Obama, Republicans, Democrats talking

Ok, Obama, first of all the Republicans should have been brought to the table from the outset. If you're going to change 1/6th of the economy than ALL parties have to be involved and have a constructive role.
By Obama's comments, it proves that Obama and the Contgressional Dems never listened to the Republicans or even examined any of their proposals.
Second, by Harry "Lame Duck Senator" Reid's comments, the Dem leadership does not seem interested in anything the Republicans have to offer. The jury is out as to whether this is just smoke and mirrors by Obama (he has a history of saying bipartisanship but then being completely partisan in his actions) or if he is being genuine. My money is on the smoke and mirrors. Republicans beware of this wolf in sheep's clothing.

Of course this doesn’t mean Obama will start back at square one. Obama’s idea of “bipartisanship” consists of nothing less than unconditional surrender to his proposals by the Republicans. He is going to try to explain his programs to the Republicans again (because they obviously didn’t get it the first 300 times), and then he will label them “obstructionists” when they refuse even the least of his demands. They will not meet his every demand because they view the election results in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts as an indication of the American People’s opposition to Obama’s progressive agendum.
.
If this means gridlock, then so be it. I don’t particularly believe that Obama’s domestic agendum contributes to good government or a free and independent public. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.” If it was true when he said it, it is most certainly true now. Progressives always favor subordinating individual rights to the needs of a group, regardless of how fundamental or important those rights might be. Progressives are not the civil libertarians they claim to be.

After keeping the Republicans locked out of any health care debates for over a year, panty waist now goes to them with hat in hand.
Why? He's desperate to get something, anything passed...Excellent republican ideas such as tort reform and buying insurance from across state lines maybe in the future...stay tuned.

Paulo

I think the first thing the President aught to offer the Republican-Libertarians, is a manual on the duties and responsibilities of being a United States Senator. Only then, will they consider a centrist healthcare proposal, realistically!!
Unfortunately, the only realism they will focus on, is the kind of " do nothing " approach to being a Senator, that allowed them to catch the voters of Massachusetts, a sleep at the wheel. Now, they have to find a make-up artist to go with their model Senator !!
I must admit that I am even more impressed with President Obama's determination, concerning fixing the major problem of our everyday economy. Our Healthcare system is in a shambles and that is the way the Corporations and the Republican-Libertarians want to keep it !! We aren't here for the well-being of America, says the Corps and the Party of No, America is here for our wealth and benefit !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Why wasn't this part of the health care blueprint last year? Engage the Republicans, express outrage at their certain refusal to either meet with Obama or offer any bipartisan ideas, then sell your own bill to the public.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Obama intends this as theater, nothing more. He has no intention of changing the hugely flawed bill they already have, and which Republicans have already rjected (as have most of us). So if he won't start over, if he won't start fresh, what on earth is the point?

The point, it's clear, is to score political points. Tha'ts not what's needed.

WOOOF WOOOOF!!!
*
J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
*
Just as we saw in the last 21/2 years of the Bush administration, the Obama administration obviously has listened to respond, rather than listening to hear.

The president dismisses his lack of success by claiming he has not communicated his message enough. Really? I don't care how many news conferences you have, how many speeches you give, or how much money you spend on public relations, if the dog food is bad, the dogs won't eat it.

The American people are unhappy with the direction of the country. They have a deep antipathy toward the federal government's activism, and they have actively opposed the Democrats' health care proposals.
*
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/bad-dog-food-for-the-democrats-83749492.html

Oh those poor republicans. They so much wanted to be a part. My A$$. As Jim Demint's quote says it all:A source sends over some audio of the quote of the week — GOP Senator Jim DeMint on a conference call, saying that if Republicans and conservatives stop Obama on health care reform, it will “break him” and be Obama’s “Waterloo”.

That's the ideas they offer. That and a few small bandaids like tort reform (nice populist idea, just ineffective), and selling across state lines ( another bogus waste of time). Keep pumping that tort reform Paulo.....just pray the fact checker doesn't show up. Yes John W. there is nothing better than gridlock..."great" Americans want it badly. Certainly if the shoe be on the other foot, we would read quite a different post. Right!

Obama the scold

For a president who ran on uplifting themes like change and hope, Barack Obama spends an awful lot of time scolding Americans about how he hopes they’ll change.

But lately, Obama’s tsk-tsking has gotten him into some trouble. At the very moment he’s trying to recover his declining popularity and revive his party heading into the November elections, even some Democrats worry that he risks coming off not as the inspirational figure who galvanized the electorate in 2008 but as the embodiment of a dour Democrat that turns off some voters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32661.html

Stop the Presses: The Bankers have announced, through one or more of their subsidiaries, that they are giving all of their, or shall I say, our money to the GOP-Libertarians. What an amazing development. Holy Mackerel, never in my wildest dreams, did I think that the GOP-Libertarians would betray the People, the way they will, now that they are taking our money from our Banks. Shame on those opportunists!! Here, my Daddy, told me: Boy, you have to do something to earn money. Well, my Daddy didn't have the chance to see these, good, old boys, in our Senate and how they packed 20 years of Obstructing into the first year of President Obama's Presidency !! Who said "do-nothing" will not pay the bills. Heck, these good, old boys will probably be re-elected !! Something else we can look forward to, besides skyrocketing healthcare costs !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

OK class, line up. Mr. Reid will be playing teacher today.
-
Harry Reid ready to play at recess
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32653.html

If LBJ was President a Health Reform Bill would have passed with Bi-Partisan Support. The Democrats control the White House and have Super Majorities in the House and Senate. The only ones responsible for this impasse is Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their weak and incompetent leadership. No Excuses!

A little tactical advice for the Republicans, when caught in a near ambush the best tactic is to rush the enemy with all guns blazing. The other option is to sit in the kill zone and get dead.

Make the point that the current legislation is junk and rather then trying to put a band aid on a patient that is hemmoraghing it is time to start over. Their is no sense looking for Republican ideas to further bloat the current bill. Make it clear that while you have ideas, they need to be part of a new legislative effort.

Make sure to stress that if the Democrats had allowed you to present your ideas earlier they may not be in the mess. The true party of NO was the Dems. As in, no you can’t attend this closed door session. No there are no bennies in this for you. No your constituents are not as important as union leaders.

Be prepared to respond to the Dems constant “human interest” stories that they are going to tell to appeal to the emotion of the issue.

Bill R., what exactly is the argument against selling insurance across state lines? I haven't really heard a coherent argument as to why Dems are so dead set against this. Maybe you can help me understand. Here is a video of Axelrod getting grilled by Wolf Blitzer on this (starts around 2:00). Axelrod's evasiveness is almost laughable on this issue. You disagree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuasvdr3FY

-----------

John W., I have a Constitutional question for you. I am assuming Congress would pass a health care bill under the catch all Commerce Clause. But if they stand by their position re selling health insurance across state lines, doesn't that take the legs out from under the CC being the authority for the legislation? In other words, if health insurance is not sold across state lines, how can Congress claim the legislation is a regulation of "interstate" commerce?

Bill R., what exactly is the argument against selling insurance across state lines? I haven't really heard a coherent argument as to why Dems are so dead set against this.
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 8, 2010 3:32 PM

I'm not against it. The problem is it doesn't resolve anything. the savings would be miniscule.

Herbie H

I will try to explain why selling insurance across state lines is not as easy as it sounds. 1. any regulations set up by the states would be gone the state with the least amount of regulation would become the standard. IE. in Illinois a customer can't be dropped for preexisting conditions if they have been covered for two years with the same insurance carrier. That is just one example. 2. There is a legitimate fear that the out of state companies will only take healthy low risk people. Insurance companies need a large pool of clients to spread the risk if the majority of clients are high risk the cost shoots up. For this to work we would need good strong nation wide regulation.

Since BO is stating that he will now bring the GOP to the negotiating table (now that he needs them), it goes to prove that he never planned on any bi-partisan ship in the first place.

* * * * *
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 8, 2010 3:32 PM
.
I’ve asked the same questions myself. Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate and/or protect: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The power to regulate the third category derives from the conjunction of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the “Necessary and Proper Clause.” Of these three areas, the power to regulate health care insurance that is not traded in interstate commerce would have to derive its existence under the third category, if at all.
.
That is, assuming that health insurance is not traded in interstate commerce, Congress could regulate it if it was part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn, for example, the Court held that Congress could regulate “intrastate” wheat cultivation because: (1) wheat is a commodity traded in interstate commerce, (2) wheat grown locally displaces wheat traded in interstate commerce, thereby profoundly effecting the market price of that commodity; and, therefore, (3) local wheat cultivation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, especially when viewed on a nationwide scale. Wickard is considered the “high water-mark” of Congress’ interstate commerce power.
.
The same rationale for Congressional regulation does not apply however, when a local economic activity does not involve a good or service trafficked in interstate commerce, and which does not threaten to hinder or divert other interstate economic activities. If health insurance is entirely confined to intrastate trade, there IS NO health insurance traded in interstate commerce that could be hindered or diverted by the intrastate trade. In the one case in which the Court held that insurance was subject to congressional interstate commerce regulation, the holding was predicated on the FACT that insurance companies sold that insurance across state lines. Obviously, that rationale does not apply if the facts show that health care insurance is only sold in intrastate markets. Control by Congress becomes even more questionable when one considers that Congress is not merely contemplating control over health insurance, but actual health care services as well. The latter is largely comprised of local services. So, yes, there is an argument that Congress has no Interstate Commerce Clause power to regulate health care insurance if it remains a purely intrastate phenomenon.
.
The part that is bound to annoy you is the actual justification floated for the various health care bills under the Commerce Clause. The rationale is: (1) the federal government can create a national, and hence, “interstate” market for health insurance (which is only about half true); and (2) it can force everyone to participate in the market it has created in for the sake of increasing the interstate trade (which is highly unlikely).
.
Admittedly, Congress can act to remove barriers to interstate trade. Thus, it would be clearly within Congress’ power to prevent states from hindering interstate trade in health care insurance, as they now do. But that is a far cry from creating a market. “Regulation involves the creation and application of rules to existing relations and behavior; not the creation of new relations and behavior to regulate.
.
Furthermore, one cannot logically describe a person as involved in “economic activity” if he or she consciously refrains from purchasing health care insurance for the express purpose of avoiding entry into an economic market. If ‘not’ purchasing a good or service can be described as “economic activity” subject to congressional control, then just about any “inactivity” can be described as economic activity subject to that control. Aside from the practical and semantic absurdity of describing inactivity as “economic activity,” the consequences would be to give Congress plenary power to regulate all human activity. The ICC would stop being one of Congress’ ‘limited powers’ and turn into the only unlimited power Congress needed to fashion the federal government into a single, consolidated central government. The United States Supreme Court has never sustained a regulation under the Commerce Clause that grants such sweeping powers. This, too, doesn’t bode well for sustaining the constitutionality of any health care laws that may be enacted.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | February 8, 2010 4:57 PM
.
I keep seeing your claims that neither interstate sales of health care insurance nor tort reform will make any significant difference. I have to disagree.
.
Any time a state closes its market to outside competitors, there is bound to be an increase in costs to the local market. Lack of significant competition is bound to drive prices up because it permits cooperation (read: tacit price fixing) among those who offer services in that market. In addition to providing stronger competition, expanding an insurance company’s reach to multiple state markets will increase the total risk pool for that given company, making it easier for the company to turn a profit while lowering premiums. A federal consumer protection law that brings down the trade barriers erected by state laws, while insuring patients are not subject to exclusion for pre-existing conditions, would do much to address the current problems.
.
As far as tort reform is concerned, you appear to be fixated on the fact that malpractice accounts for only 1.5% of the total cost of health care. Your dedication to statistics, however, doesn’t tell the whole picture. That 1.5% only represents only the cost of payouts for malpractice suits. It doesn’t include the cost of malpractice insurance, the defensive medicine practiced due to the threat of malpractice suits, or the cost of having fewer doctors - all of which result from the lack of tort reform. The most significant factor in driving up medical costs is the overuse of the medical system. Defensive medicine to avoid malpractice suits significantly contributes to this cost. Scarcity of doctors is another factor. A significant number of doctors have either retired or changed their practice to a “safer” one (i.e. a family practice instead of as a OB/Gyn or anesthesiologist) because of the difference in malpractice rates. In Mississippi, before tort reform was enacted there, the proliferation of malpractice suits drove so many doctors out of practice that some people had to drive 100 miles to find a doctor. Trying to accommodate a larger number of patients with fewer doctors is not only bound to drive up costs, but to severely limit the quality of medical services actually provided. These factors are simply not as insignificant as you make them out to be.
.
And so what is wrong with these reforms? They can’t hurt, and they can’t make the situation any worse. To the contrary, they promise to significantly change the costs of health care even before one considers an expensive federal takeover (read: hijacking) of the whole medical system.

Bill R., maybe the savings would be miniscule, but that doesn't sound like a reason to dig in and make it a deal breaker. If I were the Dems, I would call the GOP's bluff. I would tie them to their stated reasons for opposing the health care reform, such as tort reform and selling insurance across state lines, then publicly concede those things. Then the GOP would not have anything to hang their hat on. I think a lot of Dems are presuming that the GOP's stated reasons for opposing health care are pretextual, with the real reason being that they want to see Obama fall on his face. If this is true, the way to expose it is to publicly call their bluff. That's how I would do it anyway.

-------------

"no spin" I appreciate the response. As for your first reason, I am presuming that what we are discussing would be part of the passage of a larger health care bill, as opposed to a stand alone law. If that is true, the federal bills already contemplate minimal requirements for policies, such as not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage limits, etc. These minimal requirements would trump the state laws. I also think your first reason lacks any faith in the consumer to make an intelligent decision on their own. As for your second reason, I thought the federal bills being contemplated addressed that type of discrimination. Again, this would trump state law. I think the underlying theme here is that if the federal government is going to pass a massive law re health insurance, they could address all of your concerns in their legislation. Put another way, if the reasons you stated really are the reasons the Dems are opposed to this, they could be addressed as part of a broader compromise, and the selling across state lines issue should not be a deal breaker to a reform bill.

------------

John W., good to hear from you. The posters on this blog that I am interested in reading I can count on one hand, and you are certainly one of them. You're right about those justifications annoying me. I was more curious than anything about the authority of Congress to pass such a bill. I don't think the SCOTUS, with its current makeup, has made a major decision re the limits of the CC. It would be interesting to see how they would rule. Setting aside the authority question, my problems with HCR are mainly twofold. The first you hit on, and that is forcing individuals to purchase something from private, for-profit companies. This is unprecidented. It is not like car insurance laws. Driving is a privilege, and states are given a fairly free hand in regulating the privileges they grant. I can choose not to take part in this privilege, such as declining to drive or own a car. I can't choose not to breathe. This is apples to oranges, and anyone who claims that requiring people to purchase health insurance is not an expansion of government powers is only fooling themself. Secondly, I have no faith in the massive, corrupt, bungling federal government to manage health care. The only precident we have for the federal govenrment running health care is Medicare, which is an unmitigated financial disaster, gobbling up a bigger share of federal spending every year. This, despite paying government-set, below market rates. Medicare is on an unsustainable course, and I would like to see that house's foundation fixed before we even talk about adding another story to it.

* * * * *
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 8, 2010 9:43 PM
.
Thanks, Herbie. I normally look forward to your posts too.
.
You correctly assert that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its current configuration, has yet to address any major ICC case. However, five short years ago, the Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which reaffirmed Congress’ broad ICC powers as defined in the case of Wickard v. Filburn (which is why I discussed Wickard above). The bad part is that Justices Kennedy and Scalia concurred in the majority opinion. Two of the justices who dissented, O’Connor and Rehnquist, have since been replaced by two other conservatives. Justice Thomas is the sole remaining dissenter. As such, the balance of power on this question remains the same. One cannot reasonably expect a wide departure from the Court in the future when it comes to Congress’ ICC powers. The question of the constitutionality of any health care legislation, if and when posed, will be one of whether its supporting rational satisfy Wickard and Raich.
.
I believe the issues related to the personal mandate, however, are quite different. The Raisch and Wickard line of cases did not address the issue of whether Congress can pull unwilling players into a market in the name of regulating IC. That is one area where I believe the current plans go too far.
.
I also believe the personal mandate would violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property for private use. The latter only permits the taking of private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. Taking of property for a non-public use is, therefore, prohibited. Compelling citizens to transfer property to another for an unwanted service is a taking of private property. That has been the law since the ink on the Constitution was still wet. It is ludicrous to suggest that insurance companies receiving the unwillingly disgorged money for their insurance services are using the money for a public purpose. Thus, not only is the proposed law unprecedented, it is an obnoxious intrusion into property rights and constitutional protections.
.
I, too, have no faith in the federal government’s ability to manage a massive health care plan, or even a massive financial plan. Both Medicare and Social Security are massive failures that threaten to bankrupt the government. They had design flaws that insured their ultimate demise. Unfortunately for us, however, the federal government’s general untrustworthiness in managing large scale plans gives us no legal ground to object. The Supreme Court has said on a number of occasions that the federal judiciary does not sit as a super-legislature to judge the wisdom of congressional acts. Not all foolish laws are unconstitutional, and not all wise laws are constitutionally valid.
.
Personally, I would like to see the house remain a one story building.

John W. arguing with a liberal over the economy (healthcare reform is 1/6 of the economy) is like teaching a dog to fly. They just do not get it. Our government should be looking at the German system for insights into how it can be done. But they based their model on Canada and the UK which are poorly ran systems. And of course the liberals in Congress and the one sitting in the White House do not want to introduce tort reform. Because if they did they would lose a large chunk of their campaign funding.

I am a Democrat of the Democratic Party, and I do not agree with our Democratic Party representatives in Washington.

Many of us are now ashamed to be Democrats. More than that, we have come to fear our own Democratic Party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of socialism - are on the march as they have never been before, and leading this march is our Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what they are seeing in our party. All the more, we know it is dangerous.

We as Democrats are marching in a parade with people Harry Truman or even Jack Kennedy would not recognize - socialist (also know as progressives) who think that Western civilization began in 1969. Strangely, without meaning to, we the mainstream Democrats find ourselves representing this socialist movement. However, for the "socialist" within our Democratic Party, there is nothing so strange about it. Socialists have always sought to leverage corruption for the sake of power.

Without doubt a large majority of our Democratic Party representatives in Washington are tainted by corruption, and the liberals among us are supporting the ideologies of progressives with their agendas based on moving our Nation deeper into a socialist form of government. This is a real threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.

As a result, our Democratic Party has already lost the equivalent of every member we have acquired over the past seven years or more, and many of them are now supporting the tea party. More importantly, a recent Newsweek cover declared, "We are all socialists now."

Meanwhile our middle-class families are looking for more than empty promises. They want to go back to work. And they want our Democratic Party representatives who run Washington to stop pursuing a big government, big spending agenda that includes a government takeover of health care, stimulus bills, a new national energy tax and taxpayer-funded bailouts.

In spite of everything our Democratic Party representatives in Washington will borrow $1.6 trillion this year, or about $15,000 for every household in the country. Over the next 10 years our federal government is expected to borrow an additional $8.5 trillion, and this is on top of the 12 trillion we currently owe. These figures are beyond being enormous, especially since we already pay one in seven dollars in interest.

Thank you, and God bless America

Eric Pearson, Democratic Party candidate for US Congress in the 5th district, Tennessee.

Site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com