Obama says he’ll include GOP ideas in ObamaCare v3.0
posted at 2:20 pm on March 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
After making the miscalculation of giving Republican ideas on health-care reform national media coverage, Barack Obama has informed Congressional leaders that his new ObamaCare proposal will contain some of the GOP policy demands made during last week’s summit. Which ideas will Obama include? Surprisingly, tort reform is among them … in a way:
In a letter to the Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress delivered to Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon, President Obama signaled that his mind is open to several provisions raised by GOP lawmakers during last week’s bipartisan health care reform summit, including medical malpractice reform, combating fraud, and killing off the special deal for Florida seniors secured by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida.
“No matter how we move forward,” the president wrote, “there are at least four policy priorities identified by Republican Members at the meeting that I am exploring.”
Among them, the president said the health care reform bill he posted at WhiteHouse.gov last week already included ways to combat “fraud, waste, and abuse” but he was intrigued by an idea raised by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a practicing ob-gyn, that “we engaged medical professionals to conduct random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs” to ferret out other abuses of the system.
The president suggested that while he had already directed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to award $23 million in grants for state-level demonstration projects to resolve medical malpractice disputes, he would be “open to including an appropriation of $50 million in my proposal for additional grants.” The current directive is an “authorization,” not an “appropriation,” so there is no guarantee the grants will be funded. This would change that and more than double the amount in grants.
In other words, Obama has only agreed to spend money on research rather than taking concrete action on tort reform. This includes no commitment to do anything after the demonstration projects conclude. It ignores the CBO analysis of existing tort-reform proposals that would save $54 billion from the federal deficit over the next ten years, and $11o billion for the industry as a whole in the same period. It also ignores the fact that California has had precisely this kind of tort reform in place for years, and has seen the same kind of savings (which the CBO used as part of its analysis).
What other ideas will Obama include? Obama will strip out the Cornhusker Kickback and the Florida waiver on Medicare Advantage cuts, dubbed Gator-Ade — which were already going to be gone anyway. The idea by Coburn to deputize medical professionals to sniff out fraud certainly may have value, but it hardly requires a system-wide overhaul to implement it. These ideas hardly touch the heart of the reform question, which is why Obama feels comfortable including them.
That isn’t true, though, of the fourth idea:
The fourth priority would be to ensure language allowing high-deductible health plans in the proposed health insurance exchanges, which combined with Health Savings Accounts, many Republicans believe “are a good vehicle to encourage more cost-consciousness in consumers’ use of health care services,” the president said.
That’s a good idea, but it’s going to undermine the financial incentives of the insurance industry to back ObamaCare. They want to force younger clients into expensive comprehensive plans in order to fund the more expensive care for older members of the pool. High-deductible plans won’t generate the revenues required to help insurance companies meet new mandates in must-issue laws and in community pricing, the latter of which progressives continue to demand.
The new bill means that Congress has to start over from Square One. The Democrats may figure out a way to cast this as a bipartisan bill while doing so, but they won’t get it done quickly or cleanly. It will pre-empt the reconciliation effort, as both chambers of Congress will have to pass it on brand-new processes, which means the Senate filibuster comes back into play. This looks like yet another miscalculation, a gambit that will keep Congress tied up on ObamaCare well into the spring and perhaps the summer.
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: 1 2 Next »
I’m sure this will happen as soon as he quits smoking.
cannonball on March 2, 2010 at 2:22 PM
He’s given four ideas to Republicans… out of 2,000+ pages.
BIPARTISAN!
Enoxo on March 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM
He’ll “explore” the Republican ideas, then push through a liberal reform.
“I Won.”
cs89 on March 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Campaigning is easy. Trying to radically change a free country is hard.
kingsjester on March 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM
No it doesn’t, Ed. They’re going to have the House pass the Senate bill, and then do a second “fix” bill with these, supposedly.
They still plan to pass the Senate bill.
Enoxo on March 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Congress won’t start over, they’ll just toss in another 1,000 pages to the 2,000 page bill.
Knucklehead on March 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM
With Friends like Soros, what could go wrong?
upinak on March 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM
He’s going to “explore” the issue of medmal reform. Real reform would be a statutory cap on non-economic damages, which his ambulance chasing donors would never allow.
Wethal on March 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Nothing that was propsed by any Repub will be in Obama’s final bill. If he even hints on including Tort reform or allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, he will be crucified. Those two items would save a butt ton of money and that simply can’t be allowed to happen. I mean think about all of the trial lawyers that would be forced out of work. Seesh it would catapult the funemployment rate back over 10%.
Johnnyreb on March 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM
He still includes un-Constitutional pieces, so it doesn’t matter what GOP ideas he tries to throw in.
Of course, the morons in the GOP couldn’t have been bothered to press the Constitutional issues (almost embarrassed to bring our COnstitution up) that are the true problems with the dems’ attempt to destroy our health care and expand the federal government well outside its Constitutional bounds.
Thanks, GOP. You guys are great. Maybe you can attend another summit to help revive this POS after the American people have to do your job, again, and kill this newest version of the rape and pillaging of our Constitution.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM
$50 million on tort reform in a $900 billion bill?
Per capita, that’s 17 cents on tort reform in a $3,000 bill.
Drop, meet bucket. GOP, don’t be fooled–vote NO!!!
Steve Z on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Oh, but I thought they have the votes to pass it :)
chunderroad on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Whatever keeps them talking longer about this, I guess. ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Cheese in the mousetrap.
Cicero43 on March 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Smoke and mirrors.
petefrt on March 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Again, would you buy a used car from that man?
HELL NO!!
BTW, this is supposed to happen after he gets the senate bill….or not.
jukin on March 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Wow. He’ll explore the idea of tort reform. In other words, he’ll talk about it publicly to win GOP votes and then mysteriously drop the issue as soon as the legislation passes.
amerpundit on March 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM
now I’m beginning to wonder if all these extentions of the hc debate are just distractions. there’s probably a lot of other things going on behind the curtain. At least it distracts people from the AGW blowing up (not that our lap-dog press wants to report any of that anyway)
r keller on March 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM
I am getting the impression that it’s all a bunch of hokum there is no desire to pass Health Insurance Reform, this is just something to keep us – the public focused on while the country goes into a second recession.
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM
With Friends like Soros, what could go wrong?
upinak on March 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM
He’s currently torqued at Barry for not Socializing America fast enough.
kingsjester on March 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM
The one thing Obama won’t do which exposes the ultimate aim of this farce (i.e., complete government takeover of health care) is to take the cost-cutting measures step-by-step. This is the only way to gauge what works and what does not. He won’t do this though because it’s ultimate aim will be subverted. This reminds me of the debate on “comprehensive” immigration reform. It HAD to be done comprehensively for a reason which was never adequately given. Bunch of snakes in the grass is what they are.
KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM
What Republicans, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe?
pilamaye on March 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM
This may be designed to bring in Dem House votes for the Senate bill and reconciliation, so they can go back and tell their voters they voted for a “bipartisan” bill.
Wethal on March 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Democrats have found a way to make Tort reform cost money. Awesome.
forest on March 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Here here. I feel like we’re over-focused on how much this style of reform costs. And the cost should be an immediate deal-killer, but it still isn’t the most important issue.
David Shane on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
1. The check is in the mail.
2. I love you honey.
3. I won’t c*m in you mouth.
DAT DAT DAT DAL DAT DALA
4. I’ll put in your points after my bill passes.
jukin on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
This is as phony as a three dollar bill.
It’s a trial baloon. Next the White House will sit back and see if the poll numbers improve on healthcare bill.
Who could possibly be dumb enough to think this is a sincere gesture coming from the Liar in Chief?
Naming of dummies starts in 3, 2, 1 ….
fogw on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Spending money really is the only way they know to fix a problem.
David Shane on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Make. It. Stop.
D2Boston on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Ed, they don’t need a new bill if they can get these items eligible for reconciliation.
Tort reform obviously wouldn’t work.
Chuck Schick on March 2, 2010 at 2:34 PM
How does that multi-colored smoke being blown up your a%s feel, by the way…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2010 at 2:39 PM
But will he appoint a blue ribbon commission? Cause it ain’t real reform without a blue ribbon commission. Lessee, David Gergen, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle …
Urquhart on March 2, 2010 at 2:40 PM
I know that this is the understatement of the year….but this guy just doesn’t GET IT. Does he really think that the majority of the country that is (contrary to his beliefs) AGAINST his government take over are so stupid to believe that he will fundamentally change the details of the bill???
The arrogance continues to astound me. EVERY poll says that a large majority doesn’t want this to continue and yet on they go….
search4truth on March 2, 2010 at 2:40 PM
No he is trying to manipulate the media, because he also praised Obama for saving the economy. George Soros is behind the Progressive movement, he is one of their big supporters so this is just to give the perception, that he doesn’t have any influence on Obama or Pelosi and Reid, but if people believe that, I have a health insurance reform bill, I would like to sell you ;)
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
What’ll you bet the “fix” never gets a floor vote?
Kafir on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
This thing has got more patches than Mozilla.
Doorgunner on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
As in a rainbow? Man, this site get gayer by the day.
Kafir on March 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM
By the time this is all done, it’ll be ObamaCare v3.0.008.0101 Service Pack 8, Build 1389.
flipflop on March 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM
No way we’re that lucky. No way.
WesternActor on March 2, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Yes, ma’am, you are correct. The problem they all have, is that they have underestimated the American people.
kingsjester on March 2, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Obama needs to sit down, have a cigarette, have a couple of drinks, and relax…I am concerned he is working too hard….
No wait, the doctors told him not to do that…
Okay, maybe he should go over his campaign promises, take care of those, then tackle the health care issue, after the next election…
right2bright on March 2, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Just more smoke and mirrors from Teh Won. It’s highly doubtful that the Dems will address the principle troubling issues in the healthcare bill (overall cost without adding to the deficit, doctor liability reform, etc,).
docdave on March 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM
And it will still freeze up and crash…
right2bright on March 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Lindsey Graham has a thrill up leg.
SouthernGent on March 2, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Even the media won’t float this garbage. A LETTER?!! This isn’t even enough beard for the Maine sisters.
chunderroad on March 2, 2010 at 2:48 PM
The new Obama tort reform plan: Obama Plan Calls for Making Health Care System More Efficient by Having Trial Lawyers Provide Medical Services More Directly http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-plan-calls-for-making-health-care.html
Mervis Winter on March 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM
After Dorothy Parker’s husband died, and the ambulance men had removed his body, a neighbor asked her “Is there anything I can get for you?”
Miss Parker replied “Yes; a new husband.”
When the neighbor lady sputtered that she probably couldn’t comply with the request for a new husband, Miss Parker retorted “Oh, alright. Go to the corner and get me a ham on rye, then.”
Right about now, Mr. President, this country could use a good ham on rye sammy.
Doorgunner on March 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Precisely. Why are we trusting Democrats to fix a bill after they approved their original plan?
They need to take down the original plans, and start over with appropriate language. Otherwise, Republicans should continue to say no.
Enoxo on March 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Once again, and most importantly, it is not about health care, it is all about Gov’t control.
rjoco1 on March 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Wear gloves before touching PBHO’s new plan, it might have boogers all over it.
Bishop on March 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM
I used to think time went faster as I got older, but the last 14 months have seemed an eternity. And I’m quite sure I’ve aged at least 10 years during that time! :-/
PrincipledPilgrim on March 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM
With Barracks consummate lying, why should anybody believe him now?
Cybergeezer on March 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Those are not the most troubling issues with the health scare monstrosity. They are incidental, at best. The un-Constitutional expansion of the federal government is the main issue.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM
It’s an old trick, and if people pay attention to the Media the MSM, people can actually tell when they are being manipulated. I think it was Tammy Bruce, who shed light on how it worked, when she was with N.O.W. They know how to frame the message for a desired effect on the public, and they know how to disperse it where it will get attention…picked up and discussed. First Soros was disappointed because Obama didn’t Nationalize the Banks so SEE people he has no influence on the President, otherwise Obama would do what Soros states, he believed should have been done….Soros is a big spider and fly guy.
Marketers study us and use the information to manipulate us.
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM
According to Rush, it took 15 people to draw this up! Yu da man, Barrack!
Cybergeezer on March 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I’ve a many curious things to shew when you are there.”
Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Aren’t we at about ObabmaCare V30.0 by now?
Lily on March 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM
These people are like little children who just can’t understand the word ‘no’.
Rational adults do not behave this way. They don’t believe that if they just keep wheedling they’ll eventually get their way.
No amount of Republican add-ons, particularly not the cheap bait-n-switch variety that Obama appears to be offering, are going to make this poison palatable. We don’t want his crappy government “exchange” system. We don’t want mandates to employers and mandates to individuals. We don’t want this bill.
What we want is for these yahoos to STOP SPENDING.
Murf76 on March 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM
New Improved ObamaCare with Bi-partisan!.
Same $hit, more seasoning.
ROCnPhilly on March 2, 2010 at 3:03 PM
I like the way Obama is focusing ‘laser like’ on jobs. This twit is going to be a lame duck come November.
GarandFan on March 2, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Speaking of Spiders, Nancy Pelosi said she wasn’t going to go for a Teensy Tiny Bill so what up with Obama 3.0 available in Unbuntu
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:11 PM
We’ve seen this before – it was called Friday the thirteenth part 23….
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Tort reform in not a conservative principle, it is a callous effort to defund the lefts’ financial supporters. Anyone here ever try to bring a medical malpractice case to trial? I have. Trust me the law is already stack against you. All that the doctor has to do while treating a patient is just comply with the average standards of doctors in the community — not excellent care, not good care, just average care — unnecessary excessive tests are not required for “just average care” — and the doctors can always get other doctors to come in as expert witnesses and say the doctor’s screw up was still within the “standard of care”. And jurors really are our peers. They tend to be a true cross-section of the community. You will get plenty of people on jury pool concerned with insurance rates and all of them were outraged by the McDonald’s coffee case — even though they no little about the extreme facts of that case.
You want to stop frivolous lawsuits. In CA we already have CCP 128.7 requiring the plaintiff filing a frivolous lawsuit to pay the fees of the other side. Under federal rules, we have rule 11 that requires basically the same thing, although the lawyer has to pay! We already have prohibitions against frivolous lawsuits with the teeth you want — loser pays.
You want damage caps, we have had a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering in California FOR DECADES. Does it stop frivolous lawsuits? Of course not. It has no impact on frivolous cases whatsoever. Damage caps are not directed at the frivolous cases, the caps are directly exclusively at the highly meritorious cases. Only cases where a doctor seriously deviated from the standard practices and really screwed up and really messed up their patient would a jury consider giving more than that in general damages, and when they do, some legislature in Sacramento (or Washington) will arbitrarily overrule the decision of the jury of our peers and cut off damages at some arbitrary amount. How is depriving a plaintiff of his or her constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his or her peers (overturning centuries of common law tradition) a conservative principle. Hint: IT’S NOT. IT IS A FORM OF STATISM. The state will determine the maximum amount of damages you can be awarded if some drunk doctor mistakenly removes your colon.
Rant Over.
tommylotto on March 2, 2010 at 3:11 PM
–If doctors were really smart, they would have been lawyers instead.
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM
It’s not the Dems who keep pushing this. If it were up to dems, this health scare would have truly died long ago, as Shrillary care did, or as the shamnesty did after a few of death blows by phone to Congress. This is solely due to the ineligible third worlder occupying the White House who has nothing but contempt for us and our system.
But, now this idea of the federal government going to active war with the populace, and pressing it, has become part of our political landscape. This is permanent damage to our institutions and will not be repaired. This is why the Founders put the “natural born citizen” requirement in for the Presidency. It was not a guarantee, but it efforted to assure that the person running the Executive was an American in his sensibilities. No natural born American would have put Congress and the federal government in such an all-out assault on the citizenry as this.
It took a third worlder with a taste to exact revenge on our nation to do such irreparable damage to us. Thanks to the libs for putting the ineligible third worlder up and thanks to those on the right who were too cowardly to defend our Constitution.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM
If the Founders were so freaking smart, why didn’t they include a definition?
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:14 PM
This ones for San Fran Nan…
Ooh pale shadow of a woman
Ooh black widow, ooh yeah
Ooh pale shadow, shes a dragon
Gold Dust Woman
Ooh pale shadow of a woman,
Ooh black widow, ooh yeah
Ooh pale shadow, shes a dragon
Gold Dust Woman
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:15 PM
This is all about getting the polls in the right place before the cram-down. The day-long media blitz last week gave the Demos a bump of a few points on health care, and now Obama is trying to look bipartisan to bump it a few more. Then the ra(h)m will get to work.
ProfessorMiao on March 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM
For the same reason that people often described marriage as between two people, or didn’t specify that a bride was female and a groom was male. It was known what was meant. When the Founders wrote that clause, there were no American dual citizens and none were allowed. The defintion very clearly, at the time, included nothing but people who were born American and had never been anything but American. It is only in modern times, with the advent of American dual citizens, that people now can’t seem to figure out if the Founders included dual citizens in the class of “natural born citizens”.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Same crap sandwich without the bread.
Cybergeezer on March 2, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Here’s the clause. You’re clearly wrong at least in part, because it also requires the President and VP to have been a resident of the US for at least fourteen years. That wouldn’t be needed if someone had lived here for 35 years.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Repugnicans didn’t mean any of those things anyway . When your entire plan is designed to destroy the insurance industry , what does it matter if you overide state insurance regulations for a few months ?
borntoraisehogs on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM
So how does he do this without starting over?
d1carter on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM
I’m sure this will happen as soon as he quits smoking.
cannonball on March 2, 2010 at 2:22 PM
- – - –
And his drnking and his lying! Don’t bet the farm…..
bluegrass on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM
“Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”
fogw on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM
I’m disgusted. Obama’s ego is so freakin fragile. He’s afraid to institute any real reform from Republicans. Like portability, and crossing state lines. My God! He knows these are popular, and I’d bet money that he’s had advisers tell him, these would work, especially if he included tort reform. Yet……he gives 4 ideas a nod. And those aren’t the ideas that would be the best for everyone.
I really try to stay positive, but sometimes, just sometimes, I get so sick, and tired of this petty little, little man.
capejasmine on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM
They pass the Senate bill in total, and “fix” it financially with a separate bill crammed through reconciliation, and fix it policy wise with a third bill chock filled with abortion protection and other GOP ideas too tempting for the GOP to filibuster.
tommylotto on March 2, 2010 at 3:32 PM
–You’ll already have portability under the House bill because you can buy it from a national exchange, so you could change employers/move inside the US and retain coverage. Under the Senate bill, you would buy insurance from a state exchange, but the states can band together. So you’d at least have portability within a state and perhaps more.
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM
None of the ideas ‘being seriously considered’ get to the root of the problem – or the fundamental difference between the two opposing sides.
The only solution to the high cost of medical care and insurance is to radically de-regulate the entire sectors and let the markets operate freely. That is something you will never see Obama or his cronies come anywhere near even considering.
Even the obtuse Obama is clever enough to triangulate to appear more bipartisan and willing to ‘compromise’, so long as the final results keep government firmly in charge.
When he starts discussing privatizing Social Security and eliminating Medicare, he can be taken seriously.
Even laudable ideas like tort reform, selling insurance across state lines, etc are only chipping around the edges. (After all, on the latter for example, there are still 50 State Insurance Commissars and the associated bureaucracy that need to be out of jobs before the problem will go away.)
Freedom works. And only freedom works.
JDPerren on March 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Howard Dean Explains Why There’s No Tort Reform in Obama’s Plan with Help from Trial Lawyer Ad: http://www.youtube.com/user/Optoons#p/u/12/XyKxoRqWEW0
Mervis Winter on March 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM
I’m well aware of the wording of the clause, numbnuts.
Huh? Residency is not citizenship. Are you playing dumb or do you really not understand the difference? Being an American doesn’t mean “living in America”. You know, when I take a vacation to a foreign land, I am still an AMerican and I don’t pick up a foreign citizenship by virtue of traveling around.
The Founders included the residency requirement to further insure that, even someone who was never anything but an American citizen, still had to have been in America, living within American culture long enough to be an American in his sensibilities. Of course, this was no guarantee, but it was the Founders’ best effort to safeguard our unique government from foreign ideas and sensibilities.
Too complicated a concept for you, jimbo? You are really flailing badly on this one – worse than usual.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
At the time of the Adoption of the Constitution some of the Americans might have immigrated from England and fought for the Americans.
My 5th Great Grandfather Robert Mason The Patriot fought for his new country, that he was very much a resident of but he was born in Stepney, London England…now that generation passed away. So I read it just for the generation that existed at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.
Barack H Obama was born way after the Adoption of the Constitution.
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM
I think Obama knows what he is doing. If he can find a handful of Reps supporting his 3.0 bill, then he can put it through both houses and have a bipartisan health care bill to sign.
If not, he can pass the old bill through reconciliation and then spend the next eight months hammering the inflexibly obstructionist Republicans who couldn’t say yes even when he bent over backwards to compromise. And when Sen. Bunning
filibustersdelays the bill to get furloughed highway construction workers back on the job (something he can’t ultimately stop no matter how hard he tries), he’s just helping the Prez. And so will Republican senators when they throw everything against the reconciliation bill to slow it down.If the Dems are clever (which is a big if) they can still save their ass in November by painting the Reps as do-nothing obstructionists, who, at a time when the nation is in the throes of a devastating economic crisis, tried to paralyze Congress even as the Dem majority was fighting to pull the country back from the brink of economic collapse.
And please don’t start to argue with me that the Reps are right and the Dems are wrong: that’s beside the point here. I’m just outlining the Dem talking points to come.
factoid on March 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Don’t buy this crap, it’s a sham . . . he has changed nothing of any substance.
rplat on March 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM
It doesn’t matter how many of the GOP’s ideas he puts in as long as the bill is still the Federal-Government-Takes-Over-Medical-Insurance bill.
Aitch748 on March 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM
The problem isn’t with what isn’t in the bill so much as what is already in it!
This is lipstick on a pig!
petunia on March 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Crock Alert!
Mason on March 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Dunno; I don’t like it.
I want it *dead*, not adjusted, not mitigated or diluted with a couple of throw-away Republican half-measures.
*DEAD*
Midas on March 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM
–So why the need to have been a resident for fourteen years? Are you saying that this language was meant to allow for a US citizen to take a vacation in Europe for twenty one years? Do you think people took 21 year vacations back then?
I don’t think “neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” only applies to the generation existing at the founding. And it’s not real clear to me why the second comma is needed in the first sentence.
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Incorporating these “ideas” doesn’t change that fact that the entire approach of Obamacare is anti-market; replacing market mechanisms with regulation and government committees. The Republican approach – see Newt Gingrich’ Center for Health Transformation etc. – would go way beyond tort reform to a fundamentally different patient-centered system. Patients should decide on costs vs benefits.
modifiedcontent on March 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Put some weak “Republican” inspired language in the crappy bill and then if the GOP still votes no…Obama can whine about how HE tried to compromise, but the evil Republicans won’t budge. Nice way to fall into Obama’s trap.
VOTE NO ON ANY OBAMACARE BILL!!!
ihasurnominashun on March 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
When some of them immigrated into America it could have been when the English colonies, still belonging to England…in a sense they were all previously English Subjects. At The Time Of The Adoption Of This Constitution. Reads to me those who immigrated before the Constitution and were now American Citizens, no long English Subjects. We won the Revolutionary War…did Barack H Obama get an award I am unaware of for the Revolutionary War…..This provision had a generational expiration date. That Generation of Americans, immigrants and native born on what is now United States Soil, have passed on long ago. God Bless Them.
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM
I messed that up.
When the colonies still belonged to England they were English Subjects. At the time of the adoption of this Constitution they became American Citizens whether born on American soil or immigrated before the Adoption of the Constitution.
The way I read the statue Barack H Obama is an American citizen born to an American Mother she didn’t give up her citizen ship in Hawaii – Native Soil. So he fits if he gave up his citizen ship in say Indonesia, was it his choice? He was a minor did he just take his step father’s surname or was he formally adopted?
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Ever hear of a diplomat? Guess where they live. Come on. Guess! People also did trade and business and lived in foreign lands, along with their families. Even foreign lands like Canada and Mexico.
Jimbo, I cannot believe that you are really trying to push this idiocy. Americans did travel and live, for extended times, in foreign lands. That was taken into account. John Adams, one of the true architects of the Constitution (via his construction of the Massachusetts Constitution) wasn’t even around at the time. Why was that? Where was John Quincy? Hmmmm.
Just admit that you were unbelievably wrong in this wacky residency/citizenship argument and cut your losses, which are already embarrassingly large.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 3:50 PM
Bait and switch, three card monte, what else have they got?
Dhuka on March 2, 2010 at 3:51 PM
This like the health care summit is just another attempt to give the dems political cover for hated Obamacare.The dems always hid behind George Bush now they hope to hide behind the GOP. Too late,the dems own Obamacare. If the dems push Obamacare against the will the American people let them reap the consequences in Nov.
Hera on March 2, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I think they’re reading the second comma out of this sentence to give eligibility to people who were citizens at the time of the founding:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States [deleted comma] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Oy. It’s not a matter of deleting the comma, but merely understanding what clause “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” modifies. That should be clear, even to you. There is nothing wrong with the comma being where it is. The problem is, once again, using modern grammatical tradition to interpret a sentence written at a different time.
neurosculptor on March 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM
–Diplomats usually take a 4 or so year posting. Not a 21 year one. And for someone to both be a 35 year old citizen and 14 years resident in the US, (s)he would have had to have been overseas with her family (and not a diplomat him/herself) for much of that time. Clearly people did take long, time consuming journeys back then, but that doesn’t explain the reason for the 14 year test.
Jimbo3 on March 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »