Obama to hold health-care symposium with Republicans
posted at 10:55 am on February 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
In an effort to rescue the drowning ObamaCare bill, Barack Obama will hold a televised meeting with leaders in Congress to attempt to advance some kind of reform effort this year. The White House has set half a day aside on February 25th for an open meeting on fresh ideas for a compromise that can pass both chambers of Congress and get to his desk for a signature. However, leaders of both parties feel pessimistic about the chance for anything other than a photo op:
President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform.
The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle but not a signal that the president plans to start over, as Republicans have demanded, a White House official said.
“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Obama said in an interview with Katie Couric during CBS’s Super Bowl pre-game show Sunday.
Many critics contend that Obama intends on using the forum to shift the blame for ObamaCare’s failure onto the Republicans, and certainly there’s nothing he’d like better. However, Obama and the Democrats had all of the votes they needed for almost seven months to pass ObamaCare without the GOP — and they failed to get it done. Now that Scott Brown has assumed his seat in the Senate, Democrats have no chance to move forward on this bill without getting Republicans involved.
The real motive for Obama is to address two criticisms that have overwhelmed public perception of his presidency after the first year. The backroom wheeling and dealing on ObamaCare made a mockery of his claims to have heightened transparency in Washington, especially since November. The Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase showed that Democrats are just as bad as anyone they’ve criticized for shabby and shady deals, and actually a good deal worse. Obama himself invited union lobbyists while locking out Republicans in the first two weeks of January, apparently convinced that Martha Coakley would hold that Massachusetts seat for the Democrats.
Obama wants the meeting televised so that he can start claiming transparency again, but also to demonstrate some leadership. Al Franken’s angry dressing-down of David Axelrod last week showed that Congressional Democrats are fed up with a President who likes to talk endlessly about himself but refuses to engage and take on some of the political risk he shoves onto them instead. His White House has become adrift and increasingly disconnected from the public, which is part of the reason why his approval numbers have sunk this quickly. A televised event like this will restore some of the veneer of leadership Obama has lost.
Still, there is a significant risk that Republicans will get attacked from all quarters during this round-robin event, and Hugh Hewitt offers some good advice to Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell in three points Republicans must make:
1. There can be no comprehensive health care cost control and thus no real health care reform without tort reform. In addition to a national cap on pain and suffering damages similar to California’s, we will offer some other keys to controlling the cost of defensive medicine in this country. We urge you to ask your colleagues to refrain from immediately rushing to the defense of the plaintiffs’ bar. The only way to stop the rising cost of medicine is to stop the need for doctors to practice with a lawyer on both shoulders.
2. There is an enormous need for an interstate market in health care policies. We should move immediately to eliminate this artificial and extremely expensive obstacle to the lowering of the cost of health insurance.
3. There can be no long term confidence in our health care system without confidence in a growing, vibrant and robust economy, one freed from crippling entitlement debt and massive borrowing. Therefore we will use our last presentation to acquaint you and your colleagues with the details of Congressman Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap,” which we believe could be enacted in parallel with comprehensive health care reform thus setting our domestic policy house in order.
Hugh finishes with an insistence on holding a similar forum on national security in order to discuss Mirandizing terrorists, which wouldn’t be a bad forum to watch, either.
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 4 Next »
I’d just settle for “sensibilities” of any type. And what’s wrong with the Tea Party movement passing judgement on sensibility?
The government which governs best governs least.
unclesmrgol on February 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM
We need some one who has a pair and is armed with the facts that will remind this lying clown that we speak for the majority of Americans who oppose his silliness and his corrupt schemes. Everytime he starts spewing his lies for the camera, he needs someone in his face reminding him of that. We need someone who will remind him of his new so-called jobs priority and demand an answer as to why the dems new plan will work when the old one failed miserably. We need more laughter as he got at the SOTUS when he tries to pump new live into his failed plan. They also need to nail him to the wall on the back room deals that were made with his corrupt conterparts. Also how he plans to stand up to the states that will not accept his mandatory purchase of this fraud as they are voting against it already before it is passed in many states. Also demand that Louisiana and Nebraska forfeit all discrimitory favors that the corrupt SOB’s of his party have promised to bribe the bills passage
The repubs need to get in his face and put him in his place if they follow up with this setup and ambush. Like another reader stated above I really don’t have a problem with being the party of NO. I know I am on the side of the American people and not the unions and thugs from Chicago.
bluegrass on February 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Ann is just wrong and I explained why in my post. I generally like Ann, but she often goes right off the rails. This was one of those times.
