White flag or trial balloon?
posted at 8:48 am on August 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The White House tried a little Kabuki dance yesterday about its demand for the public option in the health-care reform bill. Earlier in the day, Kathleen Sebelius suggested that the Obama administration might be willing to forgo that piece in order to get a reform bill passed this year. After reaction spread quickly to this retreat, the White House later said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “misspoke”, and later added that it was the media’s fault for “misplaying” her remarks:
An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option “is not an essential part” of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill. …
A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn’t misspeak. “The media misplayed it,” the third official said.
This White House wants to argue that the press is hostile? Puh-leeze.
Michelle says that this was a trial balloon instead of a white flag, and she’s probably right. It’s also probably immaterial. Just as with the language that created the talk of “death panels,” the public option has become a lightning rod for opposition to the effort to remake the American health-care system. Sen. Kent Conrad’s remarks yesterday that the push for a public option is a “wasted effort” is much more grounded in reality. After this recess and all of the protests, only politicians with career suicide on their minds will support it.
Obama won’t have the votes to move a bill with a public option, no matter whether he compares it to the Post Office, the DMV, or the VA, all of which are valid — and disastrous — examples of what a future ObamaCare will resemble. Up to now, Obama has shown very little influence on a runaway Congress. He didn’t get involved in drafting the bill, nor did he do so with Porkulus or cap-and-trade. If Congress started to walk away from the public option, what would Obama do? If he demanded an audience with Congressional leadership, he wouldn’t get very far, since it’s the leadership that drafted this poliutical disaster in the first place.
Sebelius’ statement isn’t the key. It’s the reaction from members of Congress who either felt the full blast of anger from voters for their attempt to nationalize the health-care industry, or simply ran away from it. That’s the pressure point for the opposition.
Update: The Washington Post notes that Robert Gibbs was also backing away slightly from insistence on a public plan.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
People should remember that democrats/communists never compromise on anything.
Kill the bill … fire the democrats in 2010.
darwin on August 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
thought I was…..
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I submit to the fellow thinkers here at HotAir that we deny Congress the liberty of editing HR 3200 in place. Denial of liberty is a door that swings both ways. Deny our liberty once, shame on you, deny it twice–shame on us. This bill is NOT going to be piecemealed back–a rescaling of provisions, a renaming of portions, a billion here, a billion there. Negative. The American Citizens are seizing upon our liberty to force the disposal of that nefarious legislation to the scrap heap of history.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Welfare reform is largely considered one of Clintons successes. NAFTA is only bad if you are a fat-assed union employee pulling down $75/hr (including benefit cost) for doing a job that requires a GED. As to corporate welfare, that’s free trade and worked quite well. What didn’t work was Dodd/Frank putting all that debt onto GSEs Fannie and Freddie. Face it cranky people just like you caused the economic meltdown and your socialism is going to destroy America if real Americans don’t rise up and put you rat bastard traitors in your proper place.
highhopes on August 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM
If you learned your lesson in 92-93 why did you vote for him in 08?
Oldnuke on August 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Projects such as high-speed rail are unconstitutional, but I have a different point. The era you sited was the start of the federal government giving money to states to build roads. With this funding mechanism Suburban sprawl started in earnest, a bane of the left.
I contest that fedreal funding of roads, especially roads lesser than interstate highways, is the primary reason suburban sprawl occured. By not making people who chose to live far way from an urban center pay for the roads they needed through state, county, or local taxes (or tolls), Surburban sprawl was more esily obtained (i.e., market forces were not fully in effect).
Any hoots…fix Amtrak with federal dollars first. Or, if hig speed trains are the way of the future, call Chelsee Clinton’s Hedge fund company (I assume she still works at one), and have her rope in some investors.
WashJeff on August 17, 2009 at 9:36 AM
HANDS OFF GRANDMA’S PLUG
PULL OBAMACARE’S PLUG INSTEAD!
Will that fit on a bumper sticker?
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM
It’s not Bush’s fault Obama has chosen to perpetuate his bad policies, it’s entirely Obama’s. I don’t blame Bush for that. At least Bush did what he ran on.
Yeah but the question is what philosophy has been directing government actions over the last 30 years? Government deregulation is what allowed banks to give loans and then immediately bundle and “sell up” huge portions of the debt to other banks. Thus creating the “toxic assets.” But that deregulation occured only after a significant philosophical shift towards a kind of neo-laissez faireism that swept economy schools in the 80s and 90s. It’s not the result of statism or socialist influence by any means. Our move from manufacturing to being almost an entirely service based economy is bad, but it’s been helped along by “free trade” agreements that are definitely not lefty, they are rooted in the same notion that any increase in competition, even if its labor competition rather than product competition, is good for the economy overall.
I would say the key difference is that, in those days corporations had much less control over the election cycle.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Reynolds was right, of course.
This is a Parthian tactic, designed to sew confusion in Conservative ranks.
What’s needed now? Well, first, we ignore the Wet Romneyists, fully aware of their own guy’s failings on this issue, and follow Mao’s dictum:
When the Enemy attacks, We retreat!
When the Enemy halts, We harass!
When the Enemy retreats, We pursue!
Right now, for all our successes at Town Halls and what not, the opposition to NeoSocialist healthcare is still inchoate and disorganized. The House Repulbican Conference, which will lead the charge, imho, needs help (the Senate guys are too willing to compromise: too much Crist, not enough Rubio).
It’s time for Palin to step up with a major policy address. Only she can command the attention of the country the way Obama can. She needs to lay out a conservative (as opposed to Republican) alternative to the health care bill and do so in a way that is attractive to the middle of the country and makes Obama look like the big, unsustainable spender he is.
She can’t do this by facebook. Only a speech to the nation does this.
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM
If you’re saying you didn’t vote for him I retract my question.
Oldnuke on August 17, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Was it the bankers that the president told that he was the only thing that stood between them and the pitchforks?
I wonder Barry thinks of the pitchforks now?
Ampleforth on August 17, 2009 at 9:38 AM
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM
You haven’t been studying the various GOP attempts to be part of the legislative process regarding health care reform.
Read up on the various GOP health care bills. Good luck. They are difficult to cross reference because even conservative radio and blogs are monopolized with HR3200 rants and threads. You can’t blame everything on the conservative legislators when they’re doing their work, but not getting coverage in the news.
Until you do your homework, don’t preach to the choir. We already know that politicians, by definition, are already indebted to those that pay for their election. I am no RINO fan, and accept conservatism regardless of affiliation.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 9:39 AM
No public option. No co-ops. No fixes. KILL the bill. Just KILL it.
petefrt on August 17, 2009 at 9:39 AM
What Howard Dean said on MSNBC Morning Joe this morning: The senate will drop the public option in their version of the healthcare bill because they don’t have 60 votes for it. The house plan will have the public option. When they go to reconciliation, the public option will be placed in the final version. The senate will then pass it with 51 votes.
The president can sell the bill without the public option, Pelosi puts it back in the bill and the president signs it.
LaurieM134 on August 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM
This ‘kill the public option’ nonsense is designed to get liberals to show up at town hall meetings and protest FOR Deathcare with the same intensity that conservatives have shown protesting against it. The ‘passion’ shown by hired union staff isn’t swaying the American public, so some real indignation is needed.
joejm65 on August 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM
They are trying desperately to figure out how to float this mess. But it needs to be flushed, Bozo.
dogsoldier on August 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM
This is just another shovel full of bullsh*t being tossed out by this fraudulent farce of an administration.
They will never give up pushing through a 100% government takeover of our health care system.
Dave R. on August 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Just needs a little editing and re-arranging:
“Pull the plug on Obamacare, not Grandma!”
That fits.
tigerinexile on August 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM
We are all
socialistscommunity organizers now.petefrt on August 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM
What? You mean government regulation, not deregulation.
The Community Reinvestment Act was the genesis for the eventual “toxic assets”.
Please get the facts straight.
darwin on August 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM
ObamaCare will be a CaTAXtrophe.
ICBM on August 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM
laurie: you are right. that is why we must keep up the pressure. call your senators. one of my senators is in Burma now & i wish he would just stay there. (webb of virginia).
keep up the pressure. this aint over.
kelley in virginia on August 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
And as their record shows, Howard Dean says this at 8AM and Gibbs says he “misspoke” at 4PM.
sherry on August 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Yep. Using the word “kill” doesn’t help. Let’s use a liberal tactic, lexical misdirection.
Save Grandma. Stop Obama
Hands off Grandma’s Plug, Obama.
Pull Biden’s plugs, Not Grandma’s.
Think of all the money you could save by not buying that new hip Grandma!
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Do not give up re: Obama’s health care takeover – mandates in bill = control and that is end, public [government] option means not end. defendyourhealthcare.us/ see also for info for the fight http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/
Modern Publius on August 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
A bane to environmentalists to be sure. But that’s not something I’m incredibly passionate about i have to admit. I am passionate about the stable median income increases that occured in those years and the alarming median income declines that have occured from Reagan, through Clinton, through today. Equally alarming are the number of people on this board who seem to think median income isn’t a good economic indicator.
This is the ish I really don’t understand. How is receiving a federal subsidy encouraging “free competition.” The sector or industry which receives that subsidy has an advantage over those who do not. That’s not “free trade” that’s federal favoritism, i.e. choosing winners and losers. The very concept that should be anathema to free market conservatives. You folks support crap like that and you’re wondering why no one actually believes the GOP believes in free market principles.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Bad Monday morning for O. C4C causing major problems:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/?test=latestnews
Only 2% of claims have been paid. 4 out of 5 rejected. Dealers may be out alot of money.
Trust government to run healthcare? Reimburse doctors? Not me. Not with my life. Not with my parents’ lives. Not with my daughters’ lives.
journeyintothewhirlwind on August 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The destruction of our maunfacturing sector is the direct result of unions which made competing nearly impossible.
darwin on August 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Why do you feel banks started doing this in the 90′s and beyond? IS their some specific deregulation that comes to mind?
Most here in the HA Community would cite:
- Carter and the Community reinvestment act.
- Clinton putting more teeth in the CRA. Specifically, telling banks they will not be able to expand, add location, unless they gave sub-prime loans (unfortunate Bush did not stop this practice).
- The existence of Fred and Fan that was the place the banks dumped their mortgages, a GSA.
Without these instrustions by government, and I am sure there are others, I am sure banks would have stayed with the tried and true 20% down mortgages as the norm.
WashJeff on August 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
New T-shirt seen at AARP:
“I voted for Obama and alls I got was this lousy bottle of red pills”
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
everybody: send an email to all your friends about how this public option (& all the other bad stuff) will be put back in during reconciliation in Congress.
people need to keep up the pressure.
kelley in virginia on August 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Can you help us out with a link?
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Absolutely correct. The Senate will come up with their version, sans the public option. Once in committee, they will add their 1000 Points of Evil to the bill. Make no mistake, this isn’t dead yet and everyone who cares about personal freedom should keep up the pressure.
ClanDerson on August 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM
New Obamacare program to fight obesity.
Cash for Lunkers
$4500 offered at your first end of life counseling session. Payable upon completion of your second.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Again, read The Forgotten Man, Amity Schlaes. Get a grip on your beloved FDR MYTH.
Congress used to maintain their expenses within the budget PRIOR TO FDR.
And once upon a time, Congress under Truman and Eisenhower didn’t legislate mandates and extremely high taxes to kill American industry and small business.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 9:46 AM
New Obama education program
Cash For Flunkers.
Flunk outta high school and land a job with ACORN.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM
up to the cash for clunkers item: my Chrysler dealer said to me on the 1st day of Cash for Clunkers: i have no idea when or if we will be paid. but hey, he is ex-military, gun owner, no college degree, part time farmer.
a stupid redneck.
kelley in virginia on August 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM
New Obamacare program to stimulate proctologists
Cash for Spelunkers.
$4500 paid to colon doctors for providing digital rectal exams to townhall protestors. Large digits required.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Dems have to be thrown out. They are killing our energy policy and too many other policies.
Democrats: exchanging American exceptionalism for American mediocrity as fast as they can.
BuckeyeSam on August 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM
What part of do your own homework do you not comprehend?
Begin any online search with key phrases.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I’m not sure what banks would have done. I do know that the lionshare of foreclosures have not occured in working class areas where property values did not skyrocket do to the history of the neighborhood, i.e. the kinds of places the CRA was meant to target. They occured in places were inscrupulous “house flippers” and real estate agents took advatantage of the program to get millions and millions of dollars in unsecured debt. Check out the foreclosure hotspots, it’s not the rust belt, or the inner city, it’s the suburbs. So is the problem government intervention? Or is the problem that the financial industry took the opportunity to push through deregulation on loaning practices they had wanted for years and may have gotten without the CRA expansions under a Republican.
But you seem to think that attacking Carter or Clinton somehow makes my argument illegit. There was nothing lefty about those Administrations. What lefty law did Clinton sign?
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Forget the public option baloney…
these are the sections of health care that have to be stopped…
Section 100(c)(25) sets the implementation date as January 1, 2013.
Section 141 et seq. establishes a new independent agency, the “Health Choices Administration” headed by a “Health Choices Commissioner” appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of the commissioner’s many duties is to establish and enforce the standards for qualified health benefit plans. These standards include premiums, provider payment rates, covered treatments, drug coverage, and administrative procedures. Section 122 lists the types of health services a qualified plan must cover. However, the specifics of how each service will be covered and for how much are left to the commissioner.
Section 201 et seq. establishes a national health insurance exchange controlled by the commissioner. The exchange, funded by a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund,” hires private entities to develop and administer qualified health benefit plans under the supervision and control of the commissioner. The commissioner decides which private entities will be hired and how much they will be paid. The trust fund is initially funded from general revenues and then from employer and individual taxes. Section 204(a)(3) exempts the commissioner from the Federal Acquisition Regulations. That means the commissioner can: a) hire any private entity (ACORN, SEIU, AARP, UAW, AFL-CIO, etc.) to administer every American’s health insurance plan; b) pay the private entity any amount for its services; and c) fire the private entity for any reason or for no reason.
Section 111 prohibits any exclusion (including time delays) for any pre-existing condition.
Section 204(b)(7) requires that all private entities hired for the “exchange” “provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services.”
Section 208 gives the commissioner control over any state run health insurance exchange in operation.
Section 221 et seq. establishes a government health insurance plan run by the Department of Health and Human Services. The government health insurance plan is essentially Medicare for everyone. The government plan is initially funded by $2 billion from the treasury. It is then supposed to be self-funding through premiums. The government option is to be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. However, the government plan is subject to all Health Insurance Exchange rules and requirements, which are set by the commissioner.
After January 13, 2013, employers must purchase employee health insurance from the government controlled health insurance exchange. Section 313 requires employers to either: a) purchase from the “exchange” a qualified health benefit plan for each employee; or b) pay a tax to the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund equal to 8% of the employer’s average payroll. Paying the 8% tax does not purchase insurance. Employees would still have to purchase individual health insurance from the “exchange.”
After January 13, 2013, individuals must purchase health insurance from the government controlled health insurance exchange. Section 102 allows non-qualified individual health insurance plans (i.e. those not obtained through an employer) to remain in effect after January 1, 2013 unless: a) the insurance provider increases enrollment in the plan or b) changes any term or condition of the plan. If an individual loses her “grandfathered” health insurance after January 1, 2013, then Section 102(c)(1) requires that she purchase new health insurance from the government run national health insurance exchange.
Section 312 automatically enrolls individuals in the government health insurance option unless they purchase a qualified health insurance plan (available only from the government controlled exchange) or their employer enrolls them in a qualified plan obtained from the exchange. Section 401 requires a surtax (2.5% of AGI) on any individual who does not have a qualified health plan and who is not enrolled in the government plan.
The so-called private insurance exchange is the Trojan horse. The Insurance Exchange is just as much socialism as the government plan because: a) the government controlled exchange is the only place permitted to sell health insurance; and b) the government can use the exchange rules to control the price and availability of everyone’s health insurance, and therefore, health care.
PhilipJames on August 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Insect alert!
whitetop on August 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Bush can be blamed for fighting a war without financing it and pursuing a postwar program (free pills for Grannie) during wartime.
1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war
is of vital importance to the State.
Not free pills for Grannie. Not tax cuts. War. War consumes all before it. While at war, the President must show singleminded purpose of action, as FDR did. Bush did not, and paid for it.
The same thing will happen to Obama, of course. He is pursuing a domestic agenda rather similar to Lyndon Johnson in 1965. At the same time, Iraq is unresolved and the Al Qaedists have decided to make a major effort in Afghanistan.
These Baby Boomer politicians never learn:
Sun Tzu wrote:
There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Thank you, Philip.
Look at the “retreat” as a Fabian step to get the NeoSocialist structure of Heath Care Administration into being.
That’s what must be destroyed.
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM
You might make a more convincing argument if you expended a a little more effort and included not only the words you’re quoting but also the source of those words.
BuckeyeSam on August 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Take the mess off life support.
seven on August 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM
The progressives are patient. If they can’t force this sh*t stew down our throats today they know there’s always tomorrow. They are relentless and prove that eternal vigilance really is the price of liberty.
SKYFOX on August 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Their Euro-vision of America most resembles post WWI Germany.
whitetop on August 17, 2009 at 9:57 AM
OT:
Oh joy, more market distortion by our Fed overlords. Can we reanimate Andrew Jackson (D) to rein the Fed? Grover Cleveland will also suffice.
WashJeff on August 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I will say this about FDR. The New Deal resonated with the American public precisely because people could see real people employed in real public works jobs across the country.
This is what the Modern Left doesn’t get, because it’s a welfare left. Roosevelt DESPISED welfare, which he called the dole. He understood that it sapped a man’s soul. That’s why the New Deal was about public works JOBS. People got that, and understood it, which is why FDR won by such a wide margin in 1936.
The New Deal fell apart because of the Blue Eagle pricing program. Removing pricing signals from the economy prolonged the Depression. Thanks to Hitler and Tojo, we didn’t have to worry about the Depression after 1942.
Obama will fail because he doesn’t get what FDR got: people must SEE results. They don’t. That’s why they are beginning to feel like they dropped into a used car dealer and have bought an Edsel jumped up to look like a Porsche.
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
These signals merely assert that the president’s original time estimate of “15-20 years” to arrive at single payer are still in play.
adjust strategy accordingly
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Pitbulls wink wink…
Clyde5445 on August 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I’m reading that same book right now. Timeless and appropriate. thanks for quoting.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Wait, wait a minute…
As someone “pretty far Left”, this guy is YOUR GOD.
He is everything you want. He is a Socialist revolutionary. Do you honestly want to tell me he is letting you down by not being Socialist enough???
As in, you want the Work Camps now instead of later?? Dude, these things take time! You can’t destroy a republic overnight, it’ll take him probably 3/4 of his 4 year term to do the job. Keep the faith… he’s got it in him and the game ain’t over yet. You might get lucky and he’ll have a little help from one of his Socialist or Islamofacist dictator friends. Who knows, maybe he’ll do something whacky like get all the troops he can into one place, like say Afghanistan, then oops, there goes a nuke. No one to do a Honduras style “Coup” then, eh?
My friend, I have never understood your kind. There are far left paradises all over the world, free of the horrid stain of corporate oppression. Seriously, try Venezuala. With all those folks fleeing Chavez’s tender affections, you should find an apartment pretty cheap. Enjoy the public option down there. Or in Cuba, I hear they put a mint on your pillow after they saw something off. But why is there a need to stay and change the US into a hell hole?
Please don’t rail against Bambi for not being what he promised he’d be. He is all you’ve ever asked for, and more. You wanted it, you worked for it, you got it.
Lex on August 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Thanks>
petefrt on August 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Neither, it’s a diversionary tactic.
All they are doing is changing the name, the substance hasn’t changed.
MarkTheGreat on August 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
From American Thinker-Aug 15-
It looks like the Council (click on Council link in story) is already filled. Probably working on the outline right now. They just need a bill with one paragraph in it that says that they are the authority.
journeyintothewhirlwind on August 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM
THIS JUST IN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.
Congress, realizing the huge success of the President’s “Cash for Clunkers”
rebate program, has revamped a major portion of their National Health Care
Plan.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reed are expected to make this
major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have
obtained an advance copy of the proposal which is named…
CASH FOR CODGERS, and it works like this…….
Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery
of a child will be required to turn in one old person for each child they
conceive. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to
a sliding scale. Older and more prescription-dependent codgers will garner
the highest amounts, while younger, healthier codgers will earn them less.
Special “Bonus Money” will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted
groups such as smokers, drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their
government-prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.
Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried
foods, tater chips, lattes, dairy products, bacon, brussel sprouts, Carvel
or Girl Scout Cookies.
All codgers will be immediately rendered totally useless via toxic injection
upon submission to the plan. This will insure that they are not secretly
resold/reused or that their body parts be harvested to keep other codgers in
decent repair.
PrincipledPilgrim on August 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Hang on. Dean actually admitted this is the plan on live TV? The Dems are insane if they attempt a move like that. The 2010 midterms will completely wipe them out.
Doughboy on August 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Agreed. Unions perverted their own “reason” to exist via their own illegal pirating beginning–violently taking possession of private mfg. plants, forcibly fighting off law enforcement, preventing the business from doing any production, grinding all into bankruptcy in order to coerce agreements that required manufacturers to ONLY hire union workers.
And yes, I know the tragedies that coal workers suffered, that their own union even failed in negotiations to protect them in certain regards. I am well aware of the HORRIBLE conditions that the Industrial Age (19thC. through early 20thC.) factory workers were forced to endure, amounting to slavery without any of the “benefits” of care that the old owners and feudal lords traditionally provided their serfs. Socialism is merely the new deceit to entice workers into slavery to global owners. The unions serve as microcosms of what socialism begets. Absolute power with absolute corruption. The USSR provides the macrocosm of the woes that socialism begat for nearly a century.
Rousseau who initiated Socialism was a French contemporary of our Founding Fathers. Compared to our Constitutional Government, there is nothing “new” about Socialism. Between the two, only our cherished Constitution has provided the opportunity for people to prosper and enjoy equality under our supreme law of the land. Socialism is merely a violent means to usurp pre-existing governments and parasitically bleed civilization to death.
Marxists ignore the Constitution’s Natural Born POTUS requirement. Yet only the NATURAL BORN elitist power mongers at the Ivy League top ever benefit from Marxism. Everyone else is a sucker to serve the Marxist Feudal Global Lords. Marxists are themselves not ascetic; yet they require the rest of us to live in poverty. With them, we enjoy no self determination. That was all discarded as an undesirable joy/responsibility by the Baratomized who voted in national/global destruction of civility via PC socialism.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
journeyintothewhirlwind on August 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM
We need to run with the administration’s inconsistency and their apparent inability to stay on message. The Obama administration has shown a serious credibility vulnerability that the republicans, FNC and the right needs to exploit in THIS news cycle—right now—today:
We now see a pattern: first Biden had “misspoken” when he said people shouldn’t go on vacation or on trains because of the swine flu. Then administration officials had “misspoken” about the projected “saved or created” job creation potential of the Porkulus. Then Obama himself had “misspoken” when he lied on National Television about AARP’s support of this disaster of a healthcare bill. Then they admit that some “third parties” had “misspoken” and breached the privacy of hundreds of private citizens when Axelrod blasted his astroturf call.
On the first weekend that the president goes on vacation we have a powerful combination of the administration admitting a breach of faith with their own base and then yet another attempt to pull their hand out of the cookie jar by insisting that not one but SEVERAL leading administration representatives had all “misspoken” about their spinelessness on National Television.
Everyone on the right needs to exploit this opening MERCILESSLY during this news cycle. Absolutely everyone. This administration has now shown how flimsy and irretrievably damaged HR3200 in the eyes of its chief sponsors and we need to press home the fact about how both the left and right have become unhappy with it. We need to press home how even the president’s far left have become embittered about this plan.
Not ONLY is it an opportunity to kill HR3200 and kill it permanently, but it’s an opportunity to hold the president to task for his repeated campaign promises of “holding the negotiations on CSPAN”. It’s an opportunity to expose the cynicism and petty opportunism that went into the exhorbitant pork spending in the stimulus, the 3AM amendments in cap and trade and the vicious “rahm-it-through” mentality of the Pelosi-Reid-Waxman cabal.
Behold Waterloo! If we press hard on this while the administration is unbalanced (and out of town) it really COULD mean the death of this bill. Yes, we CAN kill HR3200.
Khorum on August 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Indeed the foreclosure issue is biggest where the house flippers ran rampant. They were spurred on my zero to little down loans that banks and mortgage companies would provide. Business would typically not make these loans if the mortgages stayed on their books (e.g., they could not sell of the mortgage). The government, unfortuantely, provided the means to sell off these mortages after they were complete. Government intrusion into the market place enabled banks to do this. I know of no other reason why this trend occured in the last 1/4 century. If you know of some other reason, please expound and or link to a source.
This is a government issues not a party issue.
Clinton did not sign a law, he toughened regulations.
But again, Bush could have undone this just as Clinton did this. Because our society labels the economy as the “Clinton Economy”, “Bush Economy”, and now the “Obama Economy” our Presidents have incentive to distort the market to provide short term gain for themselves and their party.
“Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.”
WashJeff on August 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I’m sorry Ms. Jones, the government has rejected your claim for a liver transplant. We are going have to repossess.
Did you catch the knee-jerk reaction from Sestak in that link you posted?
Sestak wrote that he thinks 1,000 processors should be assigned to handle the claims. Sestak, who is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in his state’s Senate primary, wrote that auto dealers have contacted him to express their concern and ask for help.
His solution to a procedural problem is to throw 1,000 processors at it. No rationale as to why 1,000 procesors means that it probably an arbitrary round number with no real relevance to what is needed to solve the problem. Also, the whole idea of solving bureaucracy with more bureaucracy speaks to his career in the Navy. The solution, of course, hinges on exactly why there are so many snags (couldn’t possibly be due to expecting dealers to comply with an 800 page document, could it?) not the number of trained monkeys processing claims.
Arlen Specter must be feeling a bit better if this visionless moron is his main competition for the Dem nomination.
highhopes on August 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
excellent post my friend and I agree. Spread the word and send the infantry through the line.
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I think the key takeaway is that the plan is implemented in January 2013, supposedly after Obama gets re-elected and the ‘voters’ won’t get to throw the bums out. All planned in advance. Believe me, by hook or crook, that public option will be camouflaged and wordsmithed into the final bill as Barney Frank suggested — disguised as a co-op plan. I believe Howard Dean saying a reconciliation vote on a budget bill in mid-October will only need 51 votes. And I believe Bob Beckel that tort lawyers will be thrown under the bus to drive this through. We have to be constantly vigilant with so many versions of reform floating through the various committees. The HR3200 version needs to be killed in the crib. FWIW, my two senators are playing ‘duck-and-cover’. Too bad they’re not up for a reckoning in 2010.
Bob in VA on August 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM
FROM:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/03d1d552-9218-45c2-8eae-693da61b76b7?comments=true&commentsSortDirection=Descending
Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.”
If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.
Lockstein13 on August 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Laurie got it exactly right (I saw the interview too). It wasn’t so much of an admission as it was a dismissal of the idea that the public plan was in danger. He’s also said that the GOP had no place in drafting this legislation because Pelosi can muster enough Democrats that they don’t need to be bipartisan. It was pretty brazen. As an aside, it would make a good thread in its own right- just how closely Dean speaks for the filthy liar and the radicals of the left.
highhopes on August 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I don’t know if you know what a revolutionary socialist is, but Barack Obama is not one. Revolutionary socialists don’t participate in electoral politics, they plan revolutions. They don’t accept money from every corporate industry including Oil and Gas and Wall Street….because they are revolutionary socialists. Revolutionary socialists openly plan for the overthrowing of market capitalism and the taking control of production from the wealthy and placing it in the hands of the poor. Barack Obama authorized a massive giveaway to the wealthiest class, the financial sector withuot blinking an eye. Please learn what these terms mean. He’s not even partially a socialist.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:24 AM
To be fair, one did get a hostage released.
highhopes on August 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM
By UNDOING government regulations and laws that prevented those practices. The problem was deregulation of the financial industry. They didn’t add or intrude they took their eyes and minds off the issue and said “run wild.”
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Ok. Now you’re just making shit up. Chavez, Correa, Zelaya, Ortega, Funes, Morales, Kirchner, et al would beg to differ about participation in electoral politics. All of them would do the Fabian socialists of old proud.
elduende on August 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM
agreed. Co-ops are merely the Dems resorting to plan B. There is no surrender, there is no give up. They have the majority. This is a deception to make it appear as a surrender. It is not.
Meanwhile, as the war rages–has anyone heard that the Grand Canyon is particularly beautiful this year?
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM
As others note, this occurred after FM/FM started guaranteeing any loan the banks wanted to sell them. And I’d point out that today the Federal Reserve and Treasury accept whatever valuation the banks want to publish for those assets, even though they’re probably worthless. A model in which the federal government is both umpire and top investor is not a free market system, and conservatives have been critical of it for some time.
Chris_Balsz on August 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Yes. The public works projects built things constitutionally attributed as a Congressional duty to fund: bridges, roads, sewers, national park improvements, shoreline conservation of harbors, dams to retain reservoirs of water and produce hydro-power. And the public works projects of the “New Deal” employed the unemployed AMERICAN CITIZENS and did not go into exorbitant national debt to fund.
But corporatism never benefited the American public more than it hurt. You correctly mention FDR’s fascist Blue Eagle. The inflation to “help” farmers only led to their ultimate demise as corporations choked out the family farmer from business. [Obama will mandate family farms illegal.]
On the economy, don’t forget that FDR confiscated everyone’s gold and silver for the national treasury, passing legislation to make it illegal for citizens to own gold/silver.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Webb and Warner aren’t up for reelection, but I heard warner wasn’t appearing at his townhalls. Is that true?
They can still be pursued and held accountable. I think they’re both cap and tax boys aren’t they?
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Fair enough there are plenty of revolutionary socialists who engage in electoral politics. But all my other arguments still apply. Obama is not a socialist. Seriously. He hasn’t even raised a single cent of taxes.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Bingo.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM
No. They do what they need to to get power. With a lapdog media humping his leg and begging for treats, there was no need for violence.
Plenty of Socialists got elected then decided to hang around. Sometimes the mask comes off early, sometimes late.
What you are saying is, you wrote the travel brochure to a place you had never been to. You traveled long and far to get there, imagining what it would be like, with all your fellow travelers. Now you are there, and it doesn’t look like the brochure. You do not ask questions of yourself, however. You just think you took a wrong turn.
Well let me tell you, you’re just at the front gate. There’s more coming, and you’re not going to like it. And it won’t be for it being not left enough for you. They don’t get lefter than Barry. You’ll see.
Lex on August 17, 2009 at 10:32 AM
“Michelle says that this was a trial balloon instead of a white flag, and she’s probably right.”
It’s a conspiracy! Crazy racist ‘healther’!
I think the WH realizes they are defeated without a little hocus pocus and are unsure of how they want to proceed.
Sebelius was not meant to be the messenger of any change in strategy. She simply had a CNN appearance and responded with what seems to be the evolving concensus. Her statement was probably never intended to be the official WH stance on future bills being considered.
Obama can only sign what Congress can pass, obviously.
The WH really should take a step back from this all, make a humble appeal to Republicans who have been left out of the debate, maybe apologize for the ‘stay out of the way’ attitude exuded so far during his term, and get some real bipartisan discussion, consensus and compromise going.
I spoke with one anti-ObamaCare physician who feels strongly that something has to be done – just not what was being proposed. I guess I agree something has to change in the industry to reduce cost. It needs to be a bipartisan solution. We all have to pay for it and live with it – so we should all have a voice.
Mr Purple on August 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
victor82 on August 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Check. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
So instead of going through my specific examples you went for the rhetorical flair and literary analogy. Cute. But not really evidence that Obama is a revolutionary socialist.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Do you agree or disagree that the banks\mortgage companies sold off their bundled loans to Fannie and Freddie? If not, who did they sell them to?
If my parents said to me, “Son, if you cannot pay your mortage and other loans, we will assume your debts and pay them off for you.” Do you think I would behave the same way as I would if my parents gave me no such promise? Of course I would act differently. So did the banks.
WashJeff on August 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM
now on drudge:
Obama PULLS PLUG ON FLAG@WHITEHOUSE.GOV–EMAILS BOUNCE BACK.
Next up: Granny’s PLUG
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Now the only thing fishy at the White House are Rahm’s outgoing packages…
ted c on August 17, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Obama’s JollyRoger@whitehouse.gov
maverick muse on August 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Are you kidding? Obama’s entire background is dominated by the stench of socialism.
Chavez sees him as an ideological ally.
Correa and the FARC were given assurances by his campaign in Quito in March 2008.
And a few weeks ago I was here on HA translating a live feed of Zelaya being interviewed as he attempted to return to Honduras and he said straight up; He and Obama were ideological partners facing the same right wing attacks to socialist transformation.
Now if all the socialists in the hemisphere think Obama is a swell dude…guess what…normal Americans should worry.
Frankly there’s a reason he was so vague about what “change” entailed.
elduende on August 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I’ll admit that, without reviewing some of the literature I was steeped in last fall I can’t say 100% if every bundled loan funneled its way through fannie and freddie or not.I do know that AIG/Goldman/Citi etc. seemed to hold a lot of toxic paper when they got their first trillion dollar robbery (still waiting for the protest) which suggests they had bought quite a bit of those bundles themselves. Either way, deregulation is what allowed the process to occur at all and that’s undeniable.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM
LaurieM134 on August 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM
This is a giant load of gibberish.
All the discussion is really focusing on is whether Sebelius accurately reflected how Obama FEELS about the Socialized medicine part of the Socialized medicine plan.
Would he sort of like to have it, but be’d be somewhat disappointed if he doesn’t get it? Or does he REALLY want it, but he might really feel OK if he doesn’t get it? Or, or….
This is honest-to-God the only thing going through every liberal mind in America right now.
People who think with their emotions are running the whole freaking country right now. The press have always been rabid moonbats, but they could get away with it when they were just mindlessly criticizing everything Republicans ever did.
But now they’re in a position where they have to RATIONALIZE this idiotic behavior. They sound like a love-struck pre-teen trying to explain how their mobster boyfriend always has the best intentions while he’s being arrested the third time for armed robbery.
Even the most oblivious viewers are starting to get sick of this. The liberal news media are losing a hundred thousand followers a day right now. Politicians come and go, but this will be a lasting change.
logis on August 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM
You have a quote on that?
So the best evidence you have that Obama is a revolutionary socialist are the words of one guy who is fighting for his political life in Honduras? That’s quite a stretch. Why can’t you point to any of the laws Obama voted for while in state house, Congress or his actions as President. He’s NOT a socialist. He’s a corporatist Dem no different than Bill Clinton. The conspiracy theories are wacky.
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I can’t say that I find the Republicans very impressive either.
People would also benefit from reading Mao and Ho Chi Minh’s writings concerning warfare as well. A “Cliff’s Notes” version can be found in The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century by Colonel (ret) Thomas X. Hammes.
Americans would especially be wise to read the writings of Antonio Gramsci as it relates to cultural hegemony. But then again, that would require Americans to actually read…
Send_Me on August 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
They said it in ’92, they said it again in ’94, they said it again after 9/11 and they said it after Nov ’2008. Lasting change in partisan politics? Ha!
CrankyIndependent on August 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Pardon me for butting in, but how does voting present on most issues consitute a record on one issue or another. Are you not judged on your work history and affiliations?
HoustonRight on August 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Doesn’t matter. If Obama doesn’t perfectly fit the moonbat’s schoolgirl crush fantasy version of Che Rivera, then he’s not an authentic “Socialist Revolutionary.”
We need to keep digging at this rift, but don’t think any of it is permanent. It’s just a tiff, and liberals could go through this same cycle dozens of times in the next four years. Pre-teen children are incredibly fickle and moody, and that applies a hundredfold when they’re over thirty and have sworn to never grow up.
logis on August 17, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »