Obama: Joint session Congress, health

Well here a waste of TV time that we'll never get back !!!!

All that time to watch reruns...LOST !!!

Have ABC, NBC, and CBS started gushing about how great he was yet?

Or are they going to saw self restraint and wait til AFTER his address?

Obama is great.
Obama is good.
All hail Obama!

Americans Can't Trust Republicans With Medicare

You want a simple message to counter dishonest Republican fear mongering on healthcare? How's this, Republicans want to do away with Medicare. They've always wanted to take it away, and if they get half a chance in the future they'll get rid of it then. It's not hard to find examples of them saying so in their own words since Medicare started.

Saint Ronny Raygun in the 60s: "if you don’t [stop Medicare] ... you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free."

Republican Bob Dole openly bragged in 1996 that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare. "I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ..."
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/29/medicare-44/

GOPer nutjob/ "guru" Newt Gingrich said of Medicare, "We don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart, we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine." He then went on to propose cutting Medicare by 14% and forcing millions of senior citizens to seek out private HMOs or go without, all to help make sure Medicare would 'wither on the vine.' And it continues right into present day.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/16/us/gop-s-plan-to-cut-medicare-faces-a-veto-clinton-promises.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

Roy Blunt: "You could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace."
.
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/radical-roy-blunt-it-would-have-been-best-if-medicare-and-medicaid-never-existed

Former Republican House Majority Leader the Dick Armey reaffirmed this week on MtP that he thinks Medicare is "tryanny" and if that's not worrisome enough, he wants to "phase out" social security too.

Republicans want to do away with Medicare because they're against government healthcare, always have been, always will be. That's a core plank in GOP ideology, they hold it as dear and precious as some holy theology. Just yesterday, when asked about government healthcare, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said the "government is a predator, not a competitor" and went on to note he wouldn't vote for any healthcare reform bill as a matter of conservative principle, even if it has everything he wants in it. So when a Republican talks about "reform," says we must "get the government out of healthcare," pitches convoluted tax schemes and private accounts for the affluent, or spits out terms like "socialized medicine," like a dog whistle they all mean the same thing: getting rid of Medicare.
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/sen-grassley-on-health-care-the-government-is-a-predator.php?ref=fpblg

Forget about grandma being unplugged, grandma won't be able to afford being seen, much less be able to pay for hospital admission. Grandma is on her own. All so that conservative zillionaires and their Republican congressional lackeys can save an extra 0.0145 of their gross, bloated paycheck, the same flat rate we all invest to keep millions of senior citizens alive and healthy today.

Republican Congressman who oppose universal health insurance should immediately relinquish their tax payer funded federal health insurance. After all, these members of Congress have long enjoyed taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, a privilege that they apparently believe tens of millions of working, uninsured Americans and their families don't deserve.

If Republicans don't think being uninsured is a big deal, then they should go right ahead and try it out. And if they really believe a public plan is such a bad option, maybe they can persuade their parents to give up Medicare too.

Hey, you know what we need? - more prime-time exposure so we can continue to flog this dead horse known as Obamacare.

Obama addressing both houses of Congress? Thank Goodness I have some old episodes of Golden Girls saved on TIVO

By all means....there should only be one voice on healthcare...Faux News!

The GOP is performing orchestrated outrage for their Big Health Insurance overlords. There is a script for this stuff that was written before these events happened and that appears to be instructions GOPer minions to shut down these efforts at civic discourse. The web site Think Progress obtained a leaked memo from a group that calls itself Right Principles. The three page memo details how these right-wing nutbag protesters should behave at town hall events.
.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-gop-thugishness-town-halls-called

Darksyde, you are correct. Republicans are running around acting like defenders of Medicare, but they would have Grandma dying broke on the street it they had their way. No medicare, no social security, maybe a cup of soup if she votes Republican. They call it "consumer driven health care", which means you pay for it out of pocket and if you have a pre-existing condition, you just die on the street. I love how they manipulate it into sounding like they care.

The only effective long-term solution to health care reform is preventative health care. We need to take our health into our own hands. Luckily, there are several online tools, such as Holosfitness.com, that can help you get in shape, stay in shape, and lead a healthy lifestyle.

So the CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS lapdogs will give Obama yet another one-hour free commercial to try to revive his failing health care program? All he needs is Pravda to make the circle complete.

Let the great one talk from the heart and not from his teleprompter showing a speach written by someone else. Let's just see how "great" he is, as if we don't already know.

I want Obama to explain how he plans to pay for all of this! According to him everything will be paid for by increasing taxes on those making $250,000 or more. That is not going to be nearly enough to cover the stimulus spending, tax cuts he wants for pretty much everyone else, the wars, AND healthcare.
Secondly, there is no point in reforming healthcare without tort reform. I have many relatives who are physicians and I know that one of their biggest expenses is malpractice insurance, which is ridiculously expensive as a result of people suing for ridiculous amounts of money. The joke is a huge chunk of the money they win in these lawsuits goes to the lawyers! The cost of malpractice insurance is passed off to the patients. Also, in our "sue-happy" country doctors practice defensive medicine in order to prevent themselves from being sued by ordering tests and procedures that really don't need to be don, which is expensive to the patient. Of course, no one in Washington seems to want to change this, after all they are all a bunch of lawyers.

The main issue is not the costs of such a plan. The main issue here is social justice. Obama's plan aims to help those among us who cannot pay for medical insurance. The fact is that in most democracies around us the health insurance is largely public. The main issue is whether there is a social consciousness among Americans that life is not only about reducing costs but it is about making other people accessible to basic services.

Professor Gad Barzilai
University of Washington

More of his TelePrompTer Socialism, good thing I have a computer to to get the truth.

Gotta love hypocrisy by the Dems. Two years ago there were allegations that government agents may have listened in on terrorist's phone calls, and the liberals went nuts screaming that "the government is infringing and cannot be trusted!"

Fast-forward 2 years later and now the liberals are screaming that the same government that could NOT be trusted to tap a terrorist's phone call SHOULD be trusted to make medical decisions for all of us and our families. Hypocrisy by the left.

Vote "No" to ObamaCare.

National health care for all. PERIOD!! We have medicare, the V.A. for our vets, postal workers, firemen, police, school teachers, federal government workers, state workers, local government workers. The health insurance industry is a racket run by racketeers. I thought we had racketeering laws on the books. No co-op, no right wing nuts, just get it done. With or without the right wing nuts. I say push it through, the hell with them, the republicans never do anything for this country, they only do things to this country. Just get it done. whiteagle38

Three general guidelines for the healthcare debate:

First, whenever someone is spouting off about "communist fascism", you may ignore everything that person says from that point forward. Fascism and communism are two entirely different things, and a primary tenet of fascism is its opposition to communism. So if you think Obama is leading us to either fascist communism or communist fascism, you aren't only a paranoid, LaRouchian nut, you also don't even know what it is you're afraid of, and are just putting scary words together in the hope of stirring an emotional response among stupid people.

Second, you cannot be "against socialized medicine" and at the same time think Medicare is good. Medicare is, in no uncertain term, socialized medicine, and government run, and all of that very scary stuff. If the concept of "socialized medicine" outrages you, you are against Medicare. If you are for Medicare, then by definition there is some level of "socialized medicine" you are willing to accept, and at that point you are exactly where the entire rest of the country is, and we're merely arguing about the details.

All of the people who say that they are afraid of socialized medicine but that they support Medicare are liars. All of them. They either secretly don't support Medicare but are unwilling to say such an unpopular thing out loud, for obvious reasons, or they aren't in fact afraid of "socialized medicine" but still want to use the talking point.

This includes Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and every Senate Republican, as well as the usual assembly of pundits and shouters and supposedly panic-stricken mobs crying in fear at town halls over the imminent Russianization of America if we undertake any meager healthcare reform whatsoever.

The third guideline: the first two guidelines are freaking obvious.

IT’S HARD TO SAY what’s more amusing, the wild-eyed Wingnutty rants from the mental midgets who make up what's left of the Republican base, at healthcare town hall meetings or the Republican leaderships attempts to portray those pre stoked, foaming at the mouth snarling sentiments as genuine mainstream anger about the president’s health care plans.

Looks like ACORN and SEIU members are working this evening bashing the Republicans. I'm not impressed. How does it feel America that $4 million of the Stimulus package has been earmarked as propaganda money to enforce the proposed Healthcare plan.

Ever since the Saint Ronnie Raygun Repug Revolution, the GOP hasn't been about governance, it's been about transferring as much public wealth as possible to a few private hands. They've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in making a handful of people exceedingly wealthy, but they've also shown the American people that their politcal philosophy is utterly bankrupt. And 2006 and 2008 proved that the American people get that.

On healthcare, Democrats shouldn't enable a Republican party that has been so abjectly repudiated by the American people, a Republican party that has proven time and time again that it is utterly incapable of governing because it has absolutely no interest in governing - screw them.

Obama is our president! He bring them out of crisis!

The town halls with members of Congress were a big mistake.

They turned into field days in a trailer park.

But to superficial or uncritical eyes seemed to legitimate the Repuglican/insurance industry talking points.

They should have seen that coming. But don't try to get between a camera and a congressman. You'll be crushed to death.

Obama's appearances, on the other hand, were very effective.

So now I guess he'll try a townhall with members of Congress playing the part of the rednecks.

Learn the basics of becoming a Christian, and clear your head of endless false doctrines that make many present day "Christians" look like an act you don't want to follow. The basics are posted at the link
below.

Don't allow the modern day "gotta get rich" preachers and "holier than thou" theologians, or the self-righteous church-going hypocrites steal the crown you can receive for all eternity.

It's for the sincere, and it's simple enough.

http://www.theamericannightmare.org/KKK__Christianity%20101.html

Here is an easy "tell" on Obama and his administration: When they believe that they are losing the real debate, they will wheel out the bully Teleprompter so Obama can "recapture" the debate and explain his position "in his own words." It's rather like a car salesman who, when stymied by a customer who possesses some skill at negotiation, will go and get his manager. Some will undoubtedly be wowed by the majesty of his soaring oratory. But my guess is, at this point, such people would already side with him by default, anyway. I want to see changes to the plan, not hear it repackaged in a new Teleprompter-friendly bit of blather.

JB, that's very perceptive.

I never thought of that.

A President makes a speech to explain and promote his policies.

Maybe you could get a patent or something on that, eh?

If brainy Bush would have done his job in Afghanistan, as Commander-in-Chief, instead of Ronnie Rayguning it, we wouldn't have need of sending over more of our brave women and men in uniform. " Mission Accomplished" , my " weapon-of-mass- destruction" !! Now, on to an even more destructive agenda, by the Bush&Cheney fringe, leaving our healthcare in the cold, dead hands of the Healing Healthcare Corps. The Healthcare Corps thank God for the Republican/Libertarian fringe, whom they can count on to bury the healthcare issue, unfortunately that also includes thousands of our citizens, who don't have healthcare, or are underinsured !! What a great bunch of Americans, those Republicans/Libertarians are, their greed is their creed !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

This will be the final blow for Obamacare. We will again hear the same ole', disingenuous rhetoric from "the one you been waiting for", except this time the folks know to much and will not fall for the slobbering lap dog media hype that follows his prime time propaganda events. The truth of the matter is until Obama comes clean and gets serious about real reform, instead of liberal back room deals and payoffs or exemptions for his special interests with his obvious attempt at a socialist remake of healthcare, the Dems are dead in the water. If they try a "cram down" again, like his failed stimulus, they will be soundly defeated in 2010 and there goes the Democract ball game. Can't dress up a pig with lipstick and sell it as a cow to the folks (see town hall grass root opposition) unless your are a blind liberal following the debt riddled entitlement mantra. Look for the Prez to save his own hide, blame the Repubs. (not the conservative and moderate "blue dogs" of his own party who are opposed and blocking his agenda) and throw the "public opt" and you lefties under the bus. Then we will witness a bloodbath of self-destruction with acrimonious finger-pointing and denials within the not so mighty donkey party.

Pres. Obama,

We do not want what you are selling!

What is there about that statement that you do not understand>

SCRAP THE BILLS!

SOLVE THE COUNTRY'S REAL PROBLEMS!

Obama pontificating once again about anything or everything is about as rare as sunlight on a cloudless day. He should spend more time doing some real work and less time talking. I am Obama'ed out.

Let the great one talk from the heart and not from his teleprompter showing a speach written by someone else. Let's just see how "great" he is, as if we don't already know.

Posted by: jfr | September 2, 2009 6:45 PM

Your an idiot!! Every President has speech writers. And the presidents staff, whether for Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. goes over a speech right up until the last minute to get it where they want it.

And "telepromter"? This is such a tired, dead issue except for the brain dead republicans who try to distract people.

Telepromters are just modern technology. Bush used telepromters all the time. Before that, presidents used note cards or paper to read off of. Try sticking to the issues.

Obama's problem is this;

He has no Obama plan to promote.
There are 3 in the house and one in the Senate.
Which one will pass?
Nobody knows, least of all BHO.

Geez keepmother, healthcare is the #1 domestic problem.
Unless you mean flag burning, abortion, stem cell research, birth control pills, evolution, the birth cert, the socialist school speech.
Yeah, right, I get ya.

If brainy Bush would have done his job in Afghanistan, as Commander-in-Chief, instead of Ronnie Rayguning it, we wouldn't have need of sending over more of our brave women and men in uniform.

However we get to "real reform", whatever that means, the outcome needs to have one particular effect. The elimination of company sponsored health insurance plans.

I'm not exactly sure why so many think that would be a bad thing. Think about it!!

If healthcare was affordable so individuals and families could get it on their own, this would have, I believe, 2 huge positive effects.

1) For employers: Companies would no longer feel the need to subsidze health insurance as a benefit. Small companies that could not afford it anyway, would be relieved of that pressure. And, depending on the size of the company, this could save thousands and possibly millions of dollar for the employers. Possibly allowing them to hire more employees.

2) For consumers: We would be able to CHOOSE, between the thousnads of health care plans available in the open market. Instead of basically being stuck with the 2 or 3 available from an employer.

Just a thought. But I think this makes sense.

"Steve34": No, your economic analysis is, shall we say, poor. First, there is no real way that we are going to cover more people, give them complete care, and fund it all by taxes on the "rich". Not. Gonna. Happen. It is clear from the CBO analyses that this plan will cost $1 trillion over 10 years.

The second problem with your analysis is the idea that if we release the burden of health care from employees, they can hire more people. There are two difficulties with that. The first is that the health care benefits are part of your pay. So, if the employer does not provide health insurance, he is taxed 8%. So, if your health care cost is less than 8%, the tax is costing him more.

The second problem is the $1 trillion is coming out of personal income, in some way shape or form. That reduces consumption by an equivalent amount and reduces revenue to business by that amount, leading to reduced employment.

Rick

What has been missing from the talk about health care reform is the expanded -- vastly -- role the IRS will have in the bills currently circulating. We'll have to prove on our taxes that we have coverage, by filling out a form, like people who earn outside income (1099) do now. Then the IRS will be able to go in and have all kinds of enforcement opportunities, and see if certain people qualify for subsidies or not.

Needless to say, this hasn't so far been part of the IRS' job...

How about banning television ads for prescription drugs?

As they are banned in most countries.

There are only a very few that we can figure out the intended effect.

And those don't really need to be in ads.

Plus, the litany of side effects is enough to put one off one's food...

Posted by: Rick Caird | September 3, 2009 10:59 AM

Your points are well taken, however, I have a couple of issues.

You wrote: "First, there is no real way that we are going to cover more people, give them complete care, and fund it all by taxes on the "rich". Not. Gonna. Happen."

I never said anything about "taxing the rich", I only said we should try reduce helath insurance costs through "reform". All sides agree that is the goal. The details on HOW to accomplish that is the sticking point.

You wrote: "So, if the employer does not provide health insurance, he is taxed 8%. So, if your health care cost is less than 8%, the tax is costing him more."

Not if, as part of reform, that is changed. By moving affordable health care away from the burden of the employer, it would be natural that we would elimnate the tax charged for not providing the coverage.

I would at least hope you would agree it would be a GOOD THING if individuals and families had a wider variety of choices.

Look at it this way, say you were with Humana at a previous job and you got laid off. You REALLY liked Humana, and had problems with Blue Cross/Blue Shield from a previous plan.

Your new employer offers only BCBS. To stay with Humana on your own, it would probably cost 3 times as much. Way too big a burden for most families.

EMK,
YES, Tort reform!!!!!! Texas and Missouri did and there premiums.......CONTINUED TO RISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Puke some more talking points please!

I hope Obama selects the appropriate attire befitting his current image on the world stage....you know, baggy suit, orange wig, big red nose and floppy shoes.

'' Kathy": the whole premise of your rant is false. Medicare is not socialized medicine. Medicare is a transfer of money from workers to retired adults based on the promise that the younger worker will eventually be a beneficiary too. There is no central control of Medicare other than saying what it will pay for and how much it will pay.

So, Medicare is decidedly not socialized medicine. In fact, Medicare could not exist without riding on top of our current medical system.

Rick

"Steve34". I thought the 8% was part of the funding for the public option. That, plus a surtax on the rich was supposed to be the total funding (the CBO kind of squashed that). Of that, only the tax on the rich is new money. The 8% is a tradeoff between employee provided insurance and a public option and we can look at it as pooled money that either the employer spends on health care himself or pays the government to supply that health care. It should end up about equal.

BTW, no one seems to have talked about the common situation today where the employee pays a part of the insurance cost and the employee kicks in a couple of hundred a month. It is not at all clear what happens in that case.

I don't think you will get too many arguments if you claim health care should not be tied to employment. The self employed and the employed should be on the same footing. That is why I like the tax credit idea. In that case, though, we have to address the ability employers have for group policies that an individual does not.

I am going to add that I don;t think we need much reform except maybe tort reform. I know that people are appalled that we spend 17% of GDP on health care, but I don't see that as a problem. We spend that much because we can and because we don't want long waiting periods. I know of a girl who had a ruptured appendix when she showed up at the emergency room. That was that taken care of within a few hours, but a week later the pathology came back as "suspicious". Her doctor ordered a CT scan and a PET scan. Those were done within 2 days. Then an MRI was ordered as a tie breaker. That was done the next day.

The speed with which those tests were done is because we have so many faculties in this country and under our system. I really doubt you could get all those tests done in England or Britain is only 4 days. For the most part, the only way to reduce the costs of health care are to reduce the number of facilities and underpay for the use of those facilities. That is why I am against national health care. The whole idea of politicians making those decisions is frightening.

Rick

I worked for a fortune 500 company that changed their healthcare and leveled benefits for all, upper management was given a better package in the old system. It was decided that no one's life was more important than the next so they got rid of the "Perk" coverage. Those in upper management who were affected were outraged and scared they would lose benefits. It ended up giving them more coverage and made for a healthier work force, decreasing lost time on the job due to illness. I think the fear of the unknown is what is driving this negativity and if people gave it rational thought rather than be ruled by their emotion, we may just get something good for all Americans. Nothing is written in stone yet so there is time to work out an equitable solution for all.

The Obamacare Shuffle

As smarmy David Letterboy continues his nightly snide attacks on Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney and in his inimitable lackey fashion defends all things Obama, his hero president is in the process of performing a political imitation of a Step ‘n Fetchit dance routine.

Obama, with the scent of ignominious defeat in his nostrils and the unmistakable sound of a splattering legacy in those ears of his, has apparently decided that since his first set of lies didn’t work, in desperation he’s chosen a new set of Obamacare falsehoods.

With his administration in disarray over the intentional vagaries of “health care reform,” Obama has now, allegedly, taken the capstone of Obamacare, the “public option,” off the table and tossed it into the sewer where it belongs.

Since he would no sooner really abandon that socialistic requisite, which he has long and fervently esposed, than he would admit his affinity for Islam, one suspects that it will be surreptitiously slipped under the table.

Obama, despite his protestations of transparency in government, has often shown that he just loves surreptition.

The chosen tactic? A nationally-televised press conference? Nah, the electorate is already onto the planted questions and questioners and his trusty teleprompter, without which he devolves into a babbling, meandering Joe Biden.

Well, how’s about an address to a joint session of Congress? Hey! That might work what with the gravitas that such an event confers, compounded by national TV coverage! And, said trusty teleprompter would still be on hand to protect against nationally televised flubs.

How to pull it off, though, without making it seem like, well, like just another sleazey tactic?

The following is an exclusive, confidential, verbatim account of recent contacts between the Oval Office and the congressional offices of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid. We were able to tap into their phone lines, with the help of 16 year old who has also hacked into their computers.

Under no circumstances will I divulge my source, so don’t even try, FBI!

The following is the transcript. “O” is the president, “P” the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, “R” the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

O: Hey, Nance!

P: Who is this?

O: It’s Barry, the president, dammit!

P: Oh, sorry. I just had a Botox shot and my brain is a bit numb.

O: No problemo, Nance. We’re used to that over here. (sounds of shuffling and whispering) I mean, I understand Mrs. Speaker.

P: Oh.

O: Ok, look, I want to use a new approach to get the people to accept my health care proposals.

P: Yes?

O: Well, . . . I want you and Harry to pretend you want me to address a joint session.

P: A joint session?

O: I mean a joint session of congress!

P: Yeah, sure, we can do that. Could you also address the benefits of Botox? I mean, my hubby thinks I look 40 and last night he even . . .

O: Umm, Nance, no . . .

P: Well, fine! But he actually . . .

O: Switch me over to Harry, please.

P: Sure! (muffled sounds and what seems to be the N-word) . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com

Rick, again, your jumping to conclusions. I have never said anything about being for, or against a "public option". I'm only putting ideas out there that I think can help the cost.

I do believe private/public partnerships on something as necessary as health care are vital. Health care is a right, after all. It should not be treated as a for-profit commodity like automobiles or televisions.

As for tort reform, I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't like lawyers getting rich from frivilous lawsuits, however, there do need to be consequences and patients and their families deserve compensation when a Dr or Hospital makes a negligent mistake that injures or kills someone. What would you propose?

Berlet, looks like you started a long "recreational" weekend early.

And speaking of early, it's a little early to be hanging crepe for the President.

You remind me of Hillary in Jan. 08 saying it would all be locked up by Feb.

President didn't get from state senator from Hyde Park to Casablanca in 4 years on dumb luck.

Or a family name or family money.

He's got 7 1/2 years to go.

Plenty of time.

"Steve34": I disagree that health care is a "right". Nothing is a "right" that requires someone else to do something. Compare health care with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms. None of the last three require any action on my part or your part to guarantee that right. We are only prohibited from infringing on those rights. A "right" to health care requires that you arrange for that service and find someone to provide the service.

I also disagree with public/private partnerships being vital. Partnerships of unequals never work for long. History is littered with the remnants of those partnerships. The strongest always wins. When you partner with a lion, you soon learn that lions don't share very well (unless you can bribe the lion with campaign contributions). There is no doubt in my mind that any partnership, as you propose, is merely a prelude to takeover by the government. The government has guns to enforce its will. Health care businesses can only acquiesce or not play at all.

We have models for tort reform. Just Google "Texas tort reform". Some of the highlights:

Limited punitive damages

Reformed joint and several liability

Restricted venue shopping

Restored the Deceptive Trade Practices Act to its original purpose of protecting consumers in ordinary consumer transactions

Rick

"I think the fear of the unknown is what is driving this negativity and if people gave it rational thought rather than be ruled by their emotion, "

nessie,
You are right.
Unfortunately, America is dominated by two emotions;
Greed
Fear

what a big fuss - you should try to understand what you are saying -