September 8-10, 2009
Sep 08 01:04 Van Jones Made JUST ONE Mistake? Sep 08 02:24 Congressman, You Work For US...For Now Sep 08 03:32 Matt Dean Pokes Holes In President Obama's Schtick Sep 08 13:12 Triggers, Food Fights & Election 2010 Sep 08 15:45 Are You Ready For a Tea Party? Sep 08 23:08 Mike Pence Is Exactly Right Sep 09 00:44 Kelliher's & Pogemiller's Big Mistake Sep 10 07:39 Dear Leader's Factual Slipperiness Sep 10 08:50 Democrats' Discord Is Showing
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Van Jones Made JUST ONE Mistake?
Appearing on CNN today, Huffington Post blogger David Sirota tried defending Van Jones . Calling his attempt a miserable failure is an insult to miserable failures. It's also a fanciful dance around the truth. Here's Sirota's attempted defense of Communist-Truther Van Jones:
DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Van Jones is a national hero for his work on green jobs. He's known as an expert on energy policy, on economic policy. He's somebody who made a mistake, who acknowledged that he made a mistake a long time ago, and he was tossed out by this White House.It's rather fanciful that Mr. Sirota said that Van Jones made ONE mistake. Thanks to Jim Hoft's great work at Gateway Pundit, we know that Jones was a 9/11 Truther , someone who saw the green jobs movement as a " complete revolution away from grey capitalism ", not to mention that Jones is someone who accused "white polluters" of directing poison into minority communities .
And I think what we can learn from what happened is what this White House values and what this White House doesn't value. The White House stuck by Tim Geithner as Tim Geithner was involved, the treasury secretary, in a tax scandal. He's accepted gifts from the banking industry. The White House stood by him.
To say that Jones made a single mistake is insulting. The fact that Jones thought of the green jobs movement as a way to move us away from a capitalist society isn't just a teentsy little mistake. It's proof of a revolutionist, which he's admitted to. The thought that a cabinet-level adviser could accuse white people of "directing poison into minority communities" isn't just a tiny little mistake that should be overlooked. It's something that thoughtful people everywhere, regardless of race or political leaning should express disgust and outrage over.
That's before talking about Jones's belief that the Bush administration knowingly let the 9/11 terrorist attacks happen. That's before talking about his admitting that he's a revolutionary and a communist.
Sirota would have us believe that all these transgressions, any of which would be grounds for not hiring and for terminating Jones, constitutes a single "mistake". My message to Mr. Sirota is simple: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!
If radical progressives like Mr. Sirota, Gov. Dean and Speaker Pelosi insist on defending Van Jones, they'll quickly lose what little credibility they have left.
This isn't a matter of Van Jones being just a little left of the American people. It's a matter of him being far to the left of the American people, far enough left of them to shock them.
Finally, this is surely to be the storyline that radical progressives will want to create in the victimization of Van Jones. It's up to honest conservatives to keep the facts in front of the American people. That's a responsibility that requires persistence but it's a responsibility we're totally capable of handling.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:07 AM
No comments.
Congressman, You Work For US...For Now
Rep. Baron Hill made an ass of himself last week at a townhall meeting. Here's the video:
"This is my townhall meeting and I won't let you tell me how to run my office." When Baron Hill faces voters in November, 2010, I hope his constituents make Rep. Hill's tombstone quote.
HOW DARE HE TAKE THAT ATTITUDE!!!
He's obviously under the delusion that he's God's gift to Indiana. NO MORE will we accept such arrogance!!! NO MORE will we be lectured to by a loudmouthed bully!!! NO MORE should any American accept that type of representation.
Based on Erin Chapman's commentary , I'm betting that Hill's diatribe isn't playing well in Bloomington, IN:
For those of us who witnessed the exchange, it was clear that Hill had unwittingly struck a nerve. The all-important question: Whose town hall meeting is it, really? The resounding response: ours ; not yours.Besides asserting this valuable principle, Ms. Chapman took note of something more important:
But that a congressional representative would even think that the meeting belonged to him is incredible. Where have you been? Since when was democracy about you talking and us blindly listening?
No doubt Baron Hill and his press office regret his rash response. But perhaps there is more ambiguity about all this than we thought.
But as August's discourse has shown, they underestimated us. Congress had become too accustomed to apathetic constituents. They didn't anticipate how strongly all of us would feel about this issue, and consequently the health care fallout that has followed has been beyond what anyone on Capitol Hill imagined.Participatory democracy is what this nation needs ASAP. It's needed because congresscritters have lost sight of their niche. Rep. Hill hasn't figured it out that he works for the people in Indiana. I suspect his constituents are about to teach him that lesson.
Screaming critics, personal attacks, assault rifles: None of this is a part of the sit-back-and-blog democracy that we have all become accustomed to. It's because of this new political activism that part of me wants to stand up and applaud these town hall meetings.
Fortunately for us, Erin's commentary teaches us a more powerful, more important lesson:
When I walked out of Bloomington High School North on Wednesday, I felt more confused and uneducated than I did when I had walked in, like I had unlearned something about the debate.For this country to work, We The People need to do our homework. Additionally, We The People need to hold our congressmen and senators accountable by asking intelligent questions. I understand the venting and expressions of anger. Trust me when I say that I empathize with those reactions.
The hour was filled with too much booing and too many anecdotes to be educational. Enough with the pathos. What we need are particulars.
A lot of the fault here is on the Congress. Town hall meetings should be a place where constituents voice their concerns to their representatives, not a place where congressmen assert their authority.
If we really want to further this issue we need more constructive conversation and less emotional ranting. And we, the constituents, must take it upon ourselves to change the tone of discourse.
After all, this is our town hall meeting.
Still, it's important that we each do our part in getting the information we need to make intelligent decisions on the most important issues of the day. That requires maintaining our poise. That requires doing our due diligence. That requires asking questions that either expose a congressman's spin or that elicits an intelligent answer.
Erin is right in her approach. Hostile confrontation should be the last step, not the first. By doing our due diligence, by reading the bills, we put ourselves in a position of being the expert. That's a position of power. That's when we make our elected officials uneasy if they're unprepared. If they're prepared, they'll inform you, which is what the goal should be.
Still, if congresscritters like Baron Hill insist that the townhalls are their meetings and that they'll tolerate their constituents only for a little while, then We The People must decisively and firmly remind our elected officials that they work for us.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:29 AM
No comments.
Matt Dean Pokes Holes In President Obama's Schtick
Rep. Matt Dean has put together an insightful post on health care on his website that's well worth the reading. Here's something that I totally agreee with:
During the Presidential campaign, the Mr. Obama promised "If you like your doctor and your health plan, keep them. But if you want the same kind of coverage that Congress gives themselves, sign up for the new public option!" This plan would be a government-run healthcare plan to "compete" with private health insurance.It's one thing for the federal government to regulate industries. It's quite another for them to compete with the industries they regulate. If that setup sounds scary, it should.
When this goes into effect, if you have private health insurance, your premium will skyrocket to subsidize another government-run program. The plan will crush the privately insured by demanding of you more subsidies. Any savings from such a plan would have to come from rate cuts to your provider. Those costs would then be paid by you, just like you do for Medicaid and Medicare. If you can not afford the higher cost, you will be priced out of the private market and presumably onto the "public plan."
When Congress passes campaign finance laws, the law is written to give incumbents special advantages. This is no different. H.R. 3200 exempts Congress from living with the coverage that they're imposing on us. GOP attempts to either force elected officials to use public option insurance or to give citizens the right to buy the same health insurance that Congress gets were defeated in committee. IMAGINE THAT!!!
That's before factoring in the Democrats' desire for a single-payer system. I wrote this weekend that Keith Ellison admitted that the public option is just a stepping stone to single-payer :
ERIC ESKOLA: Isn't the public option really just a step towards the single-payer system that you want so much?Speaker Pelosi said that any legislation that has a trigger for the public option in it will lead to a robust public option :
REP. ELLISON: Yes but the reality is that for many people that's not what it is.
Pelosi warned insurance companies that they should accept the Senate health committee proposal that would create a public plan because "if they want no public option but a trigger, you can be sure that the trigger will bring on a very robust public option."Based on Rep. Ellison's admission and Speaker Pelosi's threat, I'd say it's a guarantee that the House Of Representatives will have something in their legislation that will quickly lead to single-payer.
Does that sound like you'll be able to keep the plan you have and the doctor you like? It doesn't to me.
Those on Medicare are wondering why the AARP is supporting a plan that specifically proposes billions in cuts to Medicare. Medicare Advantage has been targeted for "reform" and offers seniors choice in purchasing private insurance options. That sounds like less choice and fewer options for seniors. Covering more people for less money will create rationing. This has seniors concerned that their care will be delayed or limited by proposed federal boards created to determine "what works."When comprehensive health care reform is defeated, seniors will have played a major part in the defeat. They know that dramatically cutting Medicare Advantage's budget will hurt them dramatically. They know that cutting funding for the most successful Medicare program will likely lead to rationing and fewer good options.
Thanks to clear-thinking public servants like Rep. Dean, holes are getting poked in President Obama's speeches. The American people are extremely well-informed on this issue because it's a deeply personal issue, literally a matter of life and death in some instances.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:32 AM
No comments.
Triggers, Food Fights & Election 2010
The latest fuss in DC is whether there will be a public option or whether legislation will be a trigger to the public option or whether there won't be a public option at all. This is only a fuss in DC because the American people have made up their minds. They don't want it. PERIOD.
Let's remember that the public option is just a step towards single-payer . Let's remember that single-payer is the basis of Canadacare and the system that the Canadian Medical Association says is causing Canadacare to implode . Knowing these things, why would We The People sign off on a fatally flawed system? Furthermore, why would We The People sign off on a trigger to a fatally flawed system?
The bad news for President Obama is that the DLC-type Democrats vehemently disagree with the Nutroots Democrats on the issue. That's before we start dealing with the divisions between President Obama and Speaker Pelosi or the division between Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. The division between Pelosi and Hoyer highlights the differences between the Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dogs, which is yet another division that hasn't gotten resolved.
Meanwhile, the American people are watching the various Democratic Party foodfights, coupled with the Democrats' mixed messaging, and they're wondering if there's a leader or an adult in the room.
Who can blame them?
If the Democratic Congress symbolized a class in school and the American people represented a teacher, the American people would give the Democrats, including President Obama, a timeout until they learned how to listen and until they learned how to work well with others. Rather than using the old cliche that too many chefs spoil the broth, let's say that too many liberal factions derails the legislation.
In this instance, though, derailing the Democrats' health care legislation is just what the doctors ordered. It's the best cure for the Democrats' 'cure'.
At the day's end, the important question isn't whether to trigger or not to trigger. That's been decided. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION is whether We The People should keep the Democrats in the majority after the 2010 midterm election. Unless and until there's common sense leadership in DC, we'll forever have to worry that the Democrats will want another bite at the public option apple.
Personally, the answer to that question is definitely not. I suspect more and more people are reaching that conclusion, too.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:20 PM
No comments.
Are You Ready For a Tea Party?
This Saturday, the CMCC, aka the Central Minnesota Conservative Coalition, is sponsoring a 9/12 Tea Party in St. Cloud at Lake George. The Party gets started at 10 am. The Party is scheduled to end at 1 pm but that time is tentative. After all, it's difficult to control an angry mob. (Remember that the DNC accused concerned citizens attending townhall meetings and tea parties an angry mob.)
We've got a great list of speakers, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, various state legislators, Ross Uekert , Second Amendment expert Joel Rosenberg and a host of local activists.
The purpose of the event is to tell people that conservatives have a better set of solutions than the DFL has. The purpose of the event is to highlight conservatives' common sense solutions to the biggest problems facing us.
We're pleased to announce that former KSTP radio talk show host Dave Thompson will emcee the event, sprinkling in his insights in between speakers.
If you're tired of career politicians in Washington and St. Paul ignoring you, then it's time to make your voices heard. NO MORE will we be ignored!!! NO MORE will we let people like Al Franken make time for union members, lobbyists and supporters while ignoring us!!! NO MORE will we let our ideas and priorities be ignored.
Carpe Diem!!! Sieze the day of opportunity!!!
Saturday. Sept. 12, 2009. Lake George in St. Cloud, MN. 10:00 am-1:00 pm.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:45 PM
Comment 1 by Joel Rosenberg at 11-Sep-09 05:22 PM
As a teaser, I'm going to be quoting at least two liberal Democrats -- and expect applause for what they said.
Really.
Mike Pence Is Exactly Right
Wednesday night, President Obama will give another speech on health care reform, this time during a joint session of Congress. While being respectful in tone, Mike Pence, (R-IN), captures it all with this statement :
MSNBC Host Andrea Mitchell: Republican Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana is Chairman of the House Republican Conference. Good to see you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk about health care. What can the president say tomorrow that will persuade any House Republicans that they should join in a bipartisan effort?After all this time, after all the tumultuous townhall meetings, President Obama is persisting in trying yet another sales pitch to sell a rejected product. It's as if he hasn't accepted as fact what the American people aren't buying what he's selling. Then again, I could see how it'd be difficult for a narcissist like him to accept that he can't sell anything he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants.
Rep. Mike Pence: Well, I think it's important to state emphatically that after a tumultuous five weeks of August town hall meetings by Republicans and Democrats across the country, that the American people don't want another speech on health care, they want another plan on health care. And I think the challenge the president has tomorrow night, not only among Members of Congress but among the American people, is to demonstrate that he's been listening to the American people who don't want a government takeover, they don't want $800 billion in higher taxes, but they do want health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance and lower the cost of health care for Americans in the future.
If there's anything valuable to be taken from Camille Paglia's column , and there is, it's that President Obama's biggest enablers have hurt him with their enabling:
As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration's strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have, from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)I was one of the first conservatives to say that the bloom was quickly falling from the Obama rose and that he wasn't the indestructible politician that DC-itis-afflicted Republicans thought he was. I was convinced of this because President Obama spoke too often in platitudes. I didn't see any indication that gravitas fit into the same sentence as his name.
By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats' main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP's facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.
While there's no doubt that Speaker Pelosi deserves a heaping dose of blame for the Democrats' demise, it isn't fair to affix all blame on her for President Obama's arrogance and lack of gravitas. Those can only be properly affixed to President Obama's shortcomings.
When the final chapter is written, there's only truth that will stand out: that the American people rejected President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical makeover of the U.S. health care system. They didn't want a total takeover; they just wanted the things fixed that needed fixing.
Finally, this is proof that sometimes it's best to "let a good crisis go to waste", at least if you're going to use difficult times to go on an ideological spending spree.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:13 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Sep-09 06:04 AM
I've been saying for a while now that, as regards health care reform, the usual "better than nothing" is not correct in describing it. "Nothing is better" is correct in this case, because these bills, every one of them, is worse than doing nothing at all. Do we have any Republicans eloquent and courageous enough to say so?
Kelliher's & Pogemiller's Big Mistake
Following Tuesday's Leadership Conference, former Gov. Arne Carlson said that Minnesota is heading towards an "economic tsunami ." That's the bad news. The worst news is that Speaker Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller have tried raising taxes, insisting that Minnesota's small businesses aren't taxed enough.
The good news is that Republicans are offering a plan that will make Minnesota's economy hum again. After talking with legislative leaders and GOP gubernatorial candidates, it's safe to say that their goals are to live within their means and to set intelligent priorities.
One of the biggest longterm problems facing Minnesota is health care. The DFL's solution vary, with Speaker Kelliher advocating putting more Minnesotans on MinnesotaCare. While MinnesotaCare hasn't done a poor job, it's equally true that it isn't a great solution for either the long- or short-term.
By comparison, Rep. Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan is an innovative market-based plan that will change how Minnesota offers health care to 58,000 people currently on MinnesotaCare. By using health reimbursement accounts, Rep. Gottwalt's plan actually offers people enrolled in MinnesotaCare better coverage at a cheaper price, plus it offers these people true portability.
BTW, it would save Minnesota's taxpayers $30,000,000 annually, too.
After HF1865 passed its first committee with unanimous support, the DFL leadership, Speaker Kelliher included, let the bill die. If Minnesotans are wise enough to elect a Republican to the governor's mansion and give that Republican governor GOP majorities in the House and Senate, Rep. Gottwalt's bill will become law.
Another major hindrance to economic growth is Minnesota's hostility towards entrepreneurial activity. During a recent appearance on At Issue with Tom Hauser, GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert told of a person wanting to start a small business in a southern Minnesota city. The small business didn't start up in Minnesota because the licensing fee would've cost this entrepreneur $30,000 annually. That's a dramatic difference compared with the $350 fee that Iowa charges for the same licensing. Why would a business start up in Minnesota when they're giving up $29,650 in profits just from the licensing fees alone?
There's no chance that Minnesota's regulatory system will change for the better with the DFL running the House and Senate. This year, the DFL's disarray was so bad that Sen. Tom Bakk, chairman of the Senate Taxes Committee, criticized Rep. Ann Lenczewski for her tax bill :
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.If people are willing to travel across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border to save $20 in liquor taxes, why does Sen. Bakk think that a small business wouldn't move across the Minnesota-South Dakota border to save $50,000 a year in income taxes?
The biggest lesson that Sen. Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher haven't learned is something that Gov. Pawlenty learned years ago: that you can't be for job creation but be hostile to small businesses. In Gov. Pawlenty's own words, that makes as much sense as "being pro-egg but anti-chicken."
Hopefully, Minnesotans will replace the DFL's disastrous leadership team with a business-friendly team of GOP majority leaders. If that happens, I'm confident that the word prosperity will be removed from the DFL's forbidden words list.
Posted Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:44 AM
No comments.
Dear Leader's Factual Slipperiness
During President Obama's speech tonight, I found myself frequently disagreeing with President Obama's facts tonight. Thanks to this AP article , I now know why. Here's the text of the AP's factcheck article:
A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:Later today, I'll go through President Obama's speech and factcheck it. Alot of his speech was just plain wrong. Alot of the things he said haven't been in any of the Democrats' legislation, which means that they'll have to rewrite the legislation or it'll never be in whatever legislation passes.
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.
House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it, the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.
Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.
That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
___
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.
___
OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.
___
OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.
___
OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care - particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions - actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.
___
OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."
THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.
In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.
He proposed during the campaign - as he does now - that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.
"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.
Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.
___
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.
Either way, the speech had a definite Alice in Wonderland feel to it. That's no way to sell health care reform.
Posted Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:44 AM
Comment 1 by Mark Allen Roberts at 10-Sep-09 05:08 PM
One issue leaders face when they launch a vision without a plan is the audience feels they are making it up as they go, they feel there are being sold not informed.
We all like to buy, we just hate being sold.
I discuss the lessons the 2009 Health care reform can teach business leaders in my post: http://nosmokeandmirrors.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/12-lessons-all-leaders-can-learn-about-launching-new-products-and-services-from-the-2009-health-care-reform/
Mark Allen Roberts
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Sep-09 06:09 AM
You overlooked one of the biggest sleights-of-hand. He kept talking about giving people "coverage"-- insurance-- but having health insurance doesn't get you health CARE. Nothing in this legislation increases the amount of health CARE available to the population. What it claims, therefore, is that we can somehow produce more health care, of better quality, for millions more people, at less cost, with the same amount of health care providers as we now have. It is IMPOSSIBLE! Alice in Wonderland doesn't begin to describe it!
Democrats' Discord Is Showing
It isn't a stretch to say that Democrats are in disarray on the health care issue. I wrote about their disarray in this post . That's why I'm skeptical when the duncely duo of Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi said that they have the votes to pass sweeping health care reform .
The Democrats' factions are already fighting with each other. There's a mini-feud between President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. There's an outright brawl between Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. That's before we talk about the fight between Blue Dog Democrats and the Progressive Caucus. Now there's rumors that Howard Dean might mount a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.
I don't doubt that the circular firing squads are forming as we speak. That's the next thing to watch for during the Democrats' downward spiral.
Even Dear Leader is losing his poise. Taking a shot at Sarah Palin isn't smart for anyone. Taking a shot at Sarah Palin during a nationally televised speech is downright foolish. Here's Sarah Palin's reply :
In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I've raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns "bogus," "irresponsible," and "a lie", so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we've made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.The inescapable truth is that the IMAC, if created, would be unaccountable to people. They'd have the authority to ration care. Rationed care would inevitably lead to people dying of breast cancer or other or heart disease or other life-ending diseases.
In fact, after promising to "make sure that no government bureaucrat...gets between you and the health care you need," the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council, an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost...the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives..." He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I've made, I'm going to call him out too.
The other inescapable truth in all this is that Sarah Palin has gotten under President Obama's skin. She keeps exposing his empty rhetoric and he keeps getting irritated by her rebuttals.
Make no mistake about it, either. She's staying after him like a pitbull on this issue. I suspect that it'll stay that way until President Obama and Speaker Pelosi break. I suspect that there won't be health care reform until they take Sarah Palin's and the House Republicans' proposals seriously.
That might be a while. By that time, the Democrats might really be in disarray.
Posted Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Heins at 10-Sep-09 10:42 AM
That's all fine, but don't forget the Repub's are also a bit disarrayed.
There's may be an opportunity for small-l libertarians, from both major parties, to have more political clout now than in the recent past.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Sep-09 10:56 AM
The Dems DO have the votes for real and lasting healthcare reform, but will not use them.
They cannot get their stuff together.
So far it is a mess.
Six Senators from unpopulated states representing 3% of the population of the US of A, without a major urban area between them are diddling each other, and leadership of any kind would call them out.
Do you hear?
A deafening silence is all I hear.
Except for one guy yelling Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire, or some such schoolyard taunt.
Realistically, the guy from South Carolina shouting "You're lying," probably was right.
But how can you really lie when you're a lukewarm waffle every chance you get?.
I only wish that SC individual was around to shout when Bush gave the Niger yellow-cake lying show; or even further back when Johnson lied about Tonkin Bay and Nixon lied about being a crook.
What a spectrum of ineptness. From the days of Lyndon Johnson onward. All orbiting the two-party corporate owned narrow Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum spectrum.
Liberty weeps. Wusses rule.
Comment 3 by Marcum at 11-Sep-09 06:12 PM
The overall agenda needs to be re-seized.
The real crisis is as follows:
Jobs
The overall economy
Fiscal stability
We need for Congress to spend time on our priorities as noted. Until these are addressed, we should not spend much time on health care.
I would suggest no healthcare legislation gets considered until:
unemployment is below 7%
GDP growth is steady at 2.5% annually
The annual deficit is reduced to less than 5% of GDP
This also means recasting the unspent stimulus dollars toward something effective in creating long-term value, like nuclear power plants.
Health care ideas and reforms can be studied and debated in the interim, and legislation can be actively pursued in chamber after these other priorities have received sufficient time and attention and these goals have been achieved.
Do anything other is economic suicide and will make health care reform meaningless. Joblessness kills. The greatest source of bankruptcy is not health care but joblessness.
This is what we the people want and our employees in Washington need to start paying attention to our needs or they are going to have to be summarily fired.
Let's demand full attention to our agenda before anything else:
Jobs
The overall economy
Fiscal stability
Congress, Barak -- we the people, your employers (not your subjects) order you to adjust your priorities to address the issues noted above before distracting us with a false health care priority
Comment 4 by Curt at 12-Sep-09 01:02 PM
Excellent article, I met you today at the Tea Party in St. Cloud.
Obama is lying about lying. Maybe I need to write an article about his direct lies with his healthcare plan.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Sep-09 03:12 PM
Curt, It was a total delight meeting you this afternoon. Keep preaching the gospels of self-suffiency & American exceptionalism.
Comment 5 by eric z at 12-Sep-09 04:26 PM
Gary, Marcum. Not to hijack the thread from the Dem disarray on healthcare, I agree with it, from the left end of the spectrum, so all the posturing ones are in the center I guess.
But the economy, jobs - as much detail how do you do it, how much do you spend, what of that is deficit, when is the deficit to be reduced [the other side of pump priming] and how do you raise real money besides the Treasury issuing debt and the Fed printing currency?
Who picks up the tab? So far, bank and Wall Street bailout, stimulus, where has the money gone - and ultimately, who is to pay; how much allocated how exactly?
It's a mess. It's got a carryover dimension. It has a present diddling dimension.
What's the answer? Gary, I know you have done short posts here and there - but never a full big picture answer.
