Health care protesters disrupt Senate panel
For second week in a row
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/1...t-senate-panel/

Health care protesters disrupt Senate panel
For second week in a row

By Sean Lengell
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Protesters supporting universal medical coverage for the second week in a row on Tuesday morning disrupted a Senate hearing on health care reform before being thrown out by police.

Minutes after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus opened a roundtable discussion on how to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system, several demonstrators stood up one by one and shouted their disapproval that lawmakers have refused to consider a government take over of the health insurance system.

"No more blue crosses and double crosses," shouted one demonstrator in reference to health insurance giant Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

"In honor of Florence Nightingale, patients need access to health care," shouted another.

Police removed five protesters from the hearing room at the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

As Mr. Baucus gaveled the meeting open, about 25 nurses wearing red hospital scrubs attached with signs advocating a so called "single payer" government-run health care system conducted a silent protest. After a few minutes with their backs turned to the chairman, the demonstrators walked out of the room while several in the audience applauded.

Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat shepherding President Obama's health care reform priorities through Congress, said that although he disagreed with the protesters tactics, he sympathized with their frustrations.

"Believe me, we hear you," he said. "I will meet with anyone who wants to meet."

The chairman, as well as the Obama administration, have said that replacing the current private health insurance system with a Canadian-style government-run single payer model is not practical or politically feasible. But both support creating a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

"We've got to work with what we've got," Mr. Baucus said. "We cannot go to a single payer system, but that's not going to work in this country."

Eight protesters supporting a single payer system were arrested last week at a Baucus-lead health care roundtable workshop.

While being in the Left pocket is better than being in the Right pocket of the Tryanny of the Middle, the fact remains that the government belongs to the Banksters and Insurance companies...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist
Fiscal Suicide Ahead

In essence, health care became the bank out of which he could fund the bulk of his agenda.
By squeezing inefficiencies out of the health care system, he could have his New New Deal
and also restore the nation to long-term fiscal balance.

This theory justified the tremendous ramp-up of spending we’ve seen over the last several months.
Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and has quickly pushed it up to $1.8 trillion, a whopping
13 percent of G.D.P. The new debt will continue to mount after the economy recovers. The national
debt will nearly double over the next decade. Annual deficits will still hover around 5 percent or
6 percent of G.D.P. in 2019. By that year, interest payments alone on the debt are projected to
be $806 billion annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Obama believes these deficit levels are tolerable if he can fix the long-term fiscal situation, but he
hasn’t been happy about them. He’s been prowling around the White House prodding his staff to find budget cuts.

Some of the ideas they have produced have been significant (Medicare reforms), some have been purely political
(asking cabinet secretaries to cut $100 million in waste, fraud and abuse), and many have been gutted on Capitol Hill
(cap and trade, proposed changes in charitable deductions, proposed changes to the estate tax).

In any case, these stabs at fiscal discipline haven’t come close to keeping up with the explosion in spending.
The government now borrows $1 for every $2 it spends. A Treasury bond auction earlier this month went poorly,
suggesting the world’s hunger for U.S. debt is not limitless. President Obama has been thrown back on his original
theory. If he is going to sustain his agenda, if he is going to prevent national insolvency, he has to control
health care costs. Health care costs are now the crucial issue of his whole presidency.

Obama and his aides seem to understand this. They have gone out of their way to emphasize the importance
of restraining costs. The president has held headline-grabbing summits with business and union leaders.
Unlike just about every other Democrat on the planet, he emphasizes cost control as much as expanding health coverage.

So what exactly is the president proposing to help him realize hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings?

Obama aides talk about “game-changers.” These include improving health information technology, expanding
wellness programs, expanding preventive medicine, changing reimbursement policies so hospitals are penalized
for poor outcomes and instituting comparative effectiveness measures.

Nearly everybody believes these are good ideas. The first problem is that most experts, with a notable exception
of David Cutler of Harvard, don’t believe they will produce much in the way of cost savings over the next 10 years.
They are expensive to set up and even if they work, it would take a long time for cumulative efficiencies to have
much effect. That means that from today until the time President Obama is, say, 60, the U.S. will get no fiscal relief.

The second problem is that nobody is sure that they will ever produce significant savings. The Congressional Budget
Office can’t really project savings because there’s no hard evidence they will produce any and no way to measure
how much. Some experts believe they will work, but John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care policy research
company, speaks for many others. He likes the ideas but adds, “There’s nothing that does much to control costs.”

If you read the C.B.O. testimony and talk to enough experts, you come away with a stark conclusion: There are deep
structural forces, both in Medicare and the private insurance market, that have driven the explosion in health costs.
It is nearly impossible to put together a majority coalition for a bill that challenges those essential structures. Therefore,
the leading proposals on Capitol Hill do not directly address the structural problems. They are a collection of worthy
but speculative ideas designed to possibly mitigate their effects.

The likely outcome of this year’s health care push is that we will get a medium-size bill that expands coverage to
some groups but does relatively little to control costs. In normal conditions, that would be a legislative achievement.

But Obama needs those cuts for his whole strategy to work. Right now, his spending plans are concrete and certain.
But his health care savings, which make those spending plans affordable, are distant, amorphous and uncertain.
Without serious health cost cuts, this burst of activism will hasten fiscal suicide.

---------------------------------------

And, this is from the NY Times...

We need Universal Healthcare. Our businesses need it to "compete" and we as individuals need it for ourselves and our loved ones. If that is not true who then should we exclude?

As for how much we are going into debt? We are here because of the deliberate Grand Larceny of the corrupt Republican mind-set who spent money to enrich themselves and their masters the super-rich economic benedict arnolds ( in short the Robber Barons who rose from the grave Teddy Roosevelt put them in.). What did we get for the "spending" by them? Nothing but economic disaster. If we must "spend" to get out of the hole they put us in let's at least spend on something we all need (and take what we can out of the Robber Barons' hide).

Jut my opinion.

The only way to do it is to elliminate the Health Insurance Indusatry. A third of them could be hired to do the extra paper work for government. The other two thirds will need to learn to grow vegatable or learn some other waY TO CONTRIBUTE...

BTW. If we do not restore the Middle Class through these and other measures I predict we will hear something like these lyrics echoing through people's minds.

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


Elton John;

You tell me there's an angel in your tree
Did he say hed come to call on me
For things are getting desperate in our home
Living in the parish of the restless folks I know

Everybody now bring your family down to the riverside
Look to the east to see where the fat stock hide
Behind four walls of stone the rich man sleeps
Its time we put the flame torch to their keep

Burn down the mission
If were gonna stay alive
Watch the black smoke fly to heaven
See the red flame light the sky

Burn down the mission
Burn it down to stay alive
Its our only chance of living
Take all you need to live inside

Deep in the woods the squirrels are out today
My wife cried when they came to take me away
But what more could I do just to keep her warm
Than burn burn burn burn down the mission walls

The way you restor the middle class (IMHO) is returning
good paying jobs (best way is manufacturing) and that
ain't happening. Single-payer health care will do anything
but...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090615-714424.html

JUNE 15, 2009, 4:01 P.M. ET

Hospital Group 'Deeply Disappointed' With Obama Health-Cost Plan

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The American Hospital Association in a statement Monday suggested
that a White House health-care cost-cutting proposal could "severely jeopardize hospitals' ability
to care for their patients and communities."

The group, which represents nearly 5,000 for-profit and non-profit hospitals, responded to a proposal
by President Barack Obama issued last Saturday that would result in $106 billion in reduced payments
by the federal government to hospitals for the care of low-income patients.

The White House proposal states that "as health reform phases in, the number of uninsured will go down,
and we would be able to reduce payments to hospitals for treating those previously uncovered."

Coupled with another proposal to base Medicare payment more on "productivity, as well as other proposed
cost savings from the president's fiscal 2010 budget plan, the AHA estimates that hospitals would see $220
billion in total cuts from their projected payments over 10 years.

"We are deeply disappointed and concerned to see the Administration propose cuts of more than $220 billion
to hospitals, especially during these tough economic times when more patients are turning to their local hospital
for care," AHA President and Chief Executive Rich Umbdenstock said in a statement.

The Obama administration has highlighted roughly $950 billion in possible cost savings in the U.S. health-care
sector, which it says will help pay for plans to extend health insurance to those currently lacking coverage.

The centerpiece of the hospital cost-savings proposal is a reduction in payments by Medicare and Medicaid to
hospitals which accept a "disproportionate" share of low-income patients. The White House seeks to reduce
the payments by 75% from 2013 to 2019.

Umbdenstock, in his statement, urged Congress not to cut the disproportionate share payments until "coverage
expansions are universal and fully implemented as part of reform and Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls are addressed."

The main publicly traded hospital companies include Tenet Healthcare Corp. (THC), Health Management Associates
Inc. (HMA), LifePoint Hospitals Inc. (LPNT), Universal Health Services Inc. (UHS) and Community Health Systems Inc. (CYH).

-By Patrick Yoest, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-3554; patrick.yoest@dowjones.com

At least the Robber Barons created the steel industry, built the railroads, and left behind great institutions like libraries and universities. The present lot of parasites have left us only a mountain of debt.

10-4 on the captains (or pirates) of industry at least building something...

found this little item on a foundation site this a.m.:

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story...ml?id=253700037

...

Prior to passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, the IRS required nonprofit hospitals to provide
charity care in order to qualify for tax-exempt status. That requirement subsequently was dropped
as long as hospitals provided benefits to the community in other ways such as health fairs, cancer
and cholesterol screenings, and by providing emergency care. For years, however, consumer
groups have argued that the line between for-profit and nonprofit hospitals has blurred, causing
some in Congress to argue that nonprofit hospitals do not provide enough charity care to justify
their tax-exempt status.

Indeed, Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-MT) and ranking member Charles E. Grassley
(R-IA) have proposed standards that would require hospitals to provide "a minimum annual level of
charitable care" to get or keep their tax-exempt status. Under the committee's proposal, tax-exempt
hospitals could not refuse service because of a patient's inability to pay and would have to follow
certain procedures before taking collection actions against a patient late in paying his bills. If a
hospital failed to meet the standards, the government could revoke its tax-exempt status or impose
excise taxes as a penalty.

The American Hospital Association opposes such requirements, arguing that it would unnecessarily
penalize nonprofit hospitals that provide benefits to the community in ways other than charity care.
The association has urged hospital leaders around the country to contact Congress by telephone or
e-mail to express their opposition to any such standard.

"A formulaic, one-size-fits-all charity care standard will hamstring hospitals' efforts to respond to the
unique needs of their communities," said a bulletin issued by AHA. "It would penalize children's, teaching,
and research hospitals and those in rural areas because they provide community benefit in a variety
of forms other than just charity care."

This sounds like tax-exempt hospitals would have to expand charity from the ER to the
main floors...oh yeah, I'm from the government and I'm here to insure you.

more lies from the one who's state has millions of liars in it and who's state eradicated a whole race

more scare tactics from those scared of anything unwaspish

Your words betray your prejudice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-congress_N.htm

Obama spars with insurers on health care

By Richard Wolf and David Jackson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Obama challenged the health insurance industry Tuesday
to drop its steadfast opposition to a government-run plan that could compete with private
insurers to drive down costs in a revamped health care system.

Industry leaders, however, said any type of public insurance option would drive private
companies out of business, raise costs for employers and workers and increase budget deficits.

The back-and-forth represented a potential setback for Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's
health care system — something insurers helped to scuttle 15 years ago under President Clinton
with their national "Harry and Louise" advertising campaign.

After months of getting along, lawmakers and health industry stakeholders have parted ways
in recent weeks on key elements of the overhaul. Business groups, such as the Chamber of
Commerce, have opposed a mandate on employers to provide insurance or contribute toward it.

...

It began with a letter from American's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., whose Senate health committee plans to include
a public option in its legislation. They cited a Milliman study that showed an average family of four
pays $1,700 a year in higher premiums because Medicare and Medicaid underpay doctors and hospitals.

"If Congress establishes a new government-run health plan, this hidden tax on consumers could
undermine the entire health care financing system," the letter said. "Regardless of how it is initially
structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market."


-------------------

Sorry G4A, I don't care to pay for your health care.
And, I trust Blue Cross much more than what will be a single-payer system
no matter how Kennedy and Pelosi sloganize Obama-Care.

who is going to pay for yours or the younger ones in ten years?

The only way a public option would drive the Health Insurance Industry out of business is if they continue spending lots of money to deny care. They could adapt and offer better service and coverage at lower prices to compete, but their CEOs would have to drop the Platinum Parachutes, ridiculously huge salaries and bonuses, and not buy another summer cottage in Switzerland. My heart bleeds for them.

Medicare is run efficiently and that is what the Health Insurance Industry fears. Administrative costs for