The GOP ideas for health insurance reform are succinct and simple. It takes all of two minutes to describe and explain them. That has been done over and over.
And we should reject him, outright. He’s too stupid to talk to about anything serious, anyway. On top of that, he’s a pathological liar who’s words cannot be trusted, anyhow. There is nothing to be gained by meeting with such a slug, as the only appropriate responses to The Precedent are to call him a liar everytime he lies – which is every minute or two.
The GOP should not be participating, IN ANY WAY, in helping to get a totally un-Constitutional, un-American, ridiculously stupid bill passed. If the GOP had any part in changing anything about health care legislation that helped the dems pass it, then they would be my eternal enemies – and I can assure you that the same goes for many Americans. For the GOP to do so would be nothing short of aiding and abetting a rape of our Constitution.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM
The new health care bill won’t require any changes, if it’s truly “new”.
That’s the trap. The Dems want to discuss “changes”, the Republicans need to insist on “new”.
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Rush is talking about this right now.
kingsjester on February 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Rush nails it. It’s a setup. GOP should not get anywhere near this thing.
petefrt on February 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Don’t do it, ‘pubs.
Midas on February 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM
If the Bamster were serious about negotiating a compromise, he wouldn’t have called in the TV cameras.
Hope GOP doesn’t fall for this game, but I have a really bad feeling about it.
petefrt on February 8, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Too many Republicans feel the need to triangulate in order to be liked. I don’t know if it’s yet enough to give Obama a win.
If all the GOP does is create a federal responsibility for health care, out of weakness, then it will never be strong enough or bold enough to end it. We will always be arguing about how much to spend.
Chris_Balsz on February 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Chicago two-step
bluegrass on February 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM
And nearly all have been proven to be either exagerrations or downright lies.
onlineanalyst on February 8, 2010 at 12:34 PM
The bill will be the compromise between the House and the Senate bills. This compromise will be worked out by Dems behind closed doors. Obama hopes this will be done by 2/25. Then he’ll publicly allow the GOP to suggest a few tweaks.
McConnell and Boehner have said they want to start over from scratch. Obama says no to that. I hope they call his bluff, knowing how weak he is.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 12:34 PM
You listening to this Michael Steele?
Time for another opinion from Sarah on FaceBook!
bluegrass on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Seriously–if we have to destroy the GOP and build an entirely new party that speaks better for us, I don’t see a problem. It’s been done before.
Restoring the GOP to like it was under Reagan might seem ‘easier’, but of the GOP leadership refuses to listen, then it has to be replaced because an intransigent leadership is making change impossible.
Liam on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
After his party fails, Obama wants bi-partisanship.
Too late, Mr. Shaved Ice.
Go hector your fellow losers.
profitsbeard on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Here’s a thought. Sense we’ve really never seen the Dem’s comprehensive health care plan, let’s ask them to publish “the plan”. Then stand back and watch the Dem’s try.
We can say, we will be ready to debate as soon as we’ve seen the consolidated House/Senate plan.
That should sink this leaking ship, once and for all.
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Yep. No question about this. The only silver lining is that, if such a federal move into individual health care/insurance happened, I am firmly of the belief that we would see states sec3de. Arizona Prop 101 only lost by 0.4% back in 2008, before any of this push started. I find it unbelievable that the GOP is too stupid to read these signs.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Here’s a thought. Sense we’ve really never seen the Dem’s comprehensive health care plan, let’s ask them to publish “the plan”. Then stand back and watch the Dem’s try.
We can say, we will be ready to debate as soon as we’ve seen the consolidated House/Senate plan.
That should sink this leaking ship, once and for all.
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM
- – - –
Excellent point!!!!!!!!
bluegrass on February 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM
C’mon, this is our GOP!
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Both of you seem to be forgetting we don’t have a choice in this regard. I am 100% against the current health care legislation. I don’t believe in public options, government control, or mandating insurance. I have lived with a public option and so has my wife (from Poland). The chance of it becoming law here was truly disheartening. But, both of you need to remember that if Obama decides to go moderate (long shot and unlikely), he can get the votes to get cloture. Don’t forget we have the Maine Sisters. Don’t forget we have McCain. Don’t forget that Brown is for health care reform, just not this bill.
If he makes some concessions and pulls just 2 votes away, this giant pile of garbage could still be ours. If we get in now, play correctly, we can shape the parameters of the debate to what we want. We have been extremely lucky so far, but our luck will run out eventually, and Obama can finally get a goal.
txaggie on February 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Barry’s going to stuff this little PR trick down our throats, unless we can come up with a game-changer. Betcha if anyone can come up with a game-changer, it’s the Saracuda. WWSD?
petefrt on February 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Yeah, the GOP will take all kinds of cheap shots at Palin but bend over their backwards to give Bammy a shot at hanging onto polls. Pathetic.
promachus on February 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Remember that the GOP tried to show Obama their plan when he met with them shortly after he took office. Obama told the GOP “I WON SO I TRUMP YOU”
Dems can’t get it done so Obama has come crawling back to the GOP. Hah!
TN Mom on February 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Rush is right. When your opponent is in the middle of committing suicide, get out of the way.
parteagirl on February 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM
If the Vichy Right decide to aid and abet the Precedent, there’s nothing we can do to stop them. That doesn’t justify the GOP helping the traitorous dems and Vichy Right to make a piece of un-Constitutional legislation that have a better chance of passing.
You don’t negotiate with terrorists.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM
One thing Obama probably would hold onto is the individual mandate. He needs everyone to be paying in premiums to fund this, especially if he wants to cover pre-existing conditions. The Maine twins both voted for a proposed GOP amendment that said the mandate was unconstitutional.
If the Dems wanted their votes, they could have made some concessions before the votes. Obama was lobbying Snowe heavily, but still couldn’t make a deal. Having seen how badly it went for Nelson and Landrieu, they may now want to stay away from deals. The Twins like to put their fingers in the air and be bipartisan when it looks good. They should know that Obamacare is a stinker and stay away.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Yes! Or better yet, we’ll be ready to consider a debate as soon as we’ve seen the published consolidated House/Senate plan.
petefrt on February 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM
–What you might be able to do is to require people to pay more for insurance if they don’t have it when they get sick. Such as requiring payment of a year’s or two year’s worth of retroactive premiums.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM
We will never be allowed to shape the parameters of the debate, The only purpose of engaging the Republicans in this charade, is to pull off those squishy RINOS without significantly changing the bill.
The present bill (whatever that is, have you read it?), has to go.
Only by starting anew should the Republicans become engaged.
You really need to listen to Rush!!
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Is the gop smart enough to see what o is trying to do here though? We can see see it because we have never been on board with anything o wants but the gop…..I don’t know.
ohiobabe on February 8, 2010 at 12:49 PM
The Republicans are stupid if they attend this sham without preconditions eliminating the public option, single payer, mandated payments and government control over personal medical choices.
rplat on February 8, 2010 at 12:50 PM
It’s an interesting compromise on pre-existing conditions. While they often result in a denial of coverage, an acceptance with higher premiums is possible. Some people with pre-existing conditions do get coverage. Depending on the condition, they just get higher rates.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 12:50 PM
If Ed thought in terms of political positioning, he wouldn’t have missed the MAIN reason for these symposiums:
The Dems aren’t going to hang this around the Republican’s necks by just putting this on C-Span. Here’s what they are REALLY thinking:
The Dems are willing to compromise and accept some TORT Reform and Interstate Competition (all will be temporary which will be folded into total government control). Why? For 1/6 of the economy? And… if the Dems SHOW they are compromising on these issues and THEN the Republicans say no because these things are temporary, the Democrats can SUCCESSFULLY hang this around the necks of the Republicans in the eyes of the independents.
The Republicans have to get SMART QUICK. The Republicans have to set down their own plan, and televise it. Then wait a couple of weeks for the public to receive it through a media that won’t want to tout it. If not well received, after polling, do another. Once one is well received, THEN go C-Span with Obama and not before. If one is NOT well received, do NOT go C-Span at all and take the hits. This ploy will NOT redeem Obama enough to get him reelected in 2012 anyway, because of all the closed door dealing we’ve already seen, and the public WILL remember.
Obama has moved a chess piece, and yes, it’s the Republican’s move. The Republicans need to make a video touting TORT reform and Interstate Insurance competition, and not let Obama get involved in the Republican’s next chess move.
Danzo on February 8, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Send written proposals and ask Barry to respond.
I’m not interested in Obama, Biden, and other Dems getting behind the lectern with the GOP in kiddie seats and giving the public a bunch of anecdotal sob stories and assertions that have no relevance in fact.
All factual assertions must be supported by a source other than a Daily Kos commenter.
For example, let’s agree on the number of uninsured: 47 million? No, only if you include illegal immigrants. 31 million? No, only if you exclude illegal immigrants, but still include people who (for whatever reason) haven’t been enrolled in Medicaid or S-Chip and citizens who are perfectly healthy and who consciously choose not to purchase insurance. 10 to 15 million? Maybe, because here we’re getting down to those who really are uninsurable. So let’s treat that number as one of the problems to address rather than the fiction of 47 or 31 million.
That’s only one fact to establish. If the GOP gets trapped into bogus facts and bogus arguments, we’re sunk.
One other thing. The GOP should cast their points as American points rather than party points. And where the Dems introduce nonsense, the GOP needs to disagree immediately with facts that disputes Dem claims.
BuckeyeSam on February 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM
GROWFINS: We know it’s you, Rahm. Stop wasting your time here and send a dead fish to McConnell and Boehner. Maybe they will get ‘skeered’ and agree to your offer. lol
JimP on February 8, 2010 at 12:53 PM
The Repubs better come out swinging. Car Insurance is so cheap in Pennsylvania because of limited tort. With limited tort the insurance companies can rely on the actuary tables with fear of a catastrophic loses. On the top end with catastrophic, chronic, long term care the Government should back them up by taking most of the financial burden through SSI.
There are many market solutions.
This is lesson one for Noboma to start to move to the middle like Clinton.
The momentum is on your side. If Noboma tries to control the meeting you better be prepare walk out. What a message that will send. If you dont you will deservingly go out of existence. Because I will not take this lack of representation and seek out other parties that value this country.
serendip2b on February 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM
This is a huge mistake for the Republicans. DO NOT GIVE OBAMA any opportunity to keep talking at a camera with the Republicans clapping in the same frame.
Khorum on February 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Boehner and McConnell’s initial response was that they would do it if they would start over and chuck the bills the House and Senate passed. Whether they can stick to that is another matter.
Obama does not want to start over. He knows time is not on his side. He wants to hold onto the Dem versions of the bills to keep as much as possible. He wants the Dems to crow in November that with little or no help from the GOP, they passed health care. He thinks that’s a winner with the voters. If not, he has established the beachhead of socialized medicine, and in ten years or so, will have bankrupted private insurance, ushering in the need for single payer.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Oh yeah, that will work. You’re gonna end up with $100,000 in health costs and you get off by shelling out $20,000 to some insurance company.
The Dems are really missing out on your genuis, give ‘em a call.
donh525 on February 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM
I am under no illusions that if the current health care bill is allowed to live it will be 100% Democrat and be the deathknell for American liberty. The current health care bill must not move forward in any way, shape, or form.
I am also under no illusion that some members of the GOP are weak, and willing to compromise for a good photo op. That is the only reason I suggest we even think about participating in this ambush. Remember, an ambush only works if one side is not fully prepared for the attack.
txaggie on February 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM
As the Boss suggests: Just say NO.
Christian Conservative on February 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Yes. This is what I spent 21 years in the military defending: Government by Symposium.
kens on February 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM
What would you rather have. Government by fiat.
Grow Fins on February 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM
its a trap, the reps can gain nothing here as a party or drive anything but the framework the one and the media will crate aroused this.
If I were McConnell I’d tell him to have dem. leadership attend too, noit just the reps. They have just as many issues and division ala the ‘plan’ in the dem party as to gaining consensus, this will allow obama straight away to make it appear the rep are holding it all up, whether that has become a fact NOW why let them off the hook?
IF these dodos do it, no filibustering, even the messiah gets a timed speaking segment as does everything else or else this will turn into the usual, the obama gab show.
imperator on February 8, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Yeah, Icertainly couldn’t imagine an executive branch that has dozens of unelected officials making policy decisions without the input of Congress. Nor could I imagine a government that wants to regulate the entire economy using pollution as a veneer. Both of those sound like fiat to me.
txaggie on February 8, 2010 at 1:10 PM
–What you might be able to do is to require people to pay more for insurance if they don’t have it when they get sick. Such as requiring payment of a year’s or two year’s worth of retroactive premiums.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM
–Do you have a solution?
And BTW serendip, the current healthcare bills already provide for interstate insurance competition or exchanges and most states already have liability caps, so don’t expect any huge savings with the liability caps.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM
How many states have caps on damages for medical malpractice? If it’s that many, then there would be no need for Dem opposition to including it in the bill. If there are few such states, then that explains why the Dems don’t want it.
The plaintiffs’ personal injury bar is one of the biggest Dem contributors, and expects something in return for its money: a continued opposition to med-mal reform.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 1:15 PM
The GOP Leadership is run by ABSOLUTE FREAKING IDIOTS!!!!!
PappyD61 on February 8, 2010 at 1:15 PM
That’s what you traitors want. You are the ones who think that empathy is the most important trait of a judge or justice. You idiots weren’t even ashamed to say just that. LOL.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Obama expects the Dems to have a united front by 2/25. They are working behind closed doors to work out differences. If they don’t do that, he does have problems.
He plans to present a single Dem version of the bill to the GOP, and say, “Ok, what’s wrong with it?” Whether he gives them any time to read it is another matter. He try to tilt the whole proceeding to put the GOP on the defensive to criticize his bill, and have little time to present their own bill.
This is a half-day affair. How much can they really get done in 4-6 hours, anyway. Each side would present its talking points and not move the proceedings either way.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 1:19 PM
If the GOP was smart (big if), they’d start running commercials with their plan. The MSM will never publicize it. Obama has lied and said they had no plan.
Publicize it before this meeting (assuming they’re going to cave in and go). Then the public sees it as a genuine debate over two different plans.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Wethal, see the link below.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
The CBO said that 2/3 of the states have eliminated/changed “joint and several liability” laws and 1/3 have capped non-economic damages.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM
GOP = LOST CAUSE!!!
PappyD61 on February 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM
When it comes to health care, I’d keep the federal government out of it, except for military care.
Yeah. Admit there’s no federal obligation to provide health insurance to every American. Then you don’t have any concerns about how to pay for it.
Chris_Balsz on February 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM
I have zero faith this would actually be enforced, people would just go out and spend down so they can say “but I don’t have any money”.
If this nonsense is passed, we’ll here in a few years that it’s not getting enforced, but there will be no way to walk it back.
Strangle this hellchild in the cradle. Once it exists, it will be too late no matter how atrocious it is.
NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM
–
–My solution would be to require the federal government to provide significant subsidies to state high risk pools.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Where in the Constitution does it give that power, or responsibility, to the federal government?
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Joint and several liability just determines who pays what in the total verdict. And how one defendant collects from another if that first defendant thinks it paid more than its share of the total
The critical stat is the samll number of states with caps on damages. Only 1/3 have capped non-economic damages (a/k/a/ “pain and suffering”).
Thus, 2/3 still allow the jury to allow any amount. The most the doctor or hospital can hope for is a remittitur (reduction of damages by a judge because the damages were too excessive) on appeal. And they are rare. Judges tend not to disturb jury verdicts. They are presumptively valid.
So 2/3 have the likes of John Edwards in front of a jury channeling the thoughts of an unborn baby who was allegedly born with cerebal palsy because of a doctor’s mistake.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM
–My solution would be to require the federal government to provide significant subsidies to state high risk pools.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Where in the Constitution does it give that power, or responsibility, to the federal government?
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM
This is a trap! The republicans should say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He needs a scape goat for his failures!
xler8bmw on February 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM
–I had remembered 2/3rds having some sort of reform. I had forgotten it was the joint and several reform, not the cap.
Here’s a link to a state reform map. It looks like a majority of the states have adopted caps on non-economic damages: http://www.atra.org/reforms/
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM
–Taxes or fees on insurance companies. Even the GOP seems to admit there’s a problem for at least fifteen million people.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM
My question was where in the Constitution is the responsibility or power for the federal government to do anything about individual health insurance mentioned?
The federal government is not allowed to just tax anything it wants and then spend those reciepts on anything it wants.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Just looks like a map of the US to me.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 2:01 PM
One reason we’re fed up with the GOP. Since, of course, there’s no federal responsibility to provide health insurance.
Chris_Balsz on February 8, 2010 at 2:01 PM
–click on the individual states.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:01 PM
This is a big mistake for Republicans to believe Soetoro. This is nothing more than a photo op for him.
Ricohoc on February 8, 2010 at 2:02 PM
And what would the rates be? What is the current profit margin of an insurance company? And how much of that would be reduced by “taxes or fees”? How many would be able to stay in business after these taxes and fees?
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 2:02 PM
–The federal government has taxing power under the US Constitution. It also has authority over insurance because of the Commerce Clause.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:03 PM
No thanks. It’s your statement. I don’t have to go looking for the evidence to refute it. It needs to be supported first. “Go look it up” does not a case make.
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 2:03 PM
–
–I clicked on about 20 states. 13 had caps.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I agree with the Boss whole-heartedly. Obama is offering nothing but a political aphrodisiac designed to solidify the blame for this disaster.
From a conservative friend to Boehner:
If, as Obama has already proved by example, he can not be trusted, (campaign promises broken), why would the Republicans even consider getting in front of cameras to be blindsided again? Fool me once……
Rovin on February 8, 2010 at 2:06 PM
13 out of 50 really. And what were the caps, and were there any exceptions to them?
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM
That power to tax is not unlimited, as you seem to think it is. The wording on Congress’ power to tax is:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This tax that you think is Constitutional is not for the common Defence and is not in line iwht the “general Welfare” which is restricted to those powers enumerated below that line, which is what the father of the Constitution, Madison, said explicitly.
BS. Everything is bought and sold so you seem to think that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government unlimited power – which the Constitution was specifically written to guard AGAINST.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM
And obviously your proposed taxes don’t go to paying down the debt, either – to take all of the possibilities into account.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 2:09 PM
neurosculptor
The “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” is a separate clause from the “power to lay and collect Taxes, etc.”
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM
If the GOP has a speck of sense, the only point they’ll make is to SCRAP the current bill and restart from the ground up.
The current incarnation of ‘reform’ is a cruel joke.
Dark-Star on February 8, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Republicans only need to set one rule for any meeting on healthcare; That the Democrats have to publicly scrap the House and Senate bills and start over or … no meeting, no way, no how.
Done That on February 8, 2010 at 2:15 PM
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Do you understand what that “to” means? I mean, come on. This is just ridiculous, now. Do you know why the “but” appears at the beginning of the final clause?
That clause describes how and why Congress may lay taxes. The enumeration and detailing of those restrictions and responsibilities follow in that article.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Aw, but all the other cool empires had forced-labor projects! Why should our best and brightest be denied their pyramids just because they were born American? /s
Chris_Balsz on February 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Do you honestly think that the President has any intention of seriously considering Republican ideas and of actually putting them into legislation?
Because if he isn’t serious about it, then why waste time on this?
The ideas are out there. You might not like them and he might not like them, but it’s not as if they are a secret.
If all this is going to be is his opportunity to make his objections to Republican ideas public, he can do that right now and stop wasting everybody’s time.
NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Do you understand what that “to” means? I mean, come on.
–The only restriction is that they must be uniform. And note that it’s not “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” that have to be uniform. I’ts only the last three.
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM
WRONG! You’re understanding of the constitution is limited at best. This HC bill has nothing to do w/Interstate Commerce which is what the Commerce Clause regulates. May I suggest you read US v Butler and Federalist 48.
The words “general Welfare” show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Notice that the Constitution doesn’t say the “general welfare of the citizens of the United States.” It says “general Welfare of the United States.” This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project — including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.
That’s it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the “And we really mean it!” amendments. Here they are:
Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the “United States” clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens (“the people”), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.
So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, “general Welfare of the United States” only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens’ health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.
The words “health” or “health care” appear nowhere in the Constitution[ii].
So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the “right” of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a “right.” According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a “right.”
Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that “right” is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don’t want to pay for the “right” to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law — or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a “right” to government-mandated health care.
If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated “right” to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a “right” if it has not been made a right by an individual state.
At least that’s what the Constitution says. Seriously.
xler8bmw on February 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM
–Then why are you so afraid if them going on TV and discussing this?
Jimbo3 on February 8, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Are you claiming that Congress can tax anything it wants, for any reason? Really? Okie doke.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Obama is the Inuit with a big club. The Republicans are baby seals. It won’t be pretty but those stupid baby seals deserve what they get if they can’t recognize a threat.
Extrafishy on February 8, 2010 at 2:24 PM
So you admit that there is no point to it?
I for one am tired of the permanent campaign. Obama is stealing his paycheck, he hasn’t done a serious days work since he entered the White House.
I’m tired of a President who continually acts like someone out of a situation comedy. These are serious times and another three ring circus is an insult to the American people.
NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 2:25 PM
This is essentially a trap for the GOP. Putting any kind of comprehensive reform of health care through will inexorably lead to a government takeover. Maybe not next year or the one after that, but sometime soon.
The GOP should insist on knocking back any kind of umbrella bill tackling a number of issues at the same time. Keep it simple, tackle one issue at a time. That way if something doesn’t work it can be undone- try doing that with a bill containing dozens and dozens of changes to the world’s number one health care system. Each individual measure should be thoroughly debated on its individual merits- and this has the best chance also of stopping pork/kick backs to preferred groups. Dems can hide millions to unions (for example) in a thousand page bill, but it’s a heck of a lot harder to do in a bill amounting to just a few pages.
The Dems will try to sneak through government regulation, interference and general meddling as stealthily as possible. The GOP should not let them- the argument is simple: health care is too large and complex a part of the already fragile economy to tackle all at once. Such an undertaking needs to proceed carefully and cautiously.
One thing at a time, GOP, one thing at a time. Anything else they agree to- and I fear the Stupid Party will mess this up royally and destroy their chances in the mid-terms- will be a massive error.
Jay Mac on February 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Why was Obama so afraid of going on TV for the last year and discussing this and every other issue? Instead it was secret meetings with lobbyists, union officials and Dems.
He hopes to have the two Dem bills merged by 2/25 and then presented to the GOP. He does not at that point intend to engage in any serious discussion or changed to the bill. It will hard enough (assuming the Dems can agree on matters such as Stupak and the union giveaways and such) to get to any agreement by 2/25.
He does not intend to work through the bill and discuss the major points and how he might agree to give up certain matters. Not in an afternoon.
He plans to present the “final” bill, say the GOP had no ideas he could agree to in one afternoon, and then proceed, saying they had their “chance.”
Wethal on February 8, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Breaking John Murtha Dead Age 77
xler8bmw on February 8, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Because Obama is a liar and a failed tyrant and his extraconstitutional whims should not be legitimized.
Chris_Balsz on February 8, 2010 at 2:46 PM
If the Republicans are too dumb to reject this farce then it just might be time to build a third Party, because the Republican Party will be incapable of sustaining itself and exercising intelligent thought.
rplat on February 8, 2010 at 2:49 PM
“Just when I think I am out, the pull me back in” The famous quote from “The Godfather”, should give pause to the Republicans who think they should burnish their “moderate” image by attending this fraud of a meeting. Sure, McCain will want to go. I think that alone proves my point.
The only way the Reps should go is if it is not a lecture with Obama giving a speech, but rather a round table discussion where each member is given the same amount of time to speak. Also, the ground rules should be that they are going to start over from ground zero. No agreement, then stay away.
darkmetal on February 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Yeah, why should they, it’s not like they have real jobs as elected officials to help pass constructive bills and programs.
Losers.
Monkei on February 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Liar? You actually know of a politician in either party who is not? Get off the high horse.
Monkei on February 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Gee, if the GOP can’t face Obama in a summit, how will they ever deal with terrorists.
At least Bush has spine.
Monkei on February 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »