First, gotta give credit where it’s due. The president made a very smart political movie when he called the opposition’s bluff, “inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit” on health care to be”televised live later this month.” He “challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system”:
I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues. . . . What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.
Let’s hope he means what he says and instead of using a a proposal reconciling the House and Senate bills which passed last year as the basis for discussion, he really solicits Republican viewpoints. Perhaps because he’s wary of the president’s sincerity, House Republican leader John Boehner welcomed the discussion, but cautioned,
The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.
Exactly. If the president does just that, this move could really redound to his benefit. He would show that like the Gipper, he’s teachable, able to make course corrections where necessary.
He’d also look good if Republicans are scattershot in their opposition, saying “No” for the sake of opposing the president instead of rejecting a proposal on its merits (or lack thereof). That is, I believe, what Obama is banking on. And it could work if congressional Republicans are (as Democrats believe them to be) too shrill in their opposition.
If, however, the GOP designates a few point persons, say, maybe Eric Cantor or Mike Pence from the House and Judd Gregg, Bob Corker or Scott Brown from the Senate, individuals able focus on a few specific ideas for reform (notably tort reform) and can clearly articulate why they oppose the statist solutions contained in the House and Senate bills, this initiative could backfire for the president. Congressional Republicans could use this forum to show that GOP views correspond with those of the majority of the American people.
If the president holds too firm to the Democratic bills, he runs another risk, seeming too intransigent, hell-bent on passing health care reform for the sake of passing it, stubbornly making the case for a program the American people have long since rejected.
It’s a smart move on the president’s part, but it doesn’t guarantee him success. Indeed, if Republicans come prepared, it could doom him to failure in this endeavor.
Time for the annual photo-op so his mindless drones can squeal “See! See! He is bipartisan!!!” like Ned Beatty.
I smell another heap-o-bullshit comin’.
Fine points. Let’s hope the Republicans do let a few leaders carry their message. And they should also point out in the middle of it that these have been out all along and ignored by Barry, Harry, Nancy and friends.
He repeatedly said the healthcare negotiations would be televised on CSPAN. That didn’t happen. And when the public learned about the Nelson, Landrieu and SEIU side deals, they became repulsed.
Obama knows the Republicans are likely already preparing campaign videos that highlight the broken promise of transparent negotiations. It’s going to be the equivalent of G.H.W. Bush’s “read my lips” moment. Obama’s trying to minimize the damage from that.
He didn’t care one wit about Republican ideas until after the Scott Brown election. After a year of this grueling process, he suddenly wants input from Republicans. It’s a political ploy to try to fix the screw up of not televising the debate as promised in the campaign. He’s a fraud, the bi-partisan gesture is a fraud, and the American people are smart enough to see it as such.
Note that it will be “televised later”…after the snips, pastes, and photoshopping, voice overs, and coverups have been editted in – no doubt!!
show it live!!!
I have a hard time believing that Obama is sincere in anything he says. He´s looking to save the Democrats majority in November. He wants to ram through his agenda. Nothing else is more important to him. The people be damned!
The Republicans should have a two part presentation. Part one should be bullet points of the 3,000 (plus or minus) budget busters in the current plan (Ha ha) that must be neutralized. Part two should address insurance portability, solving the Medicare/Medicaid revenue shortfalls, pre-existing condition insurance, ending the costs of malpractice insurance and excessive defensive testing to avoid malpractice suits. Furthermore, they should make the case for access to healthcare through an “uninsured patient” system rather than imposing top-down universal health care.
It’s fraught with risks for Republicans. The world will see if they have learned anything since the disastrous George Bush days of continually increasing domestic spending and generally caving into the Democrat viewpoint on spending.
I think it would be better, both for the policy outcome (i.e. for America) and for the Republicans politically, if they did that. Better than if they merely caved into Democrat premises (e.g., the premise that government should play a role in health care) or let themselves be used.
What the Republicans should really do is, focus on what a free-market health care reform would look like, and then advance key elements of it as preconditions for the summit. Preconditions to constrain Obama if he accepts them, and make Obama look bad when he refuses them. Preconditions like:
– No public option.
– No mandates.
– No net increase in government spending on health care
– No net increase in government regulation of health care
– No net increase in government taxes on health care
– Meaningful tort reform is a must.
– Permitting interstate competition is a must.
What the summit is left to discuss would be matters such as, for example, what is the best free-market change to make to the tax code. (Is it better to eliminate the employer deduction for health insurance, or to give independents and the unemployed a counteracting personal deduction for health insurance? Etc.)
Spend….. Spend….. Spend….. I thought “Let’s Make a Deal” went off the air years ago….. Why does this president continue to ignore what got us in to this mess, didn’t he get the memo saying you can’t counter the greed and spending of the past by adopting new policies filled with even more greed and bigger spending?
How about this idea Mr President….. get rid of the deal you cut with Big Pharma limiting the ability to purchase lower cost drugs in Canada….. or how about improving portability and accessibility of policies across state lines….. and yes many lawsuits are valid, but just as many are not. So in the interest of doing what’s right and fair, yeah reel in attorneys and their frivolous law suits…..
Although the administration and the MSM like to gin things up… no one on the right is saying pre existing conditions shouldn’t be covered, or people shouldn’t have access to healthcare insurance…… rather the GOP’s position is based on adopting a more fiscally responsible path to achieving the same ideals.
