It's a trap! Conservative media warn of bipartisan health care summit "setup"
In anticipation of the February 25 bipartisan health care summit, numerous conservative commentators have warned that the summit is a "trap" or a "setup" for the GOP.
Conservative media warn that health care summit is "trap"
Thiessen: "[T]he Blair House summit is a trap." In a February 23 Washington Post opinion piece titled "Obama is the real obstructionist at his health-care summit," columnist Marc Thiessen wrote:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) says of this week's bipartisan health-care summit: "Sounds like the Democrats spell summit: S-E-T-U-P." He's right -- the Blair House summit is a trap. If the objective really was to produce bipartisan compromise, Obama would not be using legislation crafted in a backroom that got virtually no Republican votes as the basis for the discussions. Nor would his Secretary of Health and Human Services have declared last week that the White House is still willing to fight for a public option, a proposal that died because of bipartisan opposition in the Senate.
Pruden: "Barack Obama has laid a not-so-clever trap in this week's 'health care summit.'" In a February 23 Washington Times column, editor emeritus Wes Pruden wrote, "Barack Obama has laid a not-so-clever trap in this week's 'health care summit,' and it doesn't take someone smarter than a Republican senator to figure out how to escape from it." Pruden added that the summit will be a "photo op" in which President Obama will be able to make Republicans uncomfortable before stating:
The White House mocks the concern that Mr. Obama has laid a trap by drawing up the revised Obamacare before he goes through the motions of making irrelevant small talk with the Republicans. The president's press secretary buries objections under a tub of the usual rhetorical blubber, asking ever so innocently how the trap is a trap.
Limbaugh: "[T]his is nothing more than a trap." During the February 8 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that "the Republicans have to be very, very careful here because this is nothing more than a trap." Asserting that "[t]his is no time for bipartisanship," Limbaugh added, "This is a setup because Obama wants to be able to blame this on the Republicans when in fact it is his own party that's been saying 'no' to itself."
Johnson Jr.: "Rush is right. Of course it's a trap." On the February 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy had the following exchange with Fox News contributor Peter Johnson Jr.:
DOOCY: Alright, Peter, Rush says it's a trap, but aren't most situations in politics a trap?
JOHNSON JR.: Yeah, Rush is right. Of course it's a trap. There's such a deep chasm and wide chasm over the goals and the objectives of health care reform in this country. But it's also a great, great op for the Republican Party and for all Americans. You know, Congressman [John] Boehner's [R-OH] written a letter to Rahm Emanuel laying out what needs to be done and we've got to have this and we've got to have that.
DOOCY: We've got to start from scratch.
JOHNSON JR.: That's fine. Well if it's truly bipartisan then there has to be a consensus building and it's based on starting from scratch. But the President's not going to start from scratch.
Napolitano: "I am in full accord with Rush Limbaugh on this, that this is a trap that he's setting for the Republicans." On the February 10 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano stated:
NAPOLITANO: The only thing you can do with the Republicans is make them look bad. I am in full accord with Rush Limbaugh on this, that this is a trap that he's setting for the Republicans. He will look presidential and open-minded and they will look narrow. I've said it before and I say it again: when the train is going full-blast towards socialism, the best thing the govern -- the Republicans can do is be the party of no and to stop that train.
Tantaros: "Republicans must proceed with caution. This is a trap." In a February 9 FoxNews.com column, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros warned that "Republicans must proceed with caution. This is a trap." Tantaros later added:
The setting of another televised meeting also benefits Obama more than it helps Republicans. It's called calculated political window-dressing, and Team Obama has a black belt in the sport.
The President knows he's the better orator and will make Republicans look like a bunch of stone-walling, puerile jerks in the process - much like he did two weeks ago when he visited House Republicans at their Baltimore retreat. There, he lambasted them for saying no to his policies and chastised them for not cooperating - all in front of the TV cameras, even though Republicans had already put forth ideas and were ignored all along.
Though after the "Obama vs. the Republican House" meeting, they discovered using strawman arguments doesn't work when the "strawmen" are in the same room, able to respond to it.
Reminds me of Palin on that talk show. "Well if I debate Al Gore on Climate Change, and he brings along all his FRIENDS (i.e. scientists, graphs, data) he's gonna whoop me!"
Apparently a fair fight to the Republicans is like... "Well, you can use your data, but in between every paragraph, you need to let us throw in a Nazi or Africa reference. This is how we've been going about the debate thing so far. Or, better yet, allow a bunch of Republicans in the room to shout during your answers."
Kudos.
"Now is not the time for bipartisanship."
Translation: Anything good that happens will be good for the Democrats, and bad for us, so don't let them or Obama accomplish ANYTHING. Otherwise people might realize just how [wrong / evil / stupid] we really are! Who cares that thousands of people are DYING and thousands of family's are going bankrupt? Either we call the shots, or the country can go to hell!
---------------------------------------------------------
The audience of these idiots is sofa king stupid.
All of their tactics will continue to allow millions of people to die due to the lack of health care or because of "pre-existing conditions".
No TORT reform, no meaningful checks on citizenship status, no way to reduce ER visits or duplicative tests, and no plan to purge the waste that even Obama's closest advisors indicate constitute 1/3 of premiums Americans pay = One bad bill.
All those millions of uninsured people like to cry about are a very transient number and many of them choose not to access existing bankrupt entitlements already available to them, another large chunk are young and fit and feel invincible, and another chunk are unemployed - so get back to the economy already.
Oh, and there are two bills which have already passed both houses of Congress. This meeting is on reconciling the two bills which have passed in order to get ONE bill which can be signed by the president.
I might add, that the Republicans have submitted numerous amendments already, a large number of which have been included into the two bills.
You need to get you head out of your a** and keep up.
Insurance companies need regulation. I am not going to pretend they don't. People have been denied coverage once sick, and families have in fact gone bankrupt over healthcare bills. Having once worked for an HMO, in MA, we were not for profit, and ran on slim margins. People were getting laid off every month. Now, this was quite a while ago and I was a lowly claims rep out of college and stayed on for less than a year. However, I always adjusted claims in favor of the consumer, much to the chagrin of my supervisors.
Where does your head reside this fine morning?
Government run insurance (medicare/medicaid) runs on a 3-5% overhead. Don't you want to save 25% on insurance premiums?
No TORT reform- This is a horse the GOP loves to ride. What they don't tell you is that medical malpractice suits are about 0.5% of the costs of healthcare. "A comprehensive study published by University of Connecticut Law Professor Tom Baker revealed the cost of all U.S. malpractice claims - including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts - amounts to less than one-half of one percent of all health care spending in the United States"
Citizenship status- There's nothing right now in place that does this. "But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system -- we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants."
No way to reduce ER visits- You know how you reduce ER visits? By making sure people have a primary care physician who they can turn to. So instead of going to the ER for a cold because they have no where else to go, they can call up their primary care physician.
purge the waste- "In May, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services launched a joint “Medicare Fraud Strike Force” that’s been behind the recent upswing in indictments. And part of the reason that Medicare fraud losses have tripled over the last year—and attracted significant public attention as a result—is that the White House has introduced stringent new reporting requirements."
Republicans crying about this meeting is like when a high school student knows that there is an exam. The student knows the date, the place and what the exam is going to be about. He goes around bragging about how he's going to ace the exam and show everybody how smart he is. Then the day of the exam comes and the student starts whining that he didn't have enough time study, he wasn't told exactly what the test was about (although he was), he thinks it's unfair that he needs to take the test anyway, is upset because he couldn't make up the questions himself, blah, blah, blah.
No response, Space_Pedestrian?
I use this as the BOZO BIT. If someone leads with tort reform in first 3 responses they're obviously clueless. If it's first 10 responses, they're probably running out of real responses.
It is so small as to be a rounding error. Thanks!
Illegals should not be covered. The status quo is not okay.
ER visits would be reduced if more doctors kept nurse practitioners on or had covering doctors. A significant amount of ER visits are insured people who go to the ER when their physician can't get them in during the day. Inefficiencies.
Fraud is a problem. Yes. But Obama's own advisors on health care have put waste at 1/3 the cost of health care today.
by Space_Pedestrian
so people should have to file for bankruptcy and lose everything they worked for because a family member got sick?
why not just you the old scrooge quote. "are their no workhouses?, no prisons? let the poor take advantage of these."
maybe you right wing jerks should try and just once think about some one other than your greedy self.
Moreover, health care reform is necessary, no one should be saying it isn't. Bankruptcies due to health lack of coverage or lost coverage is in fact a problem. I just don't need to be told I am a jerk or have my head up my a** if I disagree with the way Democrats want to approach it. But alas, that is the nature of American political 'discourse'.
And yes, a public option would have an immense advantage over private insurers at the get go- It doesn't pay taxes. Our corporate tax rate, rather marginal as it is, would prove an intrinsic advantage.
That being said? The internal operations of this public option would be governed by elected officials. The US government does indeed wield the power of taxation, legislation, and regulation.
And American industries wield those men. We already have seen what our politicians will do to keep their campaign coffers full. Private insurers would merely have to neuter the public option over the course of perhaps a decade.
Of course, neither option will work unless we eliminate the American proclivity to neglect the maintenance of their body, and still treat medical treatment as an INFINITE RESOURCE.
The current system provides inadequate incentive to do any of this. And I'm not convinced the Democratic proposal does either.
Wrong. You will always be allowed to keep your overpriced, under-covered private insurance that subsidizes corporate profits and CEO salaries.
THEY seem to be able to make it work.
Explain how "Americans lose because they will not have control of their own choices."
Being denied access to healthcare because of no coverage or not enough cash-in-advance would seem to be a pretty severe limit to one's choices.
And now there will be a health-care government monopoly. Monopolies are inefficient, anti-consumer, and anti-freedom. That is, unless they were created by Congress. In that case, a miracle happens. The laws of economics are repealed, and monopolies make us all better off. I know, it doesn't make sense to me either.
Oh, and I'm a conservative. What you are spewing has nothing to do with conservatism.
The 80% stat is real. This is not a crisis that must be expedited, especially as many of you have noted that the problem is decades old.
How about bringing the uninsured into a catastrophic coverage plan? That is where people lose their savings and where the cost to consumers lie. Bringing millions into the system will spread the cost as well. I'm afraid Nancy and Harry wouldn't be buying a whole lot of constituents with such a model and would never go for it. They'd be the party of 'No' if that were on the table.
but that's only because the insurance industry will dump their high risk clients.
If HCR passes and they get back in power, they will immediately return to the more profitable "your money or your life" system. Look at their record 2001-2006. They have demonstrated what they want. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
This is exactly why it must be expidited. This has been festering for years. Why wait any longer?
I am happy with both, sort of. I like my doctor. I am okay with my insurance, I don't love it, but I know others have it worse than I do, so I think that 80% needs to be defined precisly.
Also, if 80% are happy with their health care, why do 70% want a public option?
How come only 23 Democratic Senators have expressed support for a public option? How come Obama has been flipflopping on this part of reform all along?
Most people who are insured are relatively satisfied, but are unhappy about rising costs, myself included.
What do you base this on?
I want single payer. Medicare for everyone is a clean simple answer to the health insurance problem. I will settle for the public option. So, based on your post, I am an uninformed voter?
On what basis do you claim the 70% is a "very inflated number." Can I not say the same about your 80%? Can I not say that your 80% are uninformed purchasers of health insurance?
Frankly I don't see what you point is.
Yes, 80% of the good people in this country who have health care insurance and largely happy with their health care insurance. It's a fine, fun fact that completely ignores the people who have lost their health care insurance, can no longer afford their health care insurance, or have no access to health care insurance. Also lost in this equation are the numbers of people who will lose their coverage today, tomorrow, and in the days to come if changes are not made.
I've heard many say with a firm voice that, "Health care is not a right." Fine. But tell me, when did it become a privilege?
That rather nicely underscored my question. You've suggested that making health care more accessible is only being done to win votes. It's a charming little talking point-ish response that deflects nicely, but doesn't address anything of substance concerning how to either lower or control costs, and how to provide coverage to those who do not have it, have lost it, or will soon lose it.
So, I'll ask again, just when did health care become a privilege? And I'll also ask, what do votes have to do with it? If my representative and my senators are able to work together and put their support behind a bill that will bring about changes I see as necessary, should I not support them with my vote?
Why are you guys arguing with this Fox News troll? He's bringing nothing to this debate but more talking points and no facts.
We can't have dialogue here? Is this just a place to commiserate? You may not like my point of view, but trolling is another matter. I'm not being inflammatory. Certainly not insulting others the way I've been. I'm a frustrated former Democratic voter. I'm a unionized teacher in an 85% poverty school district and see many uninsured families despite the MittCare mandate.
Well, a dialogue we certainly can have if you're willing to have one that steps away from what certainly strikes me as cut and paste talking points copied from an insurance industry lobbyist's handbook. You tell us you're a unionized teacher (curious wording, by the by) and a frustrated Democratic voter. That's all fine--but a bit off the point. You're not going to gain any more creditability here by saying those things if you keep offering the examples and hyperbole you have.
It would be like a patient is dying of malignant cancer, yet the doctors are arguing about how to treat the zit on the patients forehead. It's a uesless and unproductive discussion and only ignores the infinitely more deadlier issue at hand.
Besides all that, do you really think any sort of medical tort reform is going get the insurance companies to lower their rates? All they'd see is more profits.
Is that's what's happening? People with medical malpractice awards are getting rich? Or are they getting a boatload of money to cover the ongoing care they will need for the rest of their lives as well as perhaps lost income as well thanks to the malpractice?
The reason they don't sue in Europe (or really Canada for that matter) is THEY HAVE SINGLE PAYER SYSTEMS. There is no need to sue cause they will be able to receive the ongoing care required within that system.
That's what cinched it for me, when the cons refused to acknowledge that fact.
Logic = Kryptonite to conservatives.
BTW, we've had "tort reform" in Texas since 2003. The ads promised a 10% decrease in insurance costs. Guess what happened? Rates doubled. Any savings went straight to the CEOs and stockholders, NOT patients (you). Why do you still buy this line given a history of failure and lies? Have you no self respect? Why are you (collectively) so gullible? I just don't get your (collective) self-destructive behavior. I don't do this, why do you?
I guess the spaced man doesn't realize that 14,000 people lose their health insurance EVERY DAY.
I imagine if you asked those same people if they were satisfied with the shoes they're wearing we'd see an 80% approval as well.
Libertarians and liberals need to sign a truce just long enough to free the republic from the grip of paralysis and corruption that have us all by the scrotum.
I regret that so many are stuck in the eternal warfare that keeps us from recognizing those we can work with, at least on a short-term basis.
Obama: "Would you be satisfied if every member of Congress just had catastrophic care - you think we'd be better health care purchasers?"
Barrasso: "I think actually we would ... We'd really focus on it. We'd have more, as you say, skin in the game. And especially if they had a savings account - a health savings account - they could put their money into that, and they'd be spending the money out of that."
Obama: "Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000. Or if that was your income? Because that's the reality for a lot of folks."
IOW, if you have loads of money, $5000 deductible catastrophic coverage may work, but it will still hurt. But the average schmuck will not have $4999 to get care. Barrasso was rendered silent, as you will be too. You can't win this one. Give up.
As Obama said at the Summit, catastrophic ins is popular among those with a lot of disposable income to whom $5000 is pocket lint. $40,000 doesn't give you a lot of disposable income today. Another blissfully unaware libertarian. You guys are SO predictable.
As for those with disposable income - what, anyone making $250,000? You socialists are SO predictable.
You can't say "Americans have less wait times not because of a flawless, clockwork system, but simply because many Americans can't afford health care. Naturally if less people are receiving health care, there's going to be shorter wait periods."
Because they respond with "...Yeah, and?"
Wouldn't it be great if Limbaugh was caught asking for sex from an underage-looking undercover male police officer?
So the problem is they are bankrupt, which means we should try and un-bankrupt them, correct?
It doesn't matter that they feel invincible when they're struck with a serious injury or illness, in which case they end up in an emergency room, which they can't pay for, which means the care goes uncompensated, which means the cost gets passed on to everyone else through higher insurance rates.
79 percent are U.S. citizens, more than 80 percent are from families where at least one person holds a job, and two-thirds earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold - i.e., less than $42,406 for a family of four in 2007, the most recent year for which Census has figures for the uninsured.
If folks are feeling invincible and elect not to take the insurance offered them by employers, are you saying they should be forced? This is at the heart of why people oppose MittCare - we're mandated to be insured in MA, yet premiums remain the highest in the nation and are projected to grow faster than the national rate - despite our public option. If this is the model for the US, we're driving off a cliff. Not one person here seems to care about the deficit.
I understand there are over 400,000 citizens of Massachusetts receiving health care insurance coverage now than there were before the reform laws were passed.
-Education- Teach people to live healthy, reducing the burden on the healthcare system (i.e. show people how to use an extinguisher and where to store flammable materials)
-Prevention- Easy to access screenings and immunizations can catch outbreaks before they start (i.e. responding to a small grass fire to prevent homes from being affected or larger forest fires to start)
-Treatment- Keeping individuals functioning as productive members of society by treating the most common injuries and illnesses (i.e. containing a full fire outbreak to one building so the adjacent buildings can continue to operate or function as housing, etc.)
We already do this, and no one bats an eye...except that it's not healthcare...and firefighting is not already embedded in the economy as a multi-billion dollar industry. I suppose if firefighters went loopy and got sponsers to plaster logos all over the trucks, as well as maybe filming some of the more "extreme" rescues (subsequently sold to the highest bidder), then maybe we would have a comparison.
"It's a Trap!"
I've been thinking about that line for weeks!
It's a cookbook!
For rational people, though, it offers a glimmer of hope that perhaps the government might once again actually govern!
Fingers crossed, people!
Who thinks bipartisanship is a good thing when the result is going down the toilet?