Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

Obama Says: Read My Lips
August 4, 2009
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/024197.php

Most Americans are convinced that Obamacare will mean higher taxes. They are undoubtedly right. Over the weekend, as we noted here http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/024180.php both Tim Geithner and Larry Summers opened the door to broad-based tax increases. But in his press briefing yesterday, Robert Gibbs slammed the door shut, as hard as he could:

QUESTION: Could I make that even a little more precise? The president, as you well know, has -- not just middle class -- but he's been very precise about it. No family... (CROSSTALK) GIBBS: Let me be precise. The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

QUESTION: Any implication anybody drew from Geithner and Summers yesterday to the contrary is flatly wrong?

GIBBS: I think -- I think the president's been clear. I think you heard him reiterate it not -- not that long ago, right outside this room in the Rose Garden.

QUESTION: But you can understand why people took what they said yesterday as Geithner and Summers trying to open the door a little bit.

GIBBS: Well, I hope you will -- I hope you will take my reiteration of his clear commitment as an update.

QUESTION: So they did not -- the door is closed. They did not open the door at all.

GIBBS: I am -- I am reiterating the president's clear commitment in the clearest terms possible that he's not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year.

Yet, as Byron York wrote this morning, Obamacare will make tax increases inevitable, and most people know it: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-52382632.html

"After all this discussion about health care and cap and trade and loss of jobs and the budget and the stimulus, this group [middle class voters] is suddenly beginning to feel particularly vulnerable to tax increases," says one Republican pollster. "They don't see how things are going to work out for them in a positive way, and they worry that instead of being in a position to bounce back from the present economic environment, in fact more money may be taken away from them."

Their concerns are entirely rational. Economists left and right have long argued that there is no way Obama can pay for a national health care makeover and a host of other expensive initiatives without breaking his campaign pledge not to raise taxes for anyone making less than $250,000. The wealthy are already paying a grossly disproportionate percentage of federal income taxes, and increasing taxes on them won't raise enough money to meet Obama's needs.

So what's going on here? I think the Democrats know (as both Geithner and Summers essentially admitted) that broad-based tax increases will be necessary if their legislative agenda passes. Right now, though, that agenda is teetering on the brink of disaster. Cap-and-tax may be dead and Obamacare is looking tenuous at best. If the administration were to admit that these programs mean higher taxes on more or less everyone, they would have no chance of passage.

So Obama and his minions are doing what they think they have to do: they are misleading the public about the fiscal consequences of their legislative agenda, knowing that if they are successful, there will be a day of reckoning in the not-too-distant future. At the moment, their disarray is such that they are willing to take their chances with an electorate that will surely be enraged if Obama violates his iron-clad pledge not to raise the taxes of those who earn less than $250,000 a year.

Maybe they've forgotten what happened to the first President Bush; maybe they think their friends in the media will somehow soften the blow with voters; maybe they just don't think they have any choice. One way or another, this surely is not the situation Obama and his advisers thought they would be in a mere seven months into his term in office.





Not Waterloo, Just a Tactical Retreat

WASHINGTON - Yesterday, Barack Obama was God. Today, he's fallen from grace, the magic gone, his health care reform dead. If you believed the first idiocy -- and half the mainstream media did -- you'll believe the second.

Don't believe either.

Conventional wisdom always makes straight-line projections. They are always wrong. Yes, Obama's aura has diminished, in part because of overweening overexposure. But by year's end he will emerge with something he can call health care reform. The Democrats in Congress will pass it because they must. Otherwise, they'll have slain their own savior in his first year in office.

But that bill will look nothing like the massive reform Obama originally intended. The beginning of the retreat was signaled by Obama's curious reference -- made five times -- to "health-insurance reform" in his July 22 news conference.

Reforming the health care system is dead. Cause of death?

Blunt trauma administered not by Republicans, not even by Blue Dog Democrats, but by the green eyeshades at the Congressional Budget Office.

Three blows:

(1) On June 16, the CBO determined that the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, delivering a sticker shock that was near fatal.

(2) Five weeks later, the CBO gave its verdict on the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, Dr. Obama's latest miracle cure, conjured up at the last minute to save Obamacare from fiscal ruin, and consisting of a committee of medical experts highly empowered to make Medicare cuts.

The CBO said that IMAC would do nothing, trimming costs by perhaps 0.2 percent. A 0.2 percent cut is not a solution; it's a punch line.

(3) The final blow came last Sunday when the CBO euthanized the Obama "out years" myth. The administration's argument had been: Sure, Obamacare will initially increase costs and deficits. But it pays for itself in the long run because it bends the curve downward in coming decades.

The CBO put in writing the obvious: In its second decade, Obamacare significantly bends the curve upward -- increasing deficits even more than in the first decade.

This is obvious because Obama's own first-decade numbers were built on arithmetic trickery. New taxes to support the health care plan begin in 2011, but the benefits part of the program doesn't fully kick in until 2015. That excess revenue is, of course, one time only. It makes the first decade numbers look artificially low, but once you pass 2015, the yearly deficits become larger and eternal.

Three CBO strikes and you're out cold.

Though it must be admitted that the White House itself added to the farcical
nature of its frantic and futile cost-cutting when budget director Peter Orszag held a three-hour brainstorming session with Senate Finance Committee aides trying to find ways to save. "At one point," reports The Wall Street Journal, "they flipped through the tax code, looking for ideas."

Looking for ideas? Months into the president's health care drive and just days before his deadline for Congress to pass real legislation? You gonna give this gang the power to remake one-sixth of the U.S. economy?

Not likely. Whatever structural reforms dribble out of Congress before the August recess will likely not survive the year. In the end, Obama will have to settle for something very modest. And indeed it will be health-insurance reform.

To win back the vast constituency that has insurance, is happy with it, and is mightily resisting the fatal lures of Obamacare, the president will in the end simply impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies that will make what you already have secure, portable and imperishable: no policy cancellations, no pre-existing condition requirements, perhaps even a cap on out-of-pocket expenses.

Nirvana.

But wouldn't this bankrupt the insurance companies?

Of course it would. There will be only one way to make this work: Impose an individual mandate. Force the 18 million Americans between 18 and 34 who (often quite rationally) forgo health insurance to buy it. This will create a huge new pool of customers who rarely get sick but will be paying premiums every month. And those premiums will subsidize nirvana health insurance for older folks.

Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the U.S.; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity.

Progressive Review Obama Details Health Care Plan
August 3, 2009
Rob Christensen
The News and Observer

Raleigh - President Barack Obama came to North Carolina to launch a vigorous defense of his health care proposal Wednesday, saying the option of doing nothing would result in insurance premiums doubling for most Americans over the next decade.

Saying that there has been a lot of misinformation about his proposal, Obama said keeping the current system was a prescripton for escalating health care costs, a lack of insurance for people with pre existing conditions and businesses struggling to provide health care to employees.

He said his plan was being deliberately distorted by his critics.

"Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care," Obama told a packed gymnasium at Broughton High School. "I'm tired of hearing that. I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody."

Obama spoke for about an hour at what was billed as a town hall before a friendly audience of mainly supporters. About a third of his talk was a defense of his stimulus program, a third a defense of his health care plan, and a third questions from the audience.

The president took about a half dozen questions from audience members on topics such as family practice doctors, prescription drug prices and insurance costs for average Americans.

The talk was a hit with Willis Linder, 83, a retired New York City policeman living in Cary, who was glad to hear that the Obama plan would not effect his Medicare. "I was concerned about it," Linder said.

Obama was greeted with picketers at several locations near the school and along the motorcade route downtown. They held signs with slogans such as "ObamaCare Wrong for NC, Wrong for The USA" and "Freedom Isn't Free, Neither Is Obamacare."

Obama's visit came at a time when North Carolina has been the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by both sides of the health care debate. The state is home to a number of moderate Democrats who are seen as persuadable and headquarters for some major pharmecuetical industries.

Congress was in session and none of the members joined Obama in Raleigh, including Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, who is considered a key swing vote. Gov. Beverly Perdue attended and was part of a small group that met privately with the president.

I have NOT read all the posts in here and NOT going to (DON'T have the time) but did anyone see on ABC the other night where they basically said this universal healthcare would be doomsday for the US. It would put EVERYONE who need to have a simple MRI on a possible 6 month waiting list because it has to be screened for "approval" etc. WHAT a joke! If the doctor thinks a person needs one then they should have one!

Originally Posted by whatever

I have NOT read all the posts in here and NOT going to (DON'T have the time) but did anyone see on ABC the other night where they basically said this universal healthcare would be doomsday for the US. It would put EVERYONE who need to have a simple MRI on a possible 6 month waiting list because it has to be screened for "approval" etc. WHAT a joke! If the doctor thinks a person needs one then they should have one!

Slightly OT, but I thought he 'owned' the media, especially ABC. Since they did that piece on his health care reform, does that mean that they are not as biased as some claim?

Originally Posted by ahippiechic

Slightly OT, but I thought he 'owned' the media, especially ABC. Since they did that piece on his health care reform, does that mean that they are not as biased as some claim?

He did seem to 'own' ABC media for a while......I too have noticed a 'loss of flavor' by ABC of him......but nothing too harsh.

Perhaps they realized how 'out of balance' they were Perhaps they received a lot of complaints and threats of view loss too. (meaning loss $$$$)

Maybe they didn't like the low ratings they got.

Originally Posted by ahippiechic

Slightly OT, but I thought he 'owned' the media, especially ABC. Since they did that piece on his health care reform, does that mean that they are not as biased as some claim?

I should have been more specific for SOME I guess. LMAO
It was 20/20 and they do NOT cater to Obama. Esp. the guy who always does the "give me a break" stuff. He is a Tell it like it is no matter who it is.
That is the one show I continued to watch throughout the campaign etc. because of that reason.
And I agree with pepper........Most (IMO) still do NOT reaval anything that is going to shed a negative light on him, but more ARE starting to ,how shall I put it, be a little more realistic.

Or maybe they are realizing that Obama is lying through his pearly white teeth about his stand on health insurance. He has always said he wanted to put the insurance companies out of business.

Originally Posted by whatever

I should have been more specific for SOME I guess. LMAO
It was 20/20 and they do NOT cater to Obama. Esp. the guy who always does the "give me a break" stuff. He is a Tell it like it is no matter who it is.
That is the one show I continued to watch throughout the campaign etc. because of that reason.
And I agree with pepper........Most (IMO) still do NOT reaval anything that is going to shed a negative light on him, but more ARE starting to ,how shall I put it, be a little more realistic.

You didn't need to be any more specific. I was poking fun at all the 'Obama owns ABC' rants than anything in your post really.

Obama Open to Creation of Health Cooperatives, DeParle Says
Edwin Chen
Fri Aug 7, 6:00 am ET

Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may accept nonprofit health-insurance cooperatives in place of a new government-run plan as long as consumers are guaranteed more choice and competition in buying insurance, a top aide said.

"We would be interested in that" if those conditions are met, Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s "Conversations with Judy Woodruff" airing today.

DeParle said she expected Congress to pass health-care legislation on a bipartisan vote "around Thanksgiving."

Each house of Congress has already missed the president’s deadline of passing a version of health-care legislation by its August recess. Obama says he wants to sign a bill before year’s end.

"It is true that the House and Senate have not voted yet on the floor, but we expect that to be happening when they come back," DeParle said. "We feel like we are in better shape now than we've ever been before, and we're very close to our goal."

The proposal to create a new government-run insurance program is one of the most contentious issues that lawmakers are grappling with as they debate how to extend coverage to tens of millions of people without adding to the deficit. They're also considering whether to mandate that employers offer health insurance to their workers, and how to pay for a plan that may cost $1 trillion over 10 years.

Oppose Public Option

Most Republicans and some Democrats oppose the creation of a so-called public option. And while three House committees have incorporated that approach into legislation, the Senate Finance Committee dropped the Medicare-like plan during bipartisan negotiations between three Democrats and three Republicans on the panel. The six met with Obama at the White House yesterday.

The president has championed a public option even as he’s left himself room to be flexible.

When asked in a June 23 press conference whether his desire for a public plan was non-negotiable, Obama replied:

"We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured."

Two weeks later, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, told the Wall Street Journal it was more important for health-care legislation to inject competition among insurers than to create a government-run plan.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," Emanuel said.

Statement From Moscow

Within hours, the White House issued a statement from Moscow, where the president was attending meetings, to reiterate Obama’s support for a public plan.

That approach, Obama said, would be "one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality" as well as to "force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest."

In the Bloomberg TV interview, DeParle said a public plan would "level" the playing field by providing consumers "another choice" in "something like 88 percent of markets in this country right now" that are served by only one or two insurance companies.

The public plan would also lower costs, she said.

Obama 'Open'

Nonetheless, DeParle said the president may be interested in cooperatives -- if they are designed to achieve his objectives.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, reinforced that view during his briefing yesterday when asked if Obama would sign a bill that didn’t include a public plan.

"The president is open to a bill that increases choice and competition," he said.

DeParle distanced herself from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's description of the health-insurance industry as "immoral."

"That isn’t the way I would probably describe it," she said. She said the industry has "worked together constructively" with the White House toward a comprehensive health-care overhaul.

DeParle also said the president is spending two to three hours a day on health-care matters, whether speaking in public, consulting with staff or conferring with lawmakers.

"He is very steeped in the details," she said. "He tells them the things that he wants to see, he wants to make sure that costs are lowered. He wants to get everybody covered."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/abkmhxiginmm