Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival ....

New York senators Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand join new public option push
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ic_option.html

Obama challenges GOP on health care, boosts Reid http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/...FtYWNoYWxsZW4-

Udall supports reconciliation for health care reform http://newmexicoindependent.com/4814...th-care-reform

Mikulski, Cardin support public option revival effort http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/2...revival-effort

Obama keeps all-Democratic health care option open http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/...1ha2VlcHNhbA--

Bayh Open To Reconciliation For Health Care Reform http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_468064.html

Biden Could Force Reconciliation Through the Senate http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E3YTNjYmQ4NzY=

Sebelius: White House may fight for public option in health bill http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-public-option
Tea Party counterforces, activate!

***

Handy background on reconciliation here and here. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...mentarian-says http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/18/...ad-mix”/ http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/19...mcare-revival/




Put these two together :

Obama: Social Security fix would be simple http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/...FtYXNvY2lhbHM-

Premiums jump 14 percent on Medicare private plans http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/...1pdW1zanVtcA--

Live From Washington! It's Obama health care drama
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Coming soon to daytime television: America's long-running civic drama over how to provide better health care to more of its people without breaking the bank.

President Barack Obama summons anxious Democrats and aloof Republicans to a White House summit Thursday — live on C-SPAN and perhaps cable — and gambles that he can save his embattled health care overhaul by the power of persuasion. Adversaries and allies alike were surprised by Obama's invitation to reason together at an open forum, as risky as it is unusual.

Ahead of the meeting, the White House will post on its Web site a health care plan that modifies the bill passed by Senate Democrats last year. The modification is an effort to address the concerns of their House counterparts.

The plan is important, but not as critical as the political skill Obama can apply to an impasse that seems close to hopeless in a pivotal congressional election year. "It's a high-stakes situation for him more than anybody else," said Gerald Shea, the top health care adviser for the AFL-CIO. "If the judgment is either that it's a political farce, or if it fails to move the ball forward significantly ... that would be very damaging to the issue and to him."

A viewers' guide to the White House meeting, looking at Obama and his plan, Republicans in Congress and divided Democrats:

___

Obama

He has two main goals. One is to show the American people that the Democrats' health care plan is reasonable, and much of its complexity reflects the sprawling nature of the insurance system. The other is to argue that lockstep Republican opposition is not reasonable and could spoil a historic opportunity on a problem that concerns all Americans. "I don't want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points," the president said Saturday in his radio and Internet address. "What's being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem."

Obama's main audience will be Democrats, who must overcome their divisions — and ease their qualms — to get a final bill. He will also tune his pitch to independents, who soured on the Democratic bills after initially being open to health care changes.

Thursday's meeting at Blair House — the presidential guest quarters across from the White House — comes nearly a year after Obama launched his drive to remake health care at an earlier summit he infused with a bipartisan spirit. The president will point out that Republicans have supported individual elements of the Democratic bills.

But his latest plan has little chance of getting GOP support. Built on the Senate bill, it would require most Americans to carry coverage, with federal subsidies to help many afford the premiums. It would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Regulators would create a competitive marketplace for small businesses and people buying their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

A Democratic source familiar with the details said the White House proposal would scale back the Senate bill's tax on high-cost insurance plans. It would also strip out special Medicaid deals for certain states, while moving to close the Medicare prescription coverage gap, and making newly available coverage for working families more affordable. The changes would cost about $200 billion over 10 years. It's unclear what the total price tag for the legislation would be; the Senate bill was originally under $900 billion. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the deliberations.

___

Republicans

GOP leaders in the House and Senate say they cannot accept the Democratic bills, and they want to start over to shape narrower legislation that cuts costs for small businesses and uses federal dollars to set up special insurance pools for people with medical problems.

Obama doesn't want to stop there.

Republicans want to place limits on medical malpractice judgments, an approach the Congressional Budget Office says would save money by reducing defensive medicine. Obama has toyed with the idea, saying he agrees that something should be done, but thinks limits on jury awards go too far.

Some Republican leaders have questioned whether there's any reason to go to the summit, but a boycott would play into Obama's hands. To complicate matters, Democratic liberals have begun an effort to get a government insurance plan back in the bill, a nonstarter for Republicans. "If the president's intention for the health care summit is to finally show that he is ready to listen and work in a bipartisan way to produce incremental reforms that the American people support, he is off to a rocky start," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the No. 2 Republican in the House. Republicans are not going to embrace a Democratic bill that's tanking in the polls, he said.

___

Democrats

Before Republican Scott Brown pulled off a Senate upset in Massachusetts to claim the seat long held by Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats were within reach of passing a health care remake their party pursued for more than a half-century.

They no longer have the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican delaying tactics in the Senate, but they still control both chambers. Yet passing anything but a very modest bill would likely mean using special budget rules that let Democrats override Republicans in the Senate with a simple majority. Using the budget route — called reconciliation — to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills probably would enrage Republicans.

That means Democrats will have to stick their necks out, and some may lose their seats this fall if they support an all-or-nothing push on health care.

Democrats are looking to Obama to give them the confidence they need to get back on track. He did it once before, with his address to Congress last September, after a summer of town hall meetings at which angry grass-roots activists attacked the Democrats on health care.

Democrats "tried to climb a taller mountain than they thought existed," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, architect of the 1994 Republican election victory that followed the collapse of the Clinton health care plan. "They went on a bigger trip than they prepared for."

Now it seems they'll be asked to give it one more try.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/...ZlZnJvbXdhc2g-

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care

[i]Saturday, February 20, 2010
Obama Declares Legislative War
I have to hand it to team Obama. They do not give up on Obama's goal of remaking the health care system into the image that Obama wants.

Even if Obama doesn't get everything he wants, if either of the current House or Senate versions passes, or some combined version, we will have government control through legislation and regulation over the most minute aspects of the health care system, and the people who use that system (i.e., everyone).

There simply is nothing to negotiate if the plan includes, as it likely will, a big government approach.

The latest "transparent" ploy is the televised "negotiation" on February 25. But Obama does not intend that event as a negotiation.

The Democrats apparently already have decided to try to push their version of the bill through the Senate using the reconciliation process: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/...sa_healthcare1

The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.

Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill.

"I believe that's the path we are going to take," a senior congressional Democratic aide said.

Using the reconciliation process for such sweeping, non-budgetary, legislation will take what now is a highly fractured political landscape and shake the ground like an earthquake.

The reconciliation process was not intended to be used for social engineering, and the result will be the de facto elimination of the filibuster without an actual change in Senate Rules.

Take it or leave it, or rather, take it with a few insignificant bones tossed your way, is not an invitation to negotiation. It is an invitation to legislative war: http://www.politico.com/email-alerts..._02192010.html

“They are coming out of the summit guns-a-blazing and they’re committed to reconciliation,” said one Democratic insider.

The choice for Republicans in Congress is clear.

Update: Here is an explanation of the reconciliation process, which would end up requiring Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, to make key procedural calls. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatmen...ion-would-work The pressure on Frumin from Democrats to get around procedural problems (such as the Byrd Rule http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/byrd_rule.htm - h/t to a commenter) will be intense. http://www.slate.com/id/2227092

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...ative-war.html



Obama to spell out new healthcare plan
Donna Smith – Fri Feb 19, 6:33 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is expected to publish his healthcare plan as early as Sunday or Monday, combining features of the two Democratic bills passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, congressional aides and healthcare advocates said on Friday.

The administration's bill will aim to jump-start the stalled healthcare overhaul and comes just days ahead of a planned televised White House summit with congressional Republicans, who are calling on Democrats to scrap the bills and start over with a far less sweeping proposal.

Democrats are struggling to push healthcare legislation over the finish line in the face of sagging public support and solid Republican opposition bolstered by recent election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey.

The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.

Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill. "I believe that's the path we are going to take," a senior congressional Democratic aide said.

But it is not clear, even to congressional Democrats, what the White House will include in its legislation and whether Obama will try to add proposals aimed at attracting at least some Republican support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have not signed off on any final agreement, several Democratic aides have said. "We are still waiting for the president to present to Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi his plan," a Democratic leadership aide told Reuters.

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, said the president would post his draft healthcare bill on the Internet in "the next couple of days."

"The president is going to craft what he thinks is a good bill. It's not going to be a perfect bill but it's going to be a good bill," she said at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

FACE-OFF WITH REPUBLICANS

A move to use the budget reconciliation process would fuel Republican opposition even as Obama has called for more bipartisanship in the process. "If the president is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan fashion, he must take the reconciliation process -- which will be used to jam through legislation that a majority of Americans do not want -- off the table," said Representative Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican.

The Obama face-off with Republicans will give Democrats an opportunity to try to sell their plan to the public and explain why a sweeping, comprehensive proposal is needed instead of the go slow, step-by-step approach advocated by Republicans.

At a campaign event on Friday for Reid in Nevada, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing his healthcare overhaul. "The Republicans say that they've got a better way of doing it. So, I want them to put it on the table," he said. "We're going to move forward the Democratic proposal -- we hope the Republicans have one too," Obama said. "And we'll sit down and let's hammer it out. We'll go section by section. America can't solve our economic problems unless we tackle some of these structural problems."

Healthcare advocacy groups are looking to the White House proposal and next Thursday's summit to shore up public support, and Democratic votes, in the push to get comprehensive legislation to Obama this year. "As soon as the president and (congressional Democratic) leadership are totally together on substance and a strategy, I think the votes will be there," said Ron Pollack, who heads the Families USA healthcare advocacy group.

The administration, congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have been turning up the rhetorical heat on health insurers that have in recent weeks announced huge premium increases against the backdrop of sizable profits and growing numbers of uninsured people. "The premium increases are a powerful reminder that the healthcare problems are not going away," said David Kendall, a senior health policy advisor at centrist think tank Third Way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/...sa_healthcare1

Comments

Originally Posted by Dessert Survivor

If the Democrats use reconciliation here, they set a precedent, and you can be sure that when Republicans gain control of the Senate and House, they will be using it to overcome Democratic opposition. When they do, expect to hear shrieks of outrage from Democrats who will conveniently ignore that they broke down this barrier. In fact, they may be making it easier to repeal Obamacare--it would be very difficult to undo if there if 60 votes in the Senate are needed, but not so difficult if only 51 are needed.

[quote=samandimp]The "engineering" of the order in which the Administration has submitted proposed legislation has had a broader purpose. Had he taken up the top two priorities - The Wars,immigration reform, and Job creation done properly, Americans would have seen more clearly that to fund a reform in health care would be fiscally irresponsible at this time. With health care especially, that idiot so-called comic, Bill Maher said on Larry King (live?) that people elected Barack to get health care reform cum public option. I don't remember a great deal of health care reform being discussed at that time - especially with a public option but I could be wrong. Regardless, since Barack is entitled, he will have his way. Workarounds at this point are about the most clear-cut example of our loss of feedoms as you have said.

Originally Posted by DINORightMarie

The Republicans need to take a firm stand. Cantor, etc., wrote a letter threatening to not attend, but not attending on Feb. 25th will give Obama/Reid/Pelosi an "excuse" to play the reconciliation card......which they are going to use either way. Rock. Hard place.

Personally, I believe the Republicans need to publicly announce, via Fox News and any/all media who will carry it, a clear message: the Democrats are forcing this; Obama/Reid/Pelosi are NOT interested in either listening to the will of the people or in creating a bipartisan solution. Let the DemocRATS own this; they will set a precedent, which they WILL regret.

This unprecedented use of reconciliation for health care take-over is a toxic process-run-around, yet most people don't understand that. It needs to be clearly explained to the general public. How to best convey that message? The graphic "ram it down people's throats" is not getting traction....we need ideas on a visual, simple metaphor for this tactic. "Going nuclear" is weak and overused now.

Originally Posted by showbiz111

The republicans must boycott the political theatre which is planned to save Obama's butt and to crucify the republicans. We must give no quarter to the corrupt democrap plans to socialize health care.

Originally Posted by pasadenaphil

Please PLEASE do it. I can't wait to see how many from either party survive past this November is they succeed in cramming this down the voters' throats. These weasels will be fleeing Washington afraid for their lives and the getting this monstrosity of a treasonous bill overturned will become the top three campaign issues for 2010. We will finally be rid of this corrupt one-party government.

PLEASE DO IT!

Originally Posted by JMM

I think they are using King George's playbook.....

I wonder how it will turn out this time ?

Originally Posted by Darleen

pasadenaphil -- You don't understand, Obama does NOT care if Democrat seats are lost. Nationalization of 1/6 of the American economy - a larger Nannystate that makes government in charge of individual choices in the most micro ways - is worth it for them. Undoing such a huge power grab that turns into an entitlement will be infinitely harder than just keeping it from happening in the first place. Obama is willing to be a one term President himself if he can accomplish turning America into a European socialist "democracy".

Originally Posted by Roy Lofquist

Ain't gonna happen.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/byrd_rule.htm

Originally Posted by Fat Man

Just say NO.

Originally Posted by ThomasN

That is pretty good, informative link from Roy Lofquist on Reconciliation.

Originally Posted by Keith

All the republicans should have to do is put a simple condition to their participation in the summit: that they control 1/2 of the agenda. They should publish their agenda items ahead of time, purchasing tv ad time if necessary. Their agenda should include discussions on: 1) what is working for 240 million Americans. 2) how it is government micromanagement, 3rd party payments, and a lottery mentality in malpractice litigation that's driven up costs. 3) a recitation of the government's track record of spending versus results in the institutions they manage. 4) the pioneering innovative spirit of the American individual 5) the long-demonstrated generosity of the American heart and the capacity cheritable organizations have shown to help the underprivelaged with healthcare.

Certainly there are additional agenda items that would make the undeniable case that with government, less truly is more. There really is no room for compromise if the Democrats want to insist that more is more. Obstruction is the Republican duty at this juncture.

Originally Posted by neomom

Wait until the President's "Plan" gets published on Monday. Call a press conference with every single R Congressman and Senator standing behind Boehner and McConnell... Then announce the Republican plan and advise the President that based on his and Harry Reid's statements it is obvious that they were simply looking for a fig leaf to hide behind as they push reconciliation and boycott Feb 25.

Then when they pass the abomination with reconciliation, stand aside when We The People arrive with our torches and pitchforks.

Originally Posted by pasadenaphil

Darlene, I DO understand. It is you who doesn't get it. This bill has zero chance of passage. But the process of re-introducing it followed by the lame response of both parties will guarantee that there will be a "throw the bums out" election such as we have never seen before.

The Dems are too timid to come out right now and order Obama to drop it but will try to do it behind the scenes. The Republicans will try to "message" their way out of their own predicament should they waver and show up at that dopey "summit" next week for fear of looking like "the party of NO".

This will waste at least two months of a critical election year where both parties will come out weaker due to the Tea Party. There is no way this will not be the biggest campaign issue for everyone running. Even if Congress does pass it, it will be easy to garner 51 votes after November to reverse it.

PLEASE DO IT OBAMA! If you are afraid of us now, you haven't seen anything yet!

Originally Posted by Stuck

The GOP used Reconciliation to enact Welfare Reform in 1996. So it they set the precedent to use the budget reconciliation process for "sweeping social engineering".

Quit whining.

Originally Posted by William A. Jacobson

The 1996 legislation (promoted by and signed by Bill Clinton) was a budgetary act as to how welfare was funded. It did not create new rights, mandates, taxes, criminal sanctions, reorganize a large sector of the economy, and create dozens of new bureaucracies.

Originally Posted by Stuck

doesn't matter. It was sweeping legislation reform, or change. You can parse that all you want, but it wasn't just pure;y budgetary. It established a new regime of law and regs as to how welfare would be administered. It did reduce the budget after 10 years to avoid the Byrd Rule, as will the dems using it with HCR, with offsets and tax code changes.

Just because you think it's bad, doesn't change the fact that others think it is good reform. Same with Welfare Reform, just flipped around ideologically.

Originally Posted by William Teach

Funny how Obama's yammer about jobs and the economy being the top priority less than a month ago during the SOTU fell off the map, and now we are back to health control again.

Bring it on. Pass it. Let's see the Dems completely lose the House and Senate, and the GOP can pass legislation to repeal Obamacare. They will have the votes to override Obambi's veto, surely.

Originally Posted by Maggie

As soon as it is passed, the grounds will exist to challenge it as unconstitutional. The stage has been set by the ruling in Citizens United. In that case one of the major concerns outlined by Kennedy was the existence of criminal sanctions relating to free speech. Even though I am unfamiliar with USA law, I would suspect that the criminal sanctions in the bill would be something that ensures that the Supreme Court would conclude that it was not Constitutional.

February 20th, 2010 5:51 pm
The Drama Of The Shafted Child

“Dems to Self-immolate via Reconciliation” Dan Perrin of Red State predicts: http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2...econciliation/

The Dems cannot accept the defeat of ObamaCare and will try reconciliation because Majority Leader Reid is desperate for liberal support for his failing re-election effort; Speaker Pelosi is genuinely irrational about ObamaCare, and the President believes that the entire Dem Congress should politically self-destruct to save his bill.Mainline Dem strategists like Charlie Cook call it a “massive miscalculation.” Cook’s interview is a MUST WATCH here, at the National Journal. http://insiderinterviews.nationaljou...obamas-ira.php

Meanwhile, today the Hill is reporting that the GOP says the Dems do not have the votes on the Senate floor. This intelligence is accurate, but the Dem Senators will not embarrass Senator Reid by contradicting him publicly. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/8...-health-reform

Add irrational to desperate and you get the Dems attempting to pass ObamaCare via reconciliation.

But the tough problems remain. Like abortion. The whole idea of forcing the country through months more of health care, to make the bill more liberal, and then send it back to the House floor where you would force Members in an election year to walk the plank again on abortion, ObamaCare, Medicare cuts, tax increases, the individual mandate, health benefits for illegal immigrants, while spending $2.5 trillion to do it is, quite simply, nutty.

So, let the Dems try to pass ObamaCare via reconciliation.

They will find themselves in another three or four month political valley of death.

And they will still not pass the bill.

The country is not in danger of ObamaCare passing via reconciliation.

The country is, however, in danger from politically desperate and irrational leaders who are intent on the political equivalent of self-immolation.

Herein is the drama from no-drama-Obama.

Regarding to the latest cry from the state-run media about gridlock (and remember, it’s either Camelot or Gridlock, it seems), http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2...-and-gridlock/ as Byron York recently noted, “Obama flip flops on his own record:” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-84768277.html

In his speech at a Denver fundraiser yesterday, President Obama repeated what has become a key talking point for Democrats — that the Senate “doesn’t get anything done” and the reason for that is that some Republicans, who “don’t believe in government,” are happy to block the administration’s initiatives because blocking government initiatives is “consistent with their philosophy.”

Here’s what the president said:

Look, something you got to understand — for those who don’t believe in government, those who don’t believe that we have obligations to each other, it’s a lot easier task. If you can gum up the works, if you make things broken, if the Senate doesn’t get anything done, well, that’s consistent with their philosophy. It’s a whole lot easier to say no to everything. It’s a whole lot easier to blame somebody else. That politics that feeds on peoples’ insecurities, especially during tough political times — that’s the easiest kind of politics. There’s a long, storied history of that kind of politics.

It’s a charge you’ll no doubt hear more in the coming campaign. But it’s a striking flip-flop from Obama’s earlier statements in which he praised Congress’ ability to get things done. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-dinner-101509 As a matter of fact, at a DNC fundraiser in California last October, Obama said his administration and Congress had accomplished so much that, “If we stopped today, this legislative session would have been one of the most productive in a generation.” And if you go to the White House website, you’ll find the president touting the very things that the administration and Congress have gotten done — bills passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president. Obama often cites the stimulus bill, the equal pay act, the extension of children’s health insurance coverage, but there are more. On the White House list: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...ed-legislation

Click over for the very lengthy list; as York concludes:

The fact is, when you hear the president and Democrats in Congress complain about not being able to get anything done, or about Washington being broken, they’re talking about one thing: their inability to pass a national health care reform bill. Congress can do, and is doing, lots of things — just not sprawling, omnibus “comprehensive” bills that are unpopular with the American people. (The same can be said for cap-and-trade legislation, now dead in the Senate.) If you put aside enormous bills that would re-order the American economy in ways the public does not want, Congress can do things just fine.

Exactly. On the other hand, if as Red State’s Dan Perrin predicts, the coming weeks will be spent with an enormous amount of sturm und drang ending in a liberal gotterdammerung*, that does explain so much of the recent hysterics and race baiting from the legacy media. **

Or as Roger L. Simon asks, “So what’s the deal with this clinging to racism – or racial accusations – on the part of some liberals?” http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94249/

Well, I think it reflects a significant and growing insecurity that they are no longer the cool guys. Via the Tea Party movement and other things, libertarianism – a rather attractive and even hip ideology – is taking over the right. People who love freedom are drifting rightward leaving the left with moribund unions and big government, neither of which seem to work. Liberals don’t have much of a belief system anymore and not enough reason to think highly of themselves, as they used to. Something’s wrong. Therefore, the other side has to be bad.”

Exactly.

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2...shafted-child/

Related: from Naked Emperor News, “Hypocrite Harry Reid’s Filibuster Flip Flop.” http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-empero...ter-flip-flop/ It’s hot Harry Reid on Harry Reid action!

* Two staggeringly pretentious German phrases in a single sentence. Sorry.

** Not to mention the torches and pitchforks. But it’s nice to see that the extras who played the townspeople in Universal’s mid-1930s monster movies are still gainfully employed. Who says the Stimulus hasn’t provided saved or created any new jobs?

Obama's version of health reform expected Monday
2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House readied its last-ditch effort to salvage health care legislation Sunday while the Senate's Republican leader warned Democrats against the go-it-alone approach.

The White House was expected to post a version of President Barack Obama's plan for overhauling health care on its Web site on Monday, ahead of his critical and daring summit at Blair House on Thursday. The plan, which was likely to be opposed by the GOP, was expected to require most Americans to carry health insurance coverage, with federal subsidies to help many afford the premiums.

Hewing close to a stalled Senate bill, it would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. The expected price tag is around $1 trillion over 10 years.

The conference at the White House guest residence is to be televised live on C-SPAN and perhaps on cable news networks. It represents a gamble by the administration that Obama can save his embattled overhaul through persuasion — a risky and unusual step.

It was forced on the administration by the Senate special election victory of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown in January. He captured the seat long held by Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, who died last year. Brown's victory reduced the Democrats' majority in the Senate to 59 votes, one shy of the number needed to knock down Republican delaying tactics.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday he would participate, but that Obama and congressional Democrats would be wrong to push the bills they wrote in the House and Senate.

"The fundamental point I want to make is the arrogance of all of this. You know, they are saying, `Ignore the wishes of the American people. We know more about this than you do. And we're going to jam it down your throats no matter what.' That is why the public is so angry at this Congress and this administration over this issue," said McConnell, R-Ky.

While the House and Senate had passed its own version of a health overhaul, lawmakers had yet to settle their differences and produce a single bill acceptable to both chambers when Brown won.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, hoped a compromise — "sweet spot," he called it — was possible.

"If you really want to serve the people and not just your party, I think you will find that sweet spot and you can get it done," he said.

Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania appealed to Republicans to offer their own proposals. "You take some of our ideas. We'll take some of your ideas. We may not love your ideas, but we'll take them. If they don't do that, I think this whole dynamic of this political year could turn around," he said.

Rendell and Schwarzenegger spoke from the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting. Four leaders of the group, two Republicans and two Democrats, later summoned the media to a news conference and offered to strike a compromise between the warring factions in Washington.

"We are making an offer to help and are very willing to roll up our sleeves and help if that's what Congress and the president decided," said Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat.

The governors' plea was an implicit acknowledgment that Obama and the Democratic-led Congress have frozen governors out of the process.

The Blair House meeting takes place nearly a year after Obama launched his drive to remake health care — a Democratic agenda item for decades — at an earlier summit he infused with a bipartisan spirit. The president will point out that Republicans have supported individual elements of the Democratic bills.

Under the expected Obama plan, regulators would create a competitive marketplace for small businesses and people buying their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases. It would also strip out special Medicaid deals for certain states, while moving to close the Medicare prescription coverage gap and making newly available coverage for working families more affordable. The changes would cost about $200 billion over 10 years. It's unclear what the total price tag for the legislation would be; the Senate bill was originally under $900 billion.

McConnell spoke on "Fox News Sunday." The governors appeared on ABC's "This Week."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/...JhbWF2ZXJzaW9u

Sunday, February 21, 2010
Health Summit : A Manufactured Political Crisis

What Obama needs to pass his health care restructuring bill is a good political crisis. One in which he can stand there and proclaim, as he did with the stimulus bill, http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...s-country.html that we are on the edge of a catastrophe.

And since the only way such a bill will be passed, if at all, is through a budget reconciliation process, there must be a crisis large enough to merit bending, if not disregarding, pesky Senate rules which would make such a process untenable.

What Obama needs is a political crisis of the first magnitude. A situation in which politics is so polarized, and Washington seems so immobilized, that all norms are thrown aside.

Hence, the increasing background noise in the past couple of weeks about Washington being broken and frozen. In fact, Obama has been hitting legislative singles and doubles for the past year, and only has been denied the home run he desires.

And that is the purpose of the health care summit. If Obama truly wanted compromise, he could have included Republicans in the process from the start, and taken a slow approach built on consensus, rather than a grand plan to restructure the health care system around increased government control.

If Obama truly wanted compromise, he would not be rolling out a final bill any day accompanied by plenty of leaks threatening to go the reconciliation route. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022101506.html

True compromise is the last thing Obama wants, because at most that would be another single or double.

The point of the health care summit is to create an impasse in front of the television cameras, so that gridlock and legislative meltdown is the alternative to Obamacare. A situation in which public anger is deflected towards Republican Senators.

Senators figuratively spitting at each other on TV is what Obama needs to create his illusion of crisis. And as we know, Obama will not let such a crisis go to waste.

:yo:

Here's how the L.A. Times describes the new strategy: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...0,112793.story

As voters lose patience with political gridlock, the Obama administration is embarking on a strategy aimed at putting Republicans on the spot: Either participate in bipartisan exchanges initiated by the president, or be portrayed as the party of obstruction.

The new approach is part of a series of adjustments the White House is making as it deals with the aftermath of Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, which cost Democrats their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

As with almost everything about this administration, "compromise" is a ruse designed to achieve anything but compromise, yet another phony Obama-ism.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...political.html

comments:

Originally Posted by Omnibus Driver

Ah! The Chicken Little gambit! That's the one he uses the most. If politics were chess, the GOP would be wiping the board with him, as he's so freaking easy to figure out.

Originally Posted by Nessus

Good points made here by Mr Jacobson. To go even further about the exaggeration of the "healthcare crisis", please remember, about 85% of Americans have health insurance; 100% of Americans (and illegal aliens) get healthcare regardless of insurance or not (Emergency Rooms).

Roughly about 70% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance. Now can improvements be made to the system? Yes, of course but it's hardly a CRISIS that demands 100% full, federal government micromanagment, craddle to grave. This is simply a power play; a ploy by big government politicians to wield influence into every aspect of life. For thats what self important politicos do, its what they live for. Central planning.

Originally Posted by Herb

The one big thing escaping Obama's notice is that the majority of Americans will be very happy there is grid lock and the ones doing the blocking are the heroes. Thank God for gridlock.

Originally Posted by rls

If you compromise your principles, it is not a compromise....you just cave. One compromises on some issues to remain true to your core principles. If fiscal restraint, small government and individual liberty are your core principles, any compromise where your jettison one or more of the above just simply means that you have no principles.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I've always been of the mind, and polls seem to back this up, that those in the media underestimate just how popular saying no is.

Quite frankly the GOP should embrace the "party of no" label.

Originally Posted by pasadenaphil

Didn't MA just elect Scott Brown for the very purpose of blocking this obnoxious bill? The Republicans are idiots if they even show up to this "summit".

It's not America that is behind the curve but the GOP. These guys couldn't fly a kite in a wind storm.

Originally Posted by MaggotAtBroad&Wall

I don't think it's a done deal. From what I've read, using reconciliation is against senate rules for this kind of legislation. It's the senate parliamentarian's job to enforce the rules and procedures of the senate. Does he have the moral character and respect for the institution to stop a Democratic majority from violating senate rules so they can ram through legislation on a strictly partisan basis knowing the people did not support the legislation? Would he really like to go down in history as a dishonorable, corrupt man whose actions weakened the institution he was supposed to protect?

So, the parliamentarian is the first line of defense.

But assuming he's a weak, dishonorable and corrupt man, then Jim DeMint says there's another option. Under reconciliation, senators can offer what he described as "infinite" amendments. He said in an interview during CPAC that he will absolutely go that route if the Democrats insist on pushing the monstrosity through using reconciliation.

Originally Posted by DINORightMarie

Excellent analysis! Just how I see it, too. Obama thinks he's got the Republicans either way - show or no-show, between a rock and a hard place. But the people are catching on to the "Chicago-way" of "manufactured crisis" and the ludicrous meme "the party of no."

I vote for no-show; hopefully the Republican leaders will get a clue that the majority are shouting "No!" and "H*ll no!" to the healthcare takeover. The American people would be best served if the Repubs refuse to go to the party (or is it a public lynching?).

I agree with Omnibus and Christopher - Republicans need to EMBRACE "the party of no" label; these guys are so predictable, we can see through their schemes!

Originally Posted by DavidD

Please, Republicans in the Senate, BE the party of obstruction. Obstruction is a necessity when the alternative is unbridled statism.

Originally Posted by conservative generation

That's the most foolish strategy I've ever heard. The polls show that the majority of people want the bill obstructed.

This is a play to try and reenergize their sleeping base. You don't wake up now, Obama's agenda's going bye-bye. Thanks for your post!

Originally Posted by DINORightMarie

George Will's speech at CPAC this weekend was brilliant. He covers this topic in 30 minutes, and encourages the Republicans to BE the "party of NO."

He followed up on the theme on a Sunday morning talk show, putting it all in proper perspective, relaying a brilliant example of Lincoln, the first Republican president to be elected, who stood up and said "No!" to a "Democrat senator" who had some ideas.

That man was Stephen Douglas, who wanted the states to decide whether to keep slavery. Lincoln stood proudly and said, "No!" to this. Excellent historic lesson on why saying "No!" is right, and necessary.

Earlier this month, I flagged the White House jihad against Anthem Blue Cross of California over its rate increases (see Feb. 9, 2010, Will the White House demand that every business “justify” its price increases? http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/09...ice-increases/ ).

That campaign has now become the new cornerstone of the Demcare revival.

Via the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/he...er=rss&emc=rss

President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said Sunday.

The president’s legislation aims to bridge differences between the bills adopted by the House and Senate late last year, and to frame his debate with Republicans over health policy at a televised meeting on Thursday.

By focusing on the effort to tighten regulation of insurance costs, a new element not included in either the House or Senate bills, Mr. Obama is seizing on outrage over recent premium increases of up to 39 percent announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California and moving to portray the Democrats’ health overhaul as a way to protect Americans from profiteering insurers.

But the power grab is an admission that Demcare will result in massive premium hikes.

And Republicans should pound on that fact if they plan on attending the Oba-kabuki dog-and-pony show this week: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/09...eryone-places/

Republican leaders had not formally accepted the president’s invitation to the meeting. But the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said on Sunday that he would attend. “I intend to be there, and my members will be there and ready to participate,” Mr. McConnell said on Fox News.

The president’s new provision also seemed to offer Republicans an opening for a new line of criticism — that Mr. Obama and Democrats are anticipating the possibility of hefty price increases for health insurance even after their big legislation is adopted.

Mr. McConnell said the president, in proposing a new version of the Democrats’ legislation, seemed to prejudging the outcome of the session. “If they are going to lay out the plan they want to pass four days in advance,” he said on Fox, “What are we discussing on Thursday?”

Via the Daily Caller, the supposedly “stopgap” powers will last… [/i]indefinitely[/i]: http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/21/go...lth-insurance/

“This goes into effect immediately, while the exchanges take a few years to get up and running. And we know the insurers aren’t wasting any time in jacking up rates,” the White House official told the Daily Caller Sunday night.

However, the administration official said the government’s regulatory powers would not be diminished or eliminated once the government-run insurance exchanges are fully operational.

Of course not.


Don Boudreuax has 1970s flashbacks: http://cafehayek.com/2010/02/sure-enough.html

Those of us who remember the 1970s recall the frolics sparked by America’s last great experiment with widespread price caps – namely, those on oil and natural gas. The resulting short supplies gave us the thrill of waiting in long lines – and sometimes even getting into fistfights – for the privilege of buying a few gallons of gasoline. People literally chilled out in their homes for want of heat. The Nixon administration imposed a national speed limit of 55 MPH. These and other consequences certainly made for a memorable decade.

What cool adventures await us if Mr. Obama succeeds in giving Uncle Sam power to control insurance rates? Reduced coverage? Hidden fees aimed at skirting government regulations? Surly service? More trouble and delays collecting on our policies?

***

Update 10:20am – Obamacare 2.0$$ has been unveiled. Philip Klein sums it up: http://twitter.com/philipaklein/statuses/9479778031

“Almost every provision in Obama’s new proposal will make it more costly than the Senate bill.”

You can read the repackaged government health care takeover plan here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Gone: Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback.
Still there: Big Labor’s Cadillac Tax Exemption Buy-Off.

Jamie Dupree outlines: http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupr...alth-plan.html

The excise tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance is in this bill, with a slightly higher threshhold for where it kicks in.

The penalties for employers who have more than 50 workers and do not provide health insurance coverage would go from $750 in the Senate bill to $2,000.

Also not in this bill, the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback” won by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) in the Senate bill.

As for how much it will all cost, officials sidestepped a direct answer on that, saying that all of the changes are paid for, and that the plan will not increase the deficit. That most likely won’t wash with critics on the GOP side.

Also still in the bill? Government abortion funding. Steve Ertelt reports. http://www.lifenews.com/nat6028.html

Originally Posted by Ty85719

Of course, he has yet to propose any solution that would take care of those who parasitically take advantage of our system, and WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGH PRICES!!!

The combined economic impact of illegal immigrants and our already semi-socialized medical system have forced 2 hospitals to shut down and all but 1 hospital to eliminate their ER facilities in my home town; Leftist “solutions” will simply make the matter worse – period.

Originally Posted by graysonret

Create an enemy. If a massive takeover won’t work, pass “little” regulations, one at a time, until the business is completely run by the government. This whole scam isn’t about health care, as we know, it’s about government control of our lives.

Originally Posted by jangar

Price controls? More?

Controls have worked so well in the Medicare and Medicaid programs…how about some more?

Doctors and Healthcare Institutions dropping out of existing Government payer programs…and we should do more?

Idiots…all of them!

Originally Posted by ArizonaNeanderthal

You WILL justify all actions to the State. The day of living private lives is at an end-you will justify your existence to the State. Obama will not let you go back to your selfish private lives.

George Bernard Shaw couldn’t have said it better as in

“Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

One step at a time Comrade Obama, one step at a time.

Originally Posted by b-cat

Economic rule: Price controls always lead to shortages as companies decide its not worth offering goods and services at a loss.

I don’t think our government cares about economics, though.

Originally Posted by Sea_Dog

The problem with ‘price controls’ is that if the company can no longer maintain a lucrative rate of return for it’s stock holders, it will cease to do business in that field. Case in point of NY when Spitzer filed numerous frivolous charges against the insurance companies, they ceased doing business in the state – there go your choices. The second area of argument that is constantly waved is buying health insurance across state lines ‘like auto insurance’. You can purchase auto insurance ‘across state lines’ on the web, but the policy will be written by a company licensed in the state where you live, under the policy requirements for that state, and at the rate premium for that state. Having recently moved from one state to another, my nationwide company (a consistent JD Powers Award Winner)had to reissue my policy to meet my state’s requirements and under a different rate for the state where I now live. Yes there are bottom feeder health insurance companies out there, but due diligence and free market pressures will resolve those.

Originally Posted by Pat

Here’s the plan: mandate excessive coverage, then deny them premium increases to cover the mandates, then take over health care industry.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/22...rice-controls/

The Obama Administration’s Health Care Proposal

This morning the Obama Administration released a description of its health care proposal, and CBO has already received several requests to provide a cost estimate for that proposal. We had not previously received the proposal, and we have just begun the process of reviewing it—a process that will take some time, given the complexity of the issues involved. Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. Moreover, preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions, and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the provisions. Therefore, CBO cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal without additional detail, and, even if such detail were provided, analyzing the proposal would be a time-consuming process that could not be completed this week.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=473

Bottom line at health summit: lots of smoke
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 34 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Cue the cameras.

President Barack Obama and his Republican arch foes will argue their case on health care overhaul at a bipartisan summit expected to stretch out for a solid six hours on live, daytime television Thursday for millions of Americans.

Expect them to collide, not come together. Without a no-nonsense referee to slam the gavel on mind-fogging jargon, not to mention apocalyptic rhetoric, some viewers might wish Judge Judy was presiding.

Obama is hoping to resurrect his signature issue and restore his reputation as a different kind of politician who can deliver real results. Congressional leaders of both parties are worried about self-preservation and political control in the November elections.

The goal for Obama is to draw a glaring contrast between the big bill he's backing and the limited steps Republicans are willing to take, hoping he can fire up anxious Democrats for what may be their last chance in a generation to provide health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. They have the votes, but do they have the will?

Republicans, riding a populist backlash against the widening reach of government, continue to insist that Obama start from scratch, a notion the White House rejects. They're unified in opposing the Democratic bills passed last year and have pulled back from more ambitious GOP-backed plans that might have provided a foundation for compromise.

With premiums going up by double digits for some consumers, polls show the public wants Congress and the president to deal with spiraling medical costs, shrinking coverage and questionable quality. But Americans are split over the Democratic bills. If Obama and the Democrats can't get their legislation passed, there may still be a chance for a modest measure this year that smooths the rough edges of the current system but stops well short of coverage for all.

Obama will be the moderator in chief for talks on four topics: revamping insurance, cost containment, expanding coverage and the impact of health care legislation on deficit reduction. The summit will take place at Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across the street from the White House. Here's a viewer's guide for consumers on issues critical to working families, seniors and businesses:

• WORKING FAMILIES

While the cost of health insurance is a worry for most Americans, it's a crisis for the nearly 50 million uninsured and about 27 million who buy their own coverage directly from an insurer. The $1-trillion, 10-year plan Obama and the Democrats have drafted focuses mainly on these two groups.

People with coverage from large employers would get some benefits, like being able to keep children in their late 20s on the company plan — but wouldn't face major changes unless they lose their jobs or strike out on their own.

People who buy insurance directly, as well as small employers, would be able pick a plan in a new kind of competitive marketplace offering choices similar to what federal employees and Congress members get. But it wouldn't be a free ride.

Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance and prove it to the IRS.

Obama and the Democrats say their plan would make coverage affordable by providing federal subsidies to help more than 30 million now uninsured. But solid middle-class families may still have to stretch to pay premiums. The help is a lot better for people on the lower income rungs.

Under the plan Obama released Monday — his opening bid at the summit — a family of four making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That's even after receiving $3,000 in federal tax credits.

By comparison, a similar family making only $44,000 would pay $2,763 — about 6 percent of its income. The estimates come from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "There's no question that it's better than the status quo," said Larry Levitt, an analyst with Kaiser.

Most Republicans are opposed to an insurance mandate, although they generally like the idea of allowing 20-year-olds to remain on parental coverage. They want to concentrate on stimulating the private market to provide affordable alternatives. One idea: allowing consumers in high-cost states to buy coverage from insurers in low-cost areas.

Republicans also want to help people denied coverage because of medical problems by pumping federal money to high-risk insurance pools run by the states. Obama sees that only as a temporary measure; his plan would ban pre-existing condition denials starting in 2014.

• SENIORS

Obama says his plan would preserve Medicare benefits and finally close the dreaded "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gap, in which seniors have to pay the full cost of their medications.

The plan he released Monday would gradually shrink the gap, but even when it's fully phased in, seniors would still have to pay 25 percent of the cost of their medications until they hit an upper limit, now $4,550 in out-of-pocket expenses. Again, not a free ride.

Obama's proposal is better than what Senate Democrats passed, but not as generous as House Democrats provided. "The House plan might mean more coverage or cheaper drugs in the doughnut hole than the president's plan," said Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, a New York-based advocacy group.

Republicans say Obama is being disingenuous when he claims no Medicare benefits will be cut. His plan would reduce federal payments to a host of providers, and particularly private insurance plans that about a quarter of seniors have found to be an attractive option. Government economists have warned the Medicare cuts may be unsustainable, forcing Congress to take them back.

• EMPLOYERS

While Obama's plan may be better than the status quo for consumers who buy their own coverage, it looks like a major headache for the businesses that employ them.

The president wouldn't require employers to provide coverage, but his plan hits them with a stiff fine if even just one of their workers winds up getting federally subsidized benefits. And Obama significantly increased the fines in the Senate-passed bill that he took as the model for the proposal he's bringing to the summit.

Under the Senate plan, a company with 100 workers that fails to provide coverage would have to pay a fine of $75,000. Under Obama's plan, it would be $140,000 — nearly twice as much. "This is going to be very confusing for employers," said Kathryn Bakich, a benefits expert at The Segal Company consulting firm. "You will not know what your employees are doing for their health care coverage, and you won't know what to expect until you get the bill from the government."

The health care summit will be carried live by C-SPAN, and major news operations including CNN plan extensive coverage during the day.

Will Americans switch channels from Oprah and Ellen for discussions about bending the cost curve and Medicaid formulas?

Stay tuned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100224/...R0b21saW5lYXQ-

The Lebron of the Summit and Other Thoughts
By Joseph Lawler on 2.25.10 @ 1:57PM

Jonathan Chait thinks that so far Obama's doing OK at the health care reform summit:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cha...th-care-summit

President Obama is so much smarter and a better communicator than members of Congress in either party. The contrast, side by side, is almost ridiculous.

...this is like watching Lebron James play basketball with a bunch of kids who got cut from the 7th grade basketball team. He's treating them really nice, letting his teammates take shots and allowing the other team to try to score. Nice try on that layup, Timmy, you almost got it on. But after a couple minutes I want him to just grab the ball and dunk on these clowns already.

This kind of hero-worship would be over the top even if it were a 12-year-old talking about the real Lebron James.

That being said, so far Obama has done very well. A large part of it is that he's swapped out the teleprompters and overly lofty language for shop talk, and he has a good command of the facts.

In fact, most of the participants have come off looking better than they usually do. Certainly Paul Ryan, John Kyl, and Tom Coburn, sounded intelligent, as did a bunch of Dems including even Joe Biden, who, after initially looking like a angry bear coming out of hibernation (he'd been silent up until this point), offered a reasonable criticism of Eric Cantor's claim that there were fundamental differences about the role of government in health care.

Cantor, by the way, looked shabby bringing a copy of the bill to the table. Before he began speaking, Obama put him down by sarcastically guessing what the huge stack of papers was. Obama later lectured Cantor on the use of props. All the participants who used election-style rhetoric like Cantor ended up sounding overwhelmed, because the level of real policy debate was fairly high. In specific, Reid, Clyburn and McCain also looked lame. McCain briefly brought back the '08 attitude by going into a speech on how "the American" people were tired of partisan squabbling, etc. Obama responded by telling McCain, "I won" the election. Add that to his earlier comment that the Democrats were using up more speaking time because he's the president, and the result is that he has sounded arrogant and a little petty so far.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/25...e-summit-and-o


Health Care ObaKabuki Already A Loss For Obama And Democrats

At most, Obama can only hope to come away with a relatively marginal health care bill that doesn't come close to his unrealistic campaign promises. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...815851804.html

President Barack Obama will use a bipartisan summit Thursday to push for sweeping health-care legislation, but if that fails to generate enough support the White House has prepared the outlines of a more modest plan.

The American people have endured over a year of worry about jobs, income and the economy as a whole. Home lending has dropped, consumer confidence doesn't exist - and unemployment continues to rise, with analysts offering dire long-range predictions.

Numerous polls have shown that health care reform isn't even a priority for the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Today's health care ObaKabuki dance is like a capstone of insult placed upon the injury felt by many Americans as their priorities went ignored by a White House consumed with its own agenda - from Cap and Trade, to porked-up stimulus programs that didn't produce and, most of all, health care reform.

Come fall, Republicans will paint Democrats as arrogant and out of touch. For a year, they've been far more interested in appeasing their own special interest groups and pet projects, while forcing through a bill that America doesn't even want. They could have focused on what most all Americans wanted during one of our worst economic years in memory. They didn't and now it's too late to make much of a difference.

Win, lose or draw today, the Democrats have already lost the high stakes game of electoral politics. The irony is that, when they cash in their chips after November, they'll finally understand the significance of the unemployment lines in America this year. That's where an exceptionally large number of them will be standing when this little game comes to a close. And they won't have much more to show for it than a hangover that could take them years from which to recover.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...democrats.html

Six entire hours of President Obama pretending to listen to the Republicans talk about the health care reform alternatives his press shop denied existed…even as they linked to those proposals on their own website. Whatevs.

Waiting in the wings: Plan B.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...815851804.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/25/obamas-plan-b/


This isn’t “transparency.” It’s political expediency.

Statement this morning from GOP House leader John Boehner:

For his part, President Obama comes to the table with the same massive government takeover of health care that the American people have already rejected. In effect, the president’s proposal actually takes the 2,733-page bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve and manages to make it worse. Even more Medicare cuts. Even more tax hikes. Plenty of special-interest deals still in place. A trillion-dollar price tag.

This latest Democrats-only backroom deal snuffed out any chance that this summit could serve as the starting point for a bipartisan consensus. Democrats are instead hoping that this media event can be the gateway to a final push that involves circumventing the will of the people and jamming a bill through using parliamentary tricks.

This is the same arrogance and overreaching that the American people are so fed up with. It’s why Massachusetts happened. It’s why Americans waited for hours in the August heat to get into town hall meetings and make sure their voices were heard.

Indeed, we’ve been here before. Shortly after Labor Day, the president gave an address to Congress designed to resuscitate his proposed government takeover of health care. That speech was followed by an all-out media blitz. It was described as a “last-ditch effort,” “an opportunity to take back the initiative.” Nearly six months later, still no health care bill has been signed into law, tens of thousands more have lost their jobs and unemployment is still near 10 percent.

All this uncertainty is hurting small businesses, the engine of job creation in our country, while Americans are rightly asking: “Where are the jobs?”

The president’s health care media blitz was based on the notion that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they would come to like it. Now that just the opposite has occurred, the president has chosen to limit participation in the Thursday summit to administration officials and congressional leaders. America’s governors and state legislatures have been excluded. Their perspective from the front lines about the damage this massive government takeover of health care would do to cash-strapped states is apparently not welcome. That’s greatly disappointing, considering that measures have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures opting out of a federal takeover of health care.

Also excluded from today’s summit is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., co-author of a House-passed amendment barring federal funding of abortion. The Stupak-Pitts amendment — which reflects the will of the American people on the issue of federal funding of abortion — is supported by a bipartisan majority in the House, but was excluded from the president’s proposal. Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision. Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life — not end it. This fundamental issue isn’t even listed as a topic for discussion at the summit.

The president can hold all the summits he wants, but the toothpaste is out of the tube: The American people don’t want this massive government takeover of health care. No summit or speech or sales pitch can fix a fundamentally flawed 2,000-plus-page health care bill that spends money we don’t have and kills the jobs we need to get our economy moving again.

Let’s listen to the American people and let’s start over.

***

Will Republicans raise the issue of what IBD calls the “raw hypocrisy of reconciliation?”
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=522149

Nothing so far in the yearlong debate on health reform has exposed the Democrats’ rank hypocrisy as much as the viewing of these past statements condemning as an unconstitutional power grab what they now propose to do.

[continues..]