Like what? Social Security reform? Hmmm. Immigration reform? Hmmmm.

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?

Like what? Social Security reform? Hmmm. Immigration reform? Hmmmm.
Oh, I remember – Medicare part D.

Ya got a point there ILC…

fyi…tort reform is already part of the current health care bill

It’s meaningless, but it’s there for show. Did you really think the liberals would turn against their contributors in the trial bar?

I think you need to come to grips with the fact that the Democrats have a majority,

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?

get rid of the deal you cut with Big Pharma limiting the ability to purchase lower cost drugs in Canada

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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….. 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.”

Obama’s Smart Move in Health Care Debate, but it’s fraught with risks for Democrats

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.

[Obama would] also look good if Republicans are scattershot in their opposition, saying “No” for the sake of opposing the president

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.)