FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship





handfleisch
For people interested in how government works and how a hands-on president does things, the current health care summit in Washington is fascinating to watch. For the second time in a month, Obama has gone into the lions den to face critics and obstructionists.

Highlights from the summit
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/meeting-highlights?video=1

Really good no-nonsense back and forth between Obama & and Rep. Cantor, with the president schooling the Republican on the role of government in health and safety of the citizens.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/eric-cantor
Quote:
Obama: We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how it's stored. I'll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn't have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don't kill us, but we don't do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives.


Here is a polite "smackdown" where the president tells Lamar Alexander that what the latter is saying is "not factually accurate". He explains what the CBO really says, how this health care reform will save people money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtqkRNraNk

Obama To Barrasso: Would Your Health Care Platform Be The Same If You Made $40K?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mIHOq6N444

Obama's closing remarks: "Do a little soul searching"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkg2Ezrdnso
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
the president schooling the Republican
[...]



Here is a polite "smackdown"
[...]


He explains
[...]

Obama To Barrasso:


Yep, that's Obama's idea of 'bipartisanship' all right.

Instead of schooling, learn a bit.
Instead of 'smackdowns', try to make friends
Instead of explaining, let others explain their issues
Instead of Obama To Barrasso, let's have a bit more Barrasso to Obama...

If you want real bipartisanship, that is... Otherwise, just continue saying "Behave, and do what I say", and calling that bipartisanship.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
the president schooling the Republican
[...]



Here is a polite "smackdown"
[...]


He explains
[...]

Obama To Barrasso:


Yep, that's Obama's idea of 'bipartisanship' all right.

Instead of schooling, learn a bit.
Instead of 'smackdowns', try to make friends
Instead of explaining, let others explain their issues
Instead of Obama To Barrasso, let's have a bit more Barrasso to Obama...

If you want real bipartisanship, that is... Otherwise, just continue saying "Behave, and do what I say", and calling that bipartisanship.


LOL. Sorry if it offends you when someone totally wrong is told, diplomatically, that he is totally wrong. Did that hit a nerve or something?

I suggest you actually watch a few excerpts of the hours Obama spent using his skills in moderating and maintaining a reasonable discussion with the Republicans before you take potshots.

A few specific titles you can watch here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/meeting-highlights?video=2:
"You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"
"It's a good talking point, but it doesn't actually answer the underlying question"
“If you think it’s a socialist plot, give up your federal health care”
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

LOL. Sorry if it offends you when someone totally wrong is told, diplomatically, that he is totally wrong.

It's offensive when supposedly we're cooperating in a spirit of togetherness, but actually, all you're doing is telling me, diplomatically, that I'm wrong.

No matter how politely he does it, Obama's idea of 'bipartisanship' is still, "You're wrong, stop disagreeing with me."
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

LOL. Sorry if it offends you when someone totally wrong is told, diplomatically, that he is totally wrong.

It's offensive when supposedly we're cooperating in a spirit of togetherness, but actually, all you're doing is telling me, diplomatically, that I'm wrong.

No matter how politely he does it, Obama's idea of 'bipartisanship' is still, "You're wrong, stop disagreeing with me."


You want the right to be wrong, I guess. What is he supposed to say to someone who thinks the earth is flat, besides say it's wrong? Say, okay yes maybe we'll fall of the edge, in the "spirit of togetherness" (kumbaya)? I think you're confusing a bipartisan working group with a campfire singalong.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I think you're confusing a bipartisan working group with a campfire singalong.

And I think you're confusing a bipartisan working group with a classroom, with Obama being the authoritarian teacher.
If you want to be bipartisan, it MUST go both ways.
Taking on the issue with many smaller bills, going beyond just insurance coverage, malpractice suit reform... These ideas are not without merit, and if the democrats want a 'bipartisan' bill, they'll actually have to concede that they may not have absolutely all the answers.

Quote:
You want the right to be wrong, I guess.

Do you really believe that your party is right 100% of the time? Never made a single mistake? Therefore anyone who disagrees must be wrong?
Also, sometimes there is no 'wrong' answer... Some things are just a matter of conflicting, but equally valid world views.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I think you're confusing a bipartisan working group with a campfire singalong.

And I think you're confusing a bipartisan working group with a classroom, with Obama being the authoritarian teacher.
If you want to be bipartisan, it MUST go both ways.
Taking on the issue with many smaller bills, going beyond just insurance coverage, malpractice suit reform... These ideas are not without merit, and if the democrats want a 'bipartisan' bill, they'll actually have to concede that they may not have absolutely all the answers.

Quote:
You want the right to be wrong, I guess.

Do you really believe that your party is right 100% of the time? Never made a single mistake? Therefore anyone who disagrees must be wrong?
Also, sometimes there is no 'wrong' answer... Some things are just a matter of conflicting, but equally valid world views.


These last few replies by you have been really funny. From your last few messages, you seem to really believe that factually incorrect arguments should be given credence just out of a "spirit of togetherness". I guess your idea of bipartisanship in this case, broken down, would be:
Repubs: 2+2 = 22!
Obama: No, 2+2=4.
Repubs: Stop being authoritarian!
Obama: Okay, compromise at 10.

BTW malpractice suit reform has been calculated to make only a tiny fraction of a difference in the crisis. I'm surprised you don't know that and are repeating this rather tired point.
MYP415
The summit, while perhaps a good idea, really didn't change anything in the big picture. Both sides refused to budge and we just heard both arguments- which could be a good thing though, for those who have not been able to keep up with all the arguments, etc.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

These last few replies by you have been really funny. From your last few messages, you seem to really believe that factually incorrect arguments should be given credence just out of a "spirit of togetherness".

Most of the arguments are not a case of right vs. wrong.
Many are a case of right vs. different kind of right.

You cannot cooperate legislatively with people you assume are always 'wrong'!

(Again, do you really think that dems are always right, and repubs are always wrong? Really?)
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

These last few replies by you have been really funny. From your last few messages, you seem to really believe that factually incorrect arguments should be given credence just out of a "spirit of togetherness".

Most of the arguments are not a case of right vs. wrong.
Many are a case of right vs. different kind of right.

You cannot cooperate legislatively with people you assume are always 'wrong'!

(Again, do you really think that dems are always right, and repubs are always wrong? Really?)

Wrong. The examples I gave were of concrete instances of Republicans being factually wrong during this health care summit. This was not about opinion, this was about fact. I have made this point several times and given examples. You seem to have an inability or refusal to understand, I guess because doing so would threaten your extremist anti-government bias; you want the Repubs to be correct so that you can argue against any government involvement in insurance reform towards establishing the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
You seem to have an inability or refusal to understand,

Oh, I understand just fine. It makes perfect sense if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time. But, that is not the case... nobody is right 100% of the time, and people who are wrong 100% of the time are rare.
Quote:
I guess because doing so would threaten your extremist anti-government bias;

I freely admit to an anti-government bias... It's called Libertarianism. (The best government is the one that governs the least.)
There is a preponderance of examples to why a thorough distrust of government is justified.
Quote:
the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.

It can't be universally accepted as a 'basic right', because I do not accept it as such... and neither do many other people.
May I suggest you examine your own ideas for things that are 'factually incorrect' before claiming that everything your opponents say is such?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
you want the Repubs to be correct so that you can argue against any government involvement in insurance reform towards establishing the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.
One could reverse this one and say that you want the Democrats to be right as it suits your point of view. On the other hand I think you mentioned somewhere that you are not a Democrat, so if that is the case, Democrats can't be 100% correct. By the exact same token neither can the Republicans. Some of the statements Republicans have made about the health care reform bill have made sense to me, other statements have been made with deliberate party intent. The latter are the ones I don't trust in both parties. Bottomline, the Republicans also want health care reform as much as the Democrats want it, they just don't agree with the reform bill that Obama tried to "push" through at enormous expense.
handfleisch
Quote:
Quote:
the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.

It can't be universally accepted as a 'basic right', because I do not accept it as such... and neither do many other people.

That's plain stupid. "Universally accepted" means accepted throughout the world as a norm. A norm doesn't get undone because some individual somewhere disagrees with it. Access to affordable health care is a right in the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all the countries in the UN, so it is universally accepted.

ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You seem to have an inability or refusal to understand,

Oh, I understand just fine. It makes perfect sense if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time. But, that is not the case... nobody is right 100% of the time, and people who are wrong 100% of the time are rare.
May I suggest you examine your own ideas for things that are 'factually incorrect' before claiming that everything your opponents say is such?


You cut and pasted dishonestly, skipping right over the part where I say we are talking about facts, not opinions, which I have cited specifically -- things involving numbers and documented reports. You also keep repeating the "if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time" thing. I have never and would never make such an idiotic statement.
[edited for content - Bikerman]
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.

It can't be universally accepted as a 'basic right', because I do not accept it as such... and neither do many other people.

That's plain stupid. "Universally accepted" means accepted throughout the world as a norm. A norm doesn't get undone because some individual somewhere disagrees with it. Access to affordable health care is a right in the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all the countries in the UN, so it is universally accepted.

Ah, I see. I work in terms of individuals, so 'universal' means every individual to me.
Since you're working in terms of governments and metagovernments, it's much easier to get a consensus.
I reject this, however, in that the collective has no legitimate right to override the individual.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You seem to have an inability or refusal to understand,

Oh, I understand just fine. It makes perfect sense if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time. But, that is not the case... nobody is right 100% of the time, and people who are wrong 100% of the time are rare.
May I suggest you examine your own ideas for things that are 'factually incorrect' before claiming that everything your opponents say is such?


You cut and pasted dishonestly, skipping right over the part where I say we are talking about facts, not opinions, which I have cited specifically -- things involving numbers and documented reports. You also keep repeating the "if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time" thing. I have never and would never make such an idiotic statement.
[edited for content - Bikerman]

Quite true. And the Republicans are often factually incorrect. This does not mean that all their ideas are worthless though. If they are 'wrong' less than 100% of the time, then there must be some ideas worth incorporating, if one values being 'bipartisan'.
Ah, but if the Republicans are not always wrong, why not accept their occasional 'right' moment in the spirit of this bipartisanship supposedly being striven for? If Democrats are not always right, why not accept occasional corrections for the same reason?

On another note, here's another nice example of 'bipartisanship':
Pelosi: health care bill can be bipartisan without gop votes
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
the universally accepted basic right of affordable health care.

It can't be universally accepted as a 'basic right', because I do not accept it as such... and neither do many other people.

That's plain stupid. "Universally accepted" means accepted throughout the world as a norm. A norm doesn't get undone because some individual somewhere disagrees with it. Access to affordable health care is a right in the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all the countries in the UN, so it is universally accepted.

Ah, I see. I work in terms of individuals, so 'universal' means every individual to me.
Since you're working in terms of governments and metagovernments, it's much easier to get a consensus.
I reject this, however, in that the collective has no legitimate right to override the individual.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You seem to have an inability or refusal to understand,

Oh, I understand just fine. It makes perfect sense if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time. But, that is not the case... nobody is right 100% of the time, and people who are wrong 100% of the time are rare.
May I suggest you examine your own ideas for things that are 'factually incorrect' before claiming that everything your opponents say is such?


You cut and pasted dishonestly, skipping right over the part where I say we are talking about facts, not opinions, which I have cited specifically -- things involving numbers and documented reports. You also keep repeating the "if the Democrats are right 100% of the time and the Republicans are wrong 100% of the time" thing. I have never and would never make such an idiotic statement.
[edited for content - Bikerman]

Quite true. And the Republicans are often factually incorrect. This does not mean that all their ideas are worthless though. If they are 'wrong' less than 100% of the time, then there must be some ideas worth incorporating, if one values being 'bipartisan'.
Ah, but if the Republicans are not always wrong, why not accept their occasional 'right' moment in the spirit of this bipartisanship supposedly being striven for? If Democrats are not always right, why not accept occasional corrections for the same reason?

On another note, here's another nice example of 'bipartisanship':
Pelosi: health care bill can be bipartisan without gop votes


Did you even read Pelosi's point? She says that the health reform bill compromise includes a lot of what the Republicans were insisting on and progressive Democrats didn't want, including the major rejection of the public health insurance option. So this bill is a product of bipartisan process, even if Repubs refuse to vote for it now. That makes sense, doesn't it? Especially since Repubs seem mostly motivated by the intent to create gridlocked obstruction. But I think you will find some other tangential or even unrelated side point to argue, and I find this way of argument to be a total waste of time.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
She says that the health reform bill compromise includes a lot of what the Republicans were insisting on and progressive Democrats didn't want,
Sounds interesting. Do you have a source for this?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Did you even read Pelosi's point? She says that the health reform bill compromise includes a lot of what the Republicans were insisting on and progressive Democrats didn't want, including the major rejection of the public health insurance option. So this bill is a product of bipartisan process, even if Repubs refuse to vote for it now. That makes sense, doesn't it? Especially since Repubs seem mostly motivated by the intent to create gridlocked obstruction. But I think you will find some other tangential or even unrelated side point to argue, and I find this way of argument to be a total waste of time.

Apparently, still not enough to make voting for it acceptable though.
I suppose you've forgotten, but wasn't the 'public option' removed in order to appease some senate Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for any public option?
'product of a bipartisan process', hm? Wouldn't that make pretty much every bill bipartisan then? They can do whatever they want, and it's bipartisan because the other party watched them do it... right.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
She says that the health reform bill compromise includes a lot of what the Republicans were insisting on and progressive Democrats didn't want,
Sounds interesting. Do you have a source for this?


Quote:
Review the new Republican initiatives included in the President’s Proposal:

* Comprehensive Sanctions Database. The President’s Proposal establishes a comprehensive Medicare and Medicaid sanctions database, overseen by the HHS Inspector General. This database will provide a central storage location, allowing for law enforcement access to information related to past sanctions on health care providers, suppliers and related entities.
o (Source: H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill))
* Registration and Background Checks of Billing Agencies and Individuals. In an effort to decrease dishonest billing practices in the Medicare program, the President’s Proposal will assist in reducing the number of individuals and agencies with a history of fraudulent activities participating in Federal health care programs. It ensures that entities that bill for Medicare on behalf of providers are in good standing. It also strengthens the Secretary’s ability to exclude from Medicare individuals who knowingly submit false or fraudulent claims.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Expanded Access to the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank. Increasing access to the health care integrity data bank will improve coordination and information sharing in anti-fraud efforts. The President’s Proposal broadens access to the data bank to quality control and peer review organizations and private plans that are involved in furnishing items or services reimbursed by Federal health care program. It includes criminal penalties for misuse.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Liability of Medicare Administrative Contractors for Claims Submitted by Excluded Providers. In attacking fraud, it is critical to ensure the contractors that are paying claims are doing their utmost to ensure excluded providers do not receive Medicare payments. Therefore, the President’s Proposal provision holds Medicare Administrative Contractors accountable for Federal payment for individuals or entities excluded from the Federal programs or items or services for which payment is denied.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Community Mental Health Centers. The President’s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Limiting Debt Discharge in Bankruptcies of Fraudulent Health Care Providers or Suppliers. The President’s Proposal will assist in recovering overpayments made to providers and suppliers and return such funds to the Medicare Trust Fund. It prevents fraudulent health care providers from discharging through bankruptcy amounts due to the Secretary from overpayments.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Use of Technology for Real-Time Data Review. The President’s Proposal speeds access to claims data to identify potentially fraudulent payments more quickly. It establishes a system for using technology to provide real-time data analysis of claim and payments under public programs to identify and stop waste, fraud and abuse.
o (Source: Roskam Amendment offered in House Ways & Means Committee markup)
* Illegal Distribution of a Medicare or Medicaid Beneficiary Identification or Billing Privileges. Fraudulent billing to Medicare and Medicaid programs costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Individuals looking to gain access to a beneficiary’s personal information approach Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries with false incentives. Many beneficiaries unwittingly give over this personal information without ever receiving promised services. The President’s Proposal adds strong sanctions, including jail time, for individuals who purchase, sell or distribute Medicare beneficiary identification numbers or billing privileges under Medicare or Medicaid – if done knowingly, intentionally, and with intent to defraud.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)
* Study of Universal Product Numbers Claims Forms for Selected Items and Services Under the Medicare Program. The President’s Proposal requires HHS to study and issue a report to Congress that examines the costs and benefits of assigning universal product numbers (UPNs) to selected items and services reimbursed under Medicare. The report must examine whether UPNs could help improve the efficient operation of Medicare and its ability to detect fraud and abuse.
o (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”, Roskam Amendment offered in House Ways & Means Committee markup)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
deanhills
Thanks for the list Handfleisch. As far as I can see it consists mostly of technical bits and pieces concessions, not the major issue which the two are disagreeing on, which is that Obama is trying to push legislation through much too fast that needs more careful fine-tuning and preferably should be restarted fresh. For me that makes sense, as the Bill is much too long, more than 1000 pages. For such important legislation, it needs to be done thoroughly and analyzed item by item.
jwellsy
The presidents proposal is a con job. The only viable option on the table still in play is the bill passed by the Senate.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
The presidents proposal is a con job. The only viable option on the table still in play is the bill passed by the Senate.
Right, and now the Dems are fearful Congress won't pass it, and are working on options to bypass this. That has to be very unethical. If they are allowed to get away with it, I will be completely disappointed in the US political process.
jwellsy
All of this superfluous fluff like the obama plan that doesn't exist, the 50+1 tactics etc is just clutter to distract people. As soon as the house passes the senate bill in the middle of the night (probably on a Sunday), the man-child will sign it into law before the sun rises.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
All of this superfluous fluff like the obama plan that doesn't exist, the 50+1 tactics etc is just clutter to distract people. As soon as the house passes the senate bill in the middle of the night (probably on a Sunday), the man-child will sign it into law before the sun rises.
Right, like trying to sort out the Bill before Xmas. Wonder how many people had to change their holiday plans for Xmas to accommodate Obama's pressure tactics.
Related topics
National Health Care in Socialist Stimulus Bill
Health care pharmacy
Health care definition
Health care data
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
US Universal Health Care debate
Ethics/Morality of Health Care
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
CHANGE: OBAMA'S HISTORIC HEALTH CARE REFORM WINS
Health Care bill
New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family
Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.