Sure, now after a year of failed attempts to get his bill passed, Mr Obama wants to televise the festivities on February 25th…. Oh boy, more fun and games….. wait a minute, didn’t he just tell us “NOT” to watch cable news? When you really think about it, the whole thing doesn’t make sense, what kind of smart business practice is it anyway? Hell, I got a better idea, video tape the meeting and sell the DVDs after 2AM during an infommercial…… all payments going directly in to the administration’s new slush fund…..let him spend that money any way he wants.
Memo to president: “If life was fair roses wouldn’t have thorns.”
Check out the toy the Obama administration is sending out to disgruntled progressives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7IxliAPjAk&feature=related
While a good start, I’d rather the whole session be closed to the press and off-the-record. It’s time for some frank and blunt policy discussion…not posturing for the boob-tube and “caught-ya” sound-bites by both sides. Transparency has it’s role in open debate for identifying and tracking actual legislation and amendments…but the horse-trading and broad-brush policy compromises need to be done in an environment where frankness and national welfare trump sound-bites.
fyi…tort reform is already part of the current health care bill
Actually, there are a lot of Republican ideas in the current bill. Ezra Klien has a good synopsis in WaPo today – LINK
#8
Its hard to take your comment seriously, because it sounds to me like you believe that the only way for there to be a bipartisan resolution to this issue (or any other issue, I imagine), is for the Republicans, or the conservative or libertarian Republicans, to get all they want.
As if you guys had actually won a majority.
I think you need to come to grips with the fact that the Democrats have a majority, Obama has a mandate, and as a result, whatever final bill emerges – even if it is a beautiful example of bipartisanship – will reflect Democratic ideas at least as much as Republican ideas, and probably, properly, more so.
We all know, or can well imagine, what kind of “reform” you might institute if you had your way, completely. The interesting question though, is this: what ideas put forth by the Democrats, that you oppose, would you be willing to accept as part of the negotiation.
Since it really isn’t going to be you doing the negotiating, you needn’t worry about tipping your hand here.
to Tano…..
Did your gift from Obama arrive yet… they were sent out last week compliments of the White House……..if not I’m sure you’ll get it any day now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7IxliAPjAk&feature=related
“How about this idea Mr President….. get rid of the deal you cut with Big Pharma limiting the ability to purchase lower cost drugs in Canada”
So what do they then get back in return?
“….. or how about improving portability and accessibility of policies across state lines….”
Its in the bill.
“. and yes many lawsuits are valid, but just as many are not. So in the interest of doing what’s right and fair, yeah reel in attorneys and their frivolous law suits…..”
How? Being able to have your day in court is a core Constitutional right available to all citizens. Judges have the power, of course, to throw out cases that are truly frivolous. Nonetheless there are measures in the bill to begin to address what abuses may exist. Are you aware of them? What is your objection to them?
“no one on the right is saying pre existing conditions shouldn’t be covered,”
Really? No one? Then why do we have the system that we do? Why did Republicans not do anything to change it when they had full power in DC?
Oh, and to follow up my last comment to Spartann
If you think that people with pre-existing conditions should not be denied coverage, then how do you avoid the situation whereby people remain uninsured until they get sick, and then go get insurance that they cannot be denied?
The individual mandate is the answer to that question in the current bill. The insurance companies can live with giving coverage to those with preexisting conditions, and not dumping people once they get sick, but only if they can be assured of those healthy young people paying premiums. Otherwise, it won’t work for them, as a matter of simple economics.
But I imagine that you are opposed to the individual mandate? So what would your solution be?
Ah yes, lets buy drugs from Canada who are extorting them from drug companies at less than market value, and see how long we have drug companies!
The very WORST thing that could happen to the countries with socialized medicine is for the United States to join them. Then they will find out how much Americans have been propping up their already failing systems.
I’m not sure why the Republicans have to pull Obama Reid and Pelosi s onions out of the fire. The bumbling Democrats with huge majorities in both houses can’t govern. They’ve lost every election since Obama stuck a stick in the eye of the electorate. Live with it. Most conservatives believe in small government. Govenment that intrudes less in our lives. I like it when any administration gets little done. Far less damage done. Get a concensoius to fix some problems. Those you can’t apparently there isn’t a concensious. Go home.
It’s meaningless, but it’s there for show. Did you really think the liberals would turn against their contributors in the trial bar?
So all the liberal whining, pissing and moaning about bipartisanship when the Republicans were in the majority was just a joke or something? All that bitching about Bush’s lack of bipartisanship was just sound and fury signifying nothing?
It’s clear that *Democrats* need to come to grips with the fact that they have a majority. Bush and the Republicans, for all their faults legislatively, accomplished more – with smaller majorities, and against far more poisonous opposition (in the Democrats). Democrats, having historic majorities, have no one but themselves to blame for their present problems.
“Bush and the Republicans, for all their faults legislatively, accomplished more – with smaller majorities,”
Like what? Social Security reform? Hmmm. Immigration reform? Hmmmm.
Oh, I remember – Medicare part D.
Ya got a point there ILC…
Tano #22:
Before we step further into this invitation to discussion, would you, Tano, admit that:
a) Social Security is bankrupt and must be addressed, and;
b) Illegal immigration needs to be addressed?
How about you come back with your liberal/progressive solutions to these issues you have introduced?
Why do I think you will cut and run?