC altogether. I'm about to the point of saying let the GOP have it back. They were so close to destroying the country, let them just finish the job. Allow them to be the ones who tanked the country. They created this mess, force them to fix it. Of course, I don't think they are remotely capable of that. They drove the bus off a cliff and now they bitch about the people trying to fix it. Is it time to drop the tools and say "o.k. asshole, you fix it"? I think I'm gonna start looking for the best places for ex-patriots to live. It looks like Canada isn't so cold nowadays.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
huangzhixian
February 20, 2010 7:56 PM
http://www.Allbyer.com
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3)$35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY)$35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress--- NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 ... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.Allbyer.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 20, 2010 8:52 PM
"Just as important, Republicans get the job done without cutting Medicare, YET."
There, fixed that for ya' Dave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
February 21, 2010 8:38 AM
It is time to start throwing Republicans off the boat, not making sacrifices to appease them.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
February 21, 2010 10:15 AM
Obama to tiger: "Change your stripes. I'll just turn my back on you while you do it."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
February 21, 2010 10:29 AM
I like the Republican preconditions. Don't cut medicare (even though they would like to eliminate it) don't raise a tax and don't raise the debt. So aside from paying for the program, we are all for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
February 21, 2010 3:55 PM
Has Obama approached health care reform 'in good faith'?
Here's where he and the nation started in June of 2009:
“A mere seven months ago (that would be around June 2009), The New York Times/CBS poll found that 72% of Americans ‘supported a government-administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for customers with private insurers.’”
From then until now, Obama has rejected single payer; stiff-armed the government option; mandated individuals make premium payments to private sector insurers under threat of fine or other punishment; assured tax payers money would be funneled to private sector insurers in the form of 'subsidies'; stipulated (by law) that private sector health insurers can spend as little as 80 cents of every 100 cents on actual health care services, while spending up to 20 cents of every 100 cents on lobbying, 'sympathetic' candidates, CEO bonuses, 'administration' and fighting your claim for treatment.
The question was and is: Has Obama approached health care reform 'in good faith'?
The answer is: Not 'in good faith' with the American people; only 'in good faith' with the insurance industry.
The most we can ask of the Republicans is not to 'come in good faith' , but come
and put the Democrats and the American people out of their misery - for Obama and most of the Congressional Democrats have conned the American people: they've not acted 'in good faith' and have no moral authority to speak to others about 'good faith'. After his behavior over the last twelve months, when Obama talks this way -attempting to take the moral high ground - he simply draws attention to his feet of clay.
Do the right thing, Obama, stop scolding others, and lead the nation to a single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
February 21, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to bill
Yep. Obama made it clear from the outset that his #1 priority in health care reform was to protect the profits of the big insurance companies and big Pharma. Everything else was secondary to that. I don't see any reason to believe that anything is going to change now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
February 21, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to bill
to say a poll said a majority of people would tentatively support SP, and then act as though it's a slam dunk while totally avoiding likely scenarios... i wish i could be that naive!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 22, 2010 1:28 AM in reply to Neil
The poll doesn't even say anything about single payer, just about a vanilla public option. We march straight from adding a government competitor to the market for 1/4 of the population, to a single payer plan which eliminates and replaces the insurance of 3/4 of the population on it's way to universal coverage.
Good idea, but politically difficult. People like employer provided insurance and Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
February 21, 2010 7:44 PM
First, Obama would have to explain to them what "Good Faith" is. Second, he needs to let them know that any or all of their bright ideas need to be backed up with real numbers. In other words, no bumper sticker bullshit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?