White House announces televised health meet

[George Gervin's Afro]

White House announces televised health meet

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32646_Page2.html

President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform.


The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle but not a signal that the president plans to start over, as Republicans have demanded, a White House official said.


“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Obama said in an interview with Katie Couric during CBS’s Super Bowl pre-game show Sunday.


Obama said he wants to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there.”


“If we can go, step by step, through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then, procedurally, there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster the process took last year,” he said.


In a statement, the official said, “What the president will not do is let this moment slip away. He hopes to have Republican support in doing so — but he is going to move forward on health reform.”


Obama first suggested reopening talks with Republicans during his State of the Union address last month, and reiterated the call at a Democratic fundraiser Thursday, but the White House had kept details of his plan under wraps until Sunday.


The idea has been met previously with skepticism by the congressional leaders of both parties. Republicans say they see little room for compromise because the bill should be scrapped, while Democrats argue they have already tried a bipartisan approach, but failed.


But since the Democratic loss in the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama has been forced to rework his legislative strategy – both by striking a more bipartisan tone, and returning to his campaign pledge of providing more transparency. He’s been dogged by questions about why he failed to live up to his campaign promise of televising the health care negotiations on C-SPAN.


The half-day meeting will take place at Blair House, and be broadcast live, presumably by C-SPAN, making it the first televised White House meeting involving the president since a forum last March.

There were 11 other roundtable discussions, usually led by White House health care reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle, that were webstreamed and, in some cases, carried live by C-Span.


“While he’s been very clear that he supports the House and Senate bills, if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it,” the White House official said.


Legislators from both parties applauded the meeting, while holding to their positions on the health care legislation.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement reacting to Obama's call for what Reid called "a bipartisan, bicameral health insurance reform meeting":

Senate Democrats join with the president in reaffirming our commitment to seeking a bipartisan solution to health reform. We have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one. As we continue our work to fix our broken health care system, Senate Democrats will not relent on our commitment to protecting consumers from insurance company abuses, reducing health care costs, saving Medicare and cutting the deficit.”

"Obviously, I am pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) in a statement Sunday. He added: “The problem with the Democrats' health care bills is not that the American people don't understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don't like them.”


The announcement of the televised meeting comes as Democrats have expressed growing confusion about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements and little hands-on involvement by Obama.


Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond said last week they had no clear understanding of the White House strategy and were growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to lead the way toward a legislative solution.


The bipartisan talks are the latest iteration of Obama's plan to restart health care, which has been stalled in the more than two weeks since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race. In that time, Obama or his top advisers have talked of breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress.


Obama told Couric that he did not regret holding back on health reform to pursue a jobs agenda.


“Keep in mind: Jobs were my number-one priority last year,” he said. “Do I wish we could have done it faster, that it hadn’t been so painful slow through the legislative process? Absolutely. But it was the right thing to do then. It continues to be the right thing.”


As for meeting with Republicans, Obama on Thursday described the “next step” as sitting down with the GOP, Democrats and health care experts. “Let's just go through these bills — their ideas, our ideas — let's walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense,” Obama said.


At the same fundraiser, Obama seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether — an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job. The White House said Obama’s remarks were misinterpreted and he intends to finish health reform.


Speaking to Couric, Obama acknowledged public unhappiness with all the special deals in the legislation. “What we have to do is just make sure that it is a much more clear and transparent process,” he said. “I’ve got to push Congress on that.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32646_Page2.html#ixzz0eyAgLzl2


Now we can get everyone on record where they stand and verify of they truly want to cooperate. This will put pressure on Obama and the republicans to work together... I have a hard time believing the party of 'pray things get worse/ obstruct until the fall' will meet half way with the Dems.. remember dead enders you are in the minority which means that you don't get everything you want... this holds true for either party when they are in the minority.. let the fun begin..!

[spursncowboys]

Way to go Barack. A year late.

[ElNono]

This is free publicity for the GOP... if you can't see how this could completely misfire, I don't know what to tell you. You have a fucking majority in Congress and control the White House, and you need to do a TV show to pass legislation?

/facepalm

[Wild Cobra]

My God...

How much more transparent can't the democrats get?

Anyone really think they will go through with this?

Just like all the televised C-Span that didn't happen, right?

[spursncowboys]

This is free publicity for the GOP... if you can't see how this could completely misfire, I don't know what to tell you. You have a fucking majority in Congress and control the White House, and you need to do a TV show to pass legislation?

/facepalm
+1. BHO did such a good job repeating his lies that they think he will do it again. Either that or he really believes the repubs don't have any ideas.

[ElNono]

I'm gonna give props to the GOP on something. They're fucking ruthless when they need to be. There's no reason for this insecurity complex from the Dems. You have to put it squarely on the Congress leadership though. They've been doing this shit even when Bush was at the helm.

[Winehole23]

If both parties in the US Congress don't own the reform, it doesn't pass. Simple as that.

[Winehole23]

The Dems have missed the chance to pass their bill.

[SouthernFried]

Little late for this now.

Shoulda done this at the beginning...sorta like he said he would.

Those that think he shouldn't be doing it now, aren't really paying attention as to why people are so damn mad at him and the Democrats. They prolly think people are mad because he didn't force his agenda even more agressively and quicker...what with him have had a super majority and all.

...and so it goes.

[ElNono]

+1. BHO did such a good job repeating his lies that they think he will do it again. Either that or he really believes the repubs don't have any ideas.

I'm sure that any good idea the Republicans have will be saved for when they have control of the White House and/or Congress. There's no political gain in giving solutions to Democrats now. That's why he needed to be heavy handed and ruthless from the get go when he still had a supermajority.

[Spursmania]

This is so strange. Really would have looked more credible had Obama done this from the beginning. Now, it looks like he's just trying to placate some voters. The irony is while he placates one set of voters he pisses off another set.

[DarrinS]

Dump the stupid health bill already and concentrate on the damn economy.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs gonna shit on him, and say no.

Magik Negro hasn't learned by now that the Repugs will always say no, will obstruct everything, in an unrelenting attempt to destroy his presidency?

MN is getting more stupid by the week.

I'm for trashing the health bill, and doing newer simpler one from scratch, hard-core Medicare for EVERYBODY, and single payer.

Then stuff down it the Senate's throat with reconciliation, just like the Repugs did to the Dems.

[ElNono]

I'm for trashing the health bill, and doing newer simpler one from scratch, hard-core Medicare for EVERYBODY, and single payer.

Then stuff down it the Senate's throat with reconciliation, just like the Repugs did to the Dems.

Probably what should happen at this point. However, the Dems in Congress don't have the balls.

[DarrinS]

Repugs gonna shit on him, and say no.



If they can't even sell this shit to their own party, how are they going to sell it to "repugs"?

[xrayzebra]

This ought to be on Saturday Night Live. Obama, Hmmm, Hmmm, Hmmm!

Everyone knows how much attention he is going give any recommendations.....

[EVAY]

If both parties in the US Congress don't own the reform, it doesn't pass. Simple as that.

+1.

And they won't. So it doesn't pass.

I remember us betting on this a while back. I was never convinced that the bill they had last year was gonna pass. Now I am convinced that it will not. I am frankly glad that it was held up for as long as it was in order to cancel that awful bill. Now, I still think we need reform.

NOW is the time for Republicans to step up and suggest/recommend an idea that they know Obama is in favor of, that they like as well, that might have been in the original plan...and take credit for it. It should be easily done. There are any number of ideas that were in the dem. bill that Republicans had supported at one time or another, but voted against because of all the other stuff that was in the democratic bill. Obama will go along with any miniscule reform that 'moves the ball down the field'. Then, the Republicans can take credit in the upcoming elections for 'bipartisanship', and maybe the country gets to think about something other than health care for a change.

If health care is left in the hands of Pelosi and Reid, nothing at all good will come of it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Dems had and still have majority. Let's hope they cooperate as well.

[Winehole23]

The Dems don't have the votes for cloture anymore. They have to play ball. They just can't ram it down everyone's throat anymore.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This is free publicity for the GOP... if you can't see how this could completely misfire, I don't know what to tell you. You have a fucking majority in Congress and control the White House, and you need to do a TV show to pass legislation?

/facepalm

Yep, Obama will repeat all his cute talking points, and then try and frame the Republicans as obstructionists and try and guilt someone into changing their mind.

What a joke....

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Repugs gonna shit on him, and say no.

Magik Negro hasn't learned by now that the Repugs will always say no, will obstruct everything, in an unrelenting attempt to destroy his presidency?


:lol The Republicans don't have to destroy it, he and his fascist buddies are doing a good enough job on their own with his policy initiatives.



I'm for trashing the health bill, and doing newer simpler one from scratch, hard-core Medicare for EVERYBODY, and single payer.

Who pays for it? Or do you want the Fed to keep printing dollars until the only thing they are good for is wiping your ass with them?




Then stuff down it the Senate's throat with reconciliation, just like the Repugs did to the Dems.

Yes, please use reconciliation. The polls in November will be a blood bath for the Dems, if so.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Republican response:


Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

[spursncowboys]

Obama Agreed to Negotiations Without Preconditions for Iran, But Not for Republicans on HC Reform: http://bit.ly/d3q5mf #tcot #hcr
-BluegrassPundit

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The Dems don't have the votes for cloture anymore. They have to play ball. They just can't ram it down everyone's throat anymore.

Ahem

http://m.npr.org/story/122816822

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama Agreed to Negotiations Without Preconditions for Iran, But Not for Republicans on HC Reform: http://bit.ly/d3q5mf #tcot #hcr
-BluegrassPundit

see the title of the thread.

[boutons_deux]

'Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation"

that fuckTARD Reid already promised this months ago.

Why should the Dems not use reconciliation to insure 40M people and save 10s of 1000s of lives when the Repugs used reconciliation to enrich the wealthy with tax cuts?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

'Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation"

that fuckTARD Reid already promised this months ago.

Why should the Dems not use reconciliation to insure 40M people and save 10s of 1000s of lives when the Repugs used reconciliation to enrich the wealthy with tax cuts?

Say what you want, but nothing the Republicans ever did with reconciliation forced every single American to take it up the ass.

And the real number isn't 40 million, it's like 13 mil, and it won't save any more than our medical system we currently have does.

[boutons_deux]

You Lie. health care reform won't bugger every single American.

"t's like 13 mil" but still no way The Greatest Kickass Country In The History of the Universe can provide them health insurance.

[TeyshaBlue]

You Lie. health care reform won't bugger every single American.

"t's like 13 mil" but still no way The Greatest Kickass Country In The History of the Universe can provide them health insurance.

Oooo...Ooooo....why don't you post a "poll"? :lmao

[coyotes_geek]

It won't be anything other than some meaningless political theater. Obama and the dems will pretend to be transparent and bipartisan and the repubs will pretend not to be obstructionists. There will be a bunch of sad stories, a bunch of rhetoric and a bunch of vagueities about needing to "do something", but not much in the way of actual ideas or meaningful discussion.

[mogrovejo]

I'm sure that any good idea the Republicans have will be saved for when they have control of the White House and/or Congress. There's no political gain in giving solutions to Democrats now. That's why he needed to be heavy handed and ruthless from the get go when he still had a supermajority.

That's easier to do when:

1) you don't make bipartisanship and crossing the aisle a big part of your campaign.

2) your pressing legislation that the public wants.

Yet, the Dems still tried to follow that path. The problem was that their policies are so unpopular that even their members are weary of following them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's easier to do when:

1) you don't make bipartisanship and crossing the aisle a big part of your campaign.

2) your pressing legislation that the public wants.

Yet, the Dems still tried to follow that path. The problem was that their policies are so unpopular that even their members are weary of following them.

So Congress should enact legislation based on popularity?

[ElNono]

That's easier to do when:

1) you don't make bipartisanship and crossing the aisle a big part of your campaign.

2) your pressing legislation that the public wants.

Yet, the Dems still tried to follow that path. The problem was that their policies are so unpopular that even their members are weary of following them.

Like the TARP?

The reality here is that the democrats were on a situation where if they rammed legislation through and it worked, then they could have pointed to the GOP and scream obstructionist! and use it on the campaign trail.

Anything else was setting them for failure. The Republicans wanted no part in health reform. None.

I believe their members could have been convinced if necessary. They're just too chickenshit to pass anything without the GOP blessing because they're always second-guessing what the poll is going to say the next day. That's squarely on Pelosi and Reid.

[mogrovejo]

So Congress should enact legislation based on popularity?

No.


Like the TARP?

The reality here is that the democrats were on a situation where if they rammed legislation through and it worked, then they could have pointed to the GOP and scream obstructionist! and use it on the campaign trail.

Anything else was setting them for failure. The Republicans wanted no part in health reform. None.

I believe their members could have been convinced if necessary. They're just too chickenshit to pass anything without the GOP blessing because they're always second-guessing what the poll is going to say the next day. That's squarely on Pelosi and Reid.

I think it's more on Axelrod - the WH never showed the willingness to sell the stuff to the reticent crowd: the voters and the democrat members of Congress. At least Bush went to dozens of townhalls trying to sell the SS reform. Plus, the deals that Axelrod already had in place with interest groups, like the big pharma industry, complicated the marketing of the measure. But basically, they didn't want to run the risk of sending out their platform out of the window (and Obama didn't win the elections due to his policies) in the first year in office. They were so clumsy that they were severely hurt, but even today Obama's personal appeal is more popular than his policies. It's a good lesson though - promising the impossible has its negatives.

Reid was the one burying the bipartisanship approach and trying the let's ram this through their throats.

I think that Republicans wouldn't mind to own part of a health-care reform - but not one that goes in the opposite direction they propose. That wouldn't make sense whatsoever. It's not a matter of degree, it's of direction.

[jack sommerset]

Obama failed on this subject. Fact.

Now he wants to save face by doing this but it will only make him look worse, IMHO.

[Yonivore]

Obama failed on this subject. Fact.

Now he wants to save face by doing this but it will only make him look worse, IMHO.
Especially since the Republicans offered to do this last summer and were rebuffed by the White House and Congressional Democrats.

[clambake]

Especially since the Republicans offered to do this last summer and were rebuffed by the White House and Congressional Democrats.

speaking of republicans.....reagan library needs docents, yoni.

any balls left?

[ChumpDumper]

What is the great Republican idea for health care?

Spell out their platform for us.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What is the great Republican idea for health care?

Spell out their platform for us.

tort reform Texas style!




Texas still leads nation in rate of uninsured residents

12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 27, 2008
By JASON ROBERSON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]


Texas once again led the nation with the highest percentage of residents without health insurance, a U.S. Census Bureau report showed Tuesday, although the same study also reports a slight dip last year in the percentage without coverage across the nation.

Almost one of every four Texas residents – 24.8 percent – were uninsured in 2006 and 2007, based on an average of the rates for those two years. That's up from 23.9 percent for 2004 and 2005.

The national number also increased a bit for the two-year period to 15.5 percent. However, looking at 2007 by itself, the percentage of uninsured in the country fell from 15.8 percent in 2006 to 15.3 percent in 2007. (State percentages were given only for two-year periods.)

California still has the highest number – not percentage – of uninsured residents at 6.7 million, compared with 5.7 million Texans. The Texas number is up from 5.5 million in 2006.


McCain adviser

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Mr. Goodman's analysis drew a sharp response from the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based think tank focusing on poverty issues. "That is not the same thing as having health insurance," said Eva Deluna, a budget analyst for the center. People without insurance are less likely to seek care, and when they do, the cost to the health system is greater, she said.


Fight on statistics

According to Mr. Goodman, only people who are denied care are truly uninsured – everyone who gets care is effectively insured by some mechanism. "So instead of producing worthless statistics that people fling around in vacuous editorials and pointless debates, the Census Bureau should produce meaningful numbers, identifying all of the sources of funds people will draw on if they need medical care," he said.

Ms. Deluna argued that the situation actually is worse now than the Census Bureau reported. The just-released data does not reflect the recent economic downturn, she said.

It makes no sense, she continued, for Texas to have the nation's highest percentage of uninsured residents, while having one of the nation's strongest economies for job growth.

In luring jobs to Texas, state and local officials have simply focused on the number of jobs, rather than on quality jobs offering health insurance, Ms Deluna said.

"People are working harder than ever, but the jobs they have don't provide health insurance," she said.

The number of Texans receiving health insurance through their jobs dropped to 11.9 million last year, from 12.1 million the year before, according to the Census Bureau.

Nationally, the overall number without insurance fell to 45.7 million last year, from 47 million in 2006.

The decline came as more Americans shifted to government Medicaid and Medicare coverage, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit health care advocacy group in Washington D.C.

An estimated 1.3 million additional people signing up for Medicaid and 1 million more signing up for Medicare were the main drivers of the lower uninsured rate, he said. "Ironically, this all happened while the president was trying to cut back on Medicaid," Mr. Pollack said.


Household incomes

In other findings, the report said:

• The nation's official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, unchanged from 2006. However, the number of Americans living in poverty grew to 37.3 million in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006.

• Real median income, adjusted for inflation, rose for both black and non-Hispanic white households between 2006 and 2007, representing the first real increase in annual household income for each group since 1999.

• Among racial groups, black households had the lowest median income in 2007 at $33,916. That compares with a median of $54,920 for non-Hispanic white households. Asian households had the highest median income, $66,103. The median income for Hispanic households was $38,679.

[spursncowboys]

GGA: Your solution to Texas leading in uninsured would be to make a law saying they have to have insurance? WTF.

[ChumpDumper]

GGA: Your solution to Texas leading in uninsured would be to make a law saying they have to have insurance? WTF.What is your solution?

[Marcus Bryant]

Those who are in favor of insuring the uninsured sponsor some of the uninsured themselves.

[Winehole23]

Insurance coops?

[ElNono]

Those who are in favor of insuring the uninsured sponsor some of the uninsured themselves.

Isn't that implicit if you're paying taxes?