Patterico's Pontifications

If a Republican doesn’t smash Obama’s TelePrompTer and demand he listen to the American people, not his hand picked Socialist Activistas, then this is nothing but a scripted show.

Oh I wonder what expensive goodies are in the buffet line for these politicians. How much Waygu Beef, Beluga Caviar, gold foil wrapped truffles, etc. is there for Dumbo and his circus to pig out on?

PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:39 am

Zzzzzzz……

Patricia (e1047e) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:47 am

Slightly OT, I’d like to personally apologize on behalf of the intelligent people who live in NY’s 9th congressional district for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqtyvn7OVw

I beg the GOP to give me and the rest of my fellow residents a reasonably decent candidate in 2012 so this idiot can run for mayor or something.

East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:51 am

Hmm, if President Obama doesn’t want to count his own time when balancing time between Democrats and Republicans, then perhaps the GOP should be allowed to choose someone whose time isn’t counted. Anyway, this is too much of a snoozer for me to keep watching.

Andrew (3c80d4) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:52 am

If I hear one more Democrat say “I got a letter from so and so”, I am going to drive to D.C. and really give them a letter.

Is that why we have this Obamanation in office? The Democrats constituents are too stupid to use email or a telephone? Or is it that when they call the Democrats offices, no one responds to them and none of their emails are answered?

And who the hell are all these Democrats sending letters? The same men who are beating their wives because they lost their job?

This three ring circus needs a ring master, and Obama ain’t up to the task.

retire05 (1e885c) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:57 am

Politico admits:

“. . .following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan. . .”

“A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”

Official Internet Data Office (f8ff34) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:02 am

The sorts of people who are actually watching this in its entirety cannot help but see what a bunch of disjointed BS the president is peddling and how truly poorly he is communicating. The people for whom the regular left talking points and sob stories may play in certain constituencies are most definitely not even watching this charade. The repub presenters are not getting a fair amount of time, but they are looking prepared and smart and are landing winners each and every time they get the chance. In particular I am laughing at how the dems keep saying things like “we apparently agree with this” when it is abundantly clear there is no agreement on the underlying policy whatsoever.

elissa (58be1e) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:23 am

seems to me all this is, is an attempt by the democraps to prod republicans into doing one of thier trademark ¨snatchhing defeat from the jaws of victory moves¨ becuase this bill is dead.

they are looking to artificially create momentum with some republican foul up

rumcrook (7a069a) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:44 am

The Republicans are throwing a good old Tea Party at the summit…

bill-tb (541ea9) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:16 am

In the first half, Pres. Obama has looked petulant, and at times disoriented (talking about meat inspection? really?) — while Harry Reid outright lied that Dems were not talking about reconciliation. The sound-bite may end up being Obama being snippy to McCain, who brought up all the backroom deals involved so far.

The GOP did better than expected (though it won’t matter, given that even John Avarosis is blogging about his eyes glazing over).

The Dems will be looking to make halftime adjustments.

Karl (f07e38) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:24 am

That summit isn’t working out as planned. I was one who wanted Republicans to say NO to this deceitful scheme because it was merely meant for POTUS and the Dems to grandstand, but it’s the Republicans who are destroying, and using facts to do the destroying.

I’m sure by now many Democrats are saying “oops” about this grand-scheme grandstand effort. Obama isn’t likely one of them. At the end of today, Obama and the Dems will lose even more indies and maybe even some of the more conservative Dems. Good decision for America, bad decision for Dem power-brokers, this photo-op.

John Hitchcock (2b015f) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:26 am

Anyone on here want to take a bet on who in the WH staff or Dem congressional group is going to be the one to tell Barry to STFU? He’s killing them every time he opens his mouth and tries to be the professor. He is really just way too full of himself to be very good at “debate”. Also, Barry, if you don’t like it when Eric Canter stacks up the entire two thousand page Senate bill in front of him, then don’t try to push a two thousand page monster bill on the American people (and then accuse the Repubs of pulling a stunt).

elissa (58be1e) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:43 am

“Hmm, if President Obama doesn’t want to count his own time when balancing time between Democrats and Republicans, then perhaps the GOP should be allowed to choose someone whose time isn’t counted. Anyway, this is too much of a snoozer for me to keep watching.”

Or perhaps time should be allocated respective to their majorities? 1-0 for president, 59-41 senate, etc…

imdw (490521) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:58 am

for this meeting to be anything other than the utter BS we’re seeing would have been unprecedented……

not to mention being completely beyond Ear Leader’s ability to deliver.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:10 am

Did Harry Reid really state that they are not considering reconciliation?

JD (ecfc8b) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:17 am

“Did Harry Reid really state that they are not considering reconciliation?”

Yeah TPM called him out on that.

What I don’t follow about this “across state lines” GOP talking, can’t any state that wants to let that happen let it happen? This is basically about forcing states to accept insurance regulated elsewhere to occur in their state without meeting that state’s regulation. If this is so advantageous, can’t a state already do this? Are they forbidden from doing that? If so, just add that to the reform. If not, they can do that with or without reform.

imdw (63fd4e) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:36 am

Or perhaps time should be allocated respective to their majorities? 1-0 for president, 59-41 senate, etc…

Comment by imdw — 2/25/2010 @ 10:58 am

If the goal is to swing enough republican votes to pass the bill, then the President would be well advised to use the “two ears, one mouth” rule and listen twice as much as he talks.

He isn’t interested in that. This is so his sycophants can find a few soundbites to repeat. Since his teleprompters aren’t available, he wants to guarantee that he provides as much raw material to winnow through as possible.

Nothing more to see here.

Phil Smith (1cf25d) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:37 am

I think though, it is terribly unfair to the GOP that Obama didn’t bring his teleprompter.

imdw (63fd4e) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:40 am

You’ll be repeating the proper soundbites this afternoon, once you’ve been told what to think.

Phil Smith (1cf25d) — 2/25/2010 @ 11:50 am

It’s the other way, imdw.
A company in another state will meet all the regulations of a state in insuring members of that state BUT
1 the tax money will go elsewhere
2 the power of the state government to punish a company in another state is very limited – because you will have to sue them in that state’s courts and that state’s courts are likely to be favorable to a tax-paying, jobs-producing company in their state as long as it isn’t too egregious.

So the insurance regulators and the state governments do lose a lot of power.

luagha (5cbe06) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:02 pm

#16, the reason that health insurance is not sold across state lines is because federal regulations prevent it. Consequently, all states have their own health insurance boards, which make the rules and regulations for those companies to operate in their state.

That would not change. Allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines would still require insurance companies to adhere to state rules and regulations, just as auto insurance companies have to do.

But you see, there is no federal mandate that auto insurance companies can’t operate across state lines like there is for health insurance.

retire05 (1e885c) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:06 pm

Rockefeller is a mendoucheous twatwaffle. In his demonization of insurance companies, does he really believe that medicare or medicaid pay for unlimited care or benefits at the whim of patients? What is he smoking? Make health care or health insurance government supervised or regulated and all consumer complaints will go away? WTF?

daleyrocks (718861) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:09 pm

“the reason that health insurance is not sold across state lines is because federal regulations prevent it. Consequently, all states have their own health insurance boards, which make the rules and regulations for those companies to operate in their state.”

I’d like to hear more about this federal regulation because this is the first time I have seen it explained that way. So state can’t pass a law that says “if your insurance product is valid elsewhere it is valid here” ? So why not allow states to do that? It seems like the GOP point on this is to *force* states to do that, rather than allow them to do that.

imdw (89ba95) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:10 pm

“I’d like to hear more about this federal regulation because this is the first time I have seen it explained that way. So state can’t pass a law that says “if your insurance product is valid elsewhere it is valid here” ? So why not allow states to do that? It seems like the GOP point on this is to *force* states to do that, rather than allow them to do that.”

Though I’ll add that the house bill contains a national exchange, which appears to satisfy the ‘across state lines’ demand. From listening today, it appears that the senate bill has state exchanges, but states can form compacts to set up joint exchanges. To me the house version seems better.

imdw (842182) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:17 pm

Rockefeller seems gloriously unaware of the rationing horror stories coming out of government controlled health care systems in the U.K. and Canada.

daleyrocks (718861) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:27 pm

If the goal is to swing enough republican votes to pass the bill, then the President would be well advised to use the “two ears, one mouth” rule and listen twice as much as he talks.

Comment by Phil Smith — 2/25/2010 @ 11:37 am

His aggressive stance in this meeting is a contrast to his conduct back in the early days of the Obamastration. Remember when he met with the leaders of South American states and he sat silently while Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega lectured him for a couple of hours about the misdeeds of the USA going back centuries?

L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:29 pm

“Though I’ll add that the house bill contains a national exchange, which appears to satisfy the ‘across state lines’ demand. From listening today, it appears that the senate bill has state exchanges, but states can form compacts to set up joint exchanges. To me the house version seems better.”

Another point that came up just now — the GOP is talking a lot about malpractice reform. States could also go ahead and do that on their own, without having the feds force that on them.

imdw (2c1194) — 2/25/2010 @ 12:45 pm

Obama & “friends” – Serial liars …..

SteveCan (72a7f6) — 2/25/2010 @ 1:02 pm

I see the resident nozzle is spinning away … Is Barcky done telling us how great he is?

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 1:20 pm

Hasn’t he said “let me be perfectly clear” at least once during this bad kabuki?

Dmac (799abd) — 2/25/2010 @ 1:38 pm

imdw: the house version has a clause that specifically denies States the opportunity to institute Tort Reform.

See here.

Go to page 1432.

BJTex (a2cb5a) — 2/25/2010 @ 1:44 pm

imdw: Re #24 and 27…can’t the states enact ANY of the proposed changes in the bill or senate laws, including setting up their own mini-ObamaCare kaffe-klatch, outlawing preexisting condition exclusions, etc?

Basically, aren’t you by asking “why can’t states do what the Repubs want” actually asking “why the **** do we need ObamaCare at all?”

The Feds should pass only that which is necessary to alter the budgetary basis of health care to help alter the disconnect between health spending and health ‘costs’ created by the current employer-sponsored-favoring system (whether it’s leveling the field by making all health benefits taxable or a federal tax write-off, I actually don’t care – the employment market will compensate in wage adjustments one way or the other, and the different states can try all sorts of experiments based on local electorate wills just as was intended in the Constitution.

Mass has their own (ironically, Romney-flavored version) of ObamaCare. They may or may not keep it. But I damn heck don’t want a slight majority of state Senators and a hugely geographically-weighted H of R to force it down MY throat.

rtrski (192cf0) — 2/25/2010 @ 3:03 pm

And we have another spanking for the GOP in the can. Plus they had to actually work for 7.5 hours. Boehner must be so pissed he couldn’t get to his tanning session today, he looked absolutely ashen by the end things. Poor baby, probably soaking in his hot tub crying right now and complaining about what a meany president Obama is to him all the time.

Aren’t you guys embarrassed to have such a bunch of lame dingbats to defend over and over??

Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/25/2010 @ 4:26 pm

The summit shows that the key strategy of the Democrats on this faux “reform” remains fraud.

They continue to fraudulently claim that their horrible legislation will cut costs and save money. This is an outright, intentional and brazen lie being told by Democrats to the American people.

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/25/2010 @ 4:32 pm

Amen, SPQR. Ryan was the only one that really called them on it.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 5:10 pm

Ryan really showed that Obama and the Democrats are are trying to pull the wool over the American publics’ eyes.

I was in a office building food court opposite the local Federal courthouse for the last couple of hours of the faux “summit”. The food court was full of govt workers and I heard a lot of Obama sympathizers whining about how badly he came off. All without any prompting from any one to the right of the spectrum.

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/25/2010 @ 5:23 pm

Aren’t you guys embarrassed to have such a bunch of lame dingbats to defend over and over??

How old are you, really? You write like a 7th grader, with the accompanying intellect.

Dmac (799abd) — 2/25/2010 @ 5:23 pm

This is my favorite comment of the day …

To sum up today’s events:

Various Republicans: “Problem/Facts/Completely viable, cost reducing, step-by-step solution.

Various Democrats: “I got a letter yesterday from a young boy who went swimming in the Pacific Ocean only to have his soul sucked out his butthole by a Lamprey fish that couldn’t find a shark to suck on to due to global warming. And his parents didn’t have Lamprey Butthole coverage through State Farm. State Farm called it an act of God, but payed for his “treatment” anyway out of fear of a possible Republican Homunculus coming after them. Evil Insurance companies.

Now pass this economy crushing, job killing bill or I’ll read another letter.”

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 5:45 pm

The trolls and the media are taking longer than I expected to come up with Teh Narrative today.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 5:55 pm

“imdw: Re #24 and 27…can’t the states enact ANY of the proposed changes in the bill or senate laws, including setting up their own mini-ObamaCare kaffe-klatch, outlawing preexisting condition exclusions, etc?”

Massachussets did a lot — with GOP support — so has hawaii. But a national exchange can’t come state by state. And the no-preexisting condition coverage doesn’t work well state by state. Nor does the interaction with medicare and the move away from employer based plans.

“imdw: the house version has a clause that specifically denies States the opportunity to institute Tort Reform.”

Some kinds of reform, and only under the incentive plan.

imdw (78ece3) — 2/25/2010 @ 7:36 pm

Not “some kinds of reform” and not only under the incentive plan. It is in the House version that they passed, and was kindly linked for you above. It is not at all surprising that you are trying to gloss over the fact that Hodean is the only Dem in the country dumm enough to acknowledge that they are too beholden to the trial lawyers to ever allow tort reform to go forward under their watch.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:01 pm

“It is in the House version that they passed, and was kindly linked for you above.”

Yes I went and read that page and the page before. This is under a section called “incentive payments for medical liability reform.” The incentive payments are only for certain kinds of reform — as defined in the linked page. The linked section does not prohibit states from going off and implementing reform that does not meet that criteria. But then they don’t get incentive payments.

Did you read the section linked?

imdw (d6bd12) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:10 pm

Notice what was banned you disingenuous twit?

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:17 pm

“Notice what was banned you disingenuous twit?”

Yes I did. It’s only under the incentive program. Did you notice that? did you read the section of the bill this is about? Don’t worry, I won’t call you disingenuous if you actually know what you’re talking about. Go and read it and learn.

imdw (78a5b9) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:24 pm

And this is “reform”? Banning the one kind of actual reform that works?

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:26 pm

There’s one thing I know for sure from the comments on Patterico:

If someone comes from the government to tell you to shut up and mind your superiors, the guy in the jack-boots and brown shirt will be assclown doodyhead.

Here’s to hoping they don’t take away his bong first.

Ag80 (f67beb) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:29 pm

“And this is “reform”? Banning the one kind of actual reform that works?”

It’s not banning. It’s providing incentives for finding alternatives to litigation. Do you still not get that or are you lying about it?

imdw (8f8ead) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:30 pm

Its pretty obvious to me who gets what, imdw.

You know that your act is quite transparent – we see through you.

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:31 pm

“You know that your act is quite transparent – we see through you.”

right through me…all the way to the actual language of the law. I’m sure.

imdw (8f8ead) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:33 pm

Right through you … to the bill. It’s the actual language of the bill. I’m sure.

But, I don’t blame you for jumping the gun.

Ag80 (f67beb) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:43 pm

“Right through you … to the bill. It’s the actual language of the bill. I’m sure.”

It’s linked right from this comment:

“Comment by BJTex — 2/25/2010 @ 1:44 pm ”

Remember all that ‘read the bill’ ? Well there you go. Read it and find that this is an incentive plan that is limited to only certain kinds of alternatives to litigation. It is not, as JD describes, a “ban” on any kind of tort reform. Someone lied to him, and now he’s lying to us. If only he’d read this section of the bill, conveniently linked, he’d figure that out. you too!

imdw (c5488f) — 2/25/2010 @ 8:59 pm

It certainly is a ban as it pertains to this legislation.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:11 pm

But this is just classic dimwit crap. It routinely seizes on a minute or tangential point, and then does rhetorical contortions to make something out to be something other than what it is, all the while deflecting attention away from the overall topic, or the course of the discussion.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:17 pm

You and JD can go argue all you want. I’ll probably side with JD, but that’s politics.

I did read the bill, but that’s not the point.

Your whole deal, in all your posts at Patterico, is how smart you are. I’m sure you’re pretty smart. But, your other deal is about how stupid people are who disagree with you. OK.

We’re stupid.

But can you at least get the details right? Being smart and all.

And here’s the reason: It matters.

People can say many fantastic things about what’s right or what’s wrong. Sometimes they are right. Often, they get things wrong. I’m guilty of it, as are you.

But, when you set yourself up as the authority on any given subject, by God, you better be right.

Otherwise, you’re just another nothing with nothing to add.

Just like me.

Ag80 (f67beb) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:25 pm

This is going to sound petty. First, I was irritated by the Democrats’ heart-rending tales of suffering Americans. We should not be making health care policy based on individual cases. Second, I’m not convinced the stories are completely true. Remember Hillary’s sad story of the unemployed pregnant women who died after being denied care? That did not turn out to be as originally portrayed, and who knows if these are either?

In fact, even President Obama repeated the stories about how he worried about coverage for ER visits when his eldest daughter had an asthma attack and his youngest daughter had meningitis. Any child with an asthma attack would receive emergency treatment, insured or not. Ditto for children suspected of having meningitis.

Finally, here’s the petty part: Why does Obama keep repeating his youngest daughter was diagnosed with meningitis when it was suspected and she was tested, but she did not have meningitis? As the parent of an infant who did have meningitis, I know how frightening it is to watch your child’s spinal taps and other tests, and to worry they may have that disease. I also understand the difference between knowing your child has meningitis and worrying your child has meningitis. Apparently President Obama doesn’t grasp the difference.

DRJ (6a8003) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:38 pm

Good catch, DRJ. And it is not at all petty.

JD (b537f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 9:47 pm

The Democrats have all their sob stories, which may or may not be true. The Republicans counter with facts that the Democrats cannot escape, so the Democrats continue with their sob stories, which may or may not be true.

When my daughter had her first asthma attack, it scared the tarnation out of me. The first thing I thought about was “Oh, no! I don’t have insurance!” That’s a lie. The first thing I did was pray up a quick little prayer. “Dear Lord, please don’t take her away from me, too.” Then I stuck her in the car and rushed her to the emergency room, my hand on her chest to make sure she was still breathing as I slightly bent the speed limit on my way. I did my best to pretend everything was hunky-dory and she’d be fine but I doubt she was buying it.

Anyway, when I got to the hospital and brought her in and said she was having trouble breathing, they took her immediately. The paperwork came afterward. They put my daughter on scrips I could afford and gave me a bag full of free trials the drug companies give hospitals. And when I got insurance, her doc put her on better scrips.

All this garbage about emergency care or urgent care being denied because people don’t have insurance is a lie from the pit of Sheol.

John Hitchcock (a656f4) — 2/25/2010 @ 10:31 pm

“It certainly is a ban as it pertains to this legislation.”

How does that work? If a state wants to do it, how is it ‘banned’ ‘as it pertains to this legislation’ ? I can see how a state doesn’t qualify for the incentive payment for that program (though they do for others). That’s a “ban”? really?

“Finally, here’s the petty part: Why does Obama keep repeating his youngest daughter was diagnosed with meningitis when it was suspected and she was tested, but she did not have meningitis?”

Because “diagnosed” to many people, specially parents who worry, can capture that time between the suspicion and the test.

“All this garbage about emergency care or urgent care being denied because people don’t have insurance is a lie from the pit of Sheol.”

It isn’t. It’s just that it might be paid for by someone else. Including the ‘free’

imdw (2c1194) — 2/26/2010 @ 4:56 am

That was as mendoucheous as humanly possible. I would love to hear one of the doctors here address your fantasy definition of diagnose.

JD (cf59d9) — 2/26/2010 @ 5:30 am

As in ‘here’s my diagnosis, I prescribe more treatment and testing at the ER.’ Sure JD.

So you gave up on the ban line? That’s good. I mean, I empathize. Someone lied to you about it being a ban, and you repeated it, wrongly. It happens. But now you read the law and know that’s wrong.

imdw (5f60be) — 2/26/2010 @ 5:34 am

2/25/2010

Health Care Summit Open Thread

60 Responses to “Health Care Summit Open Thread”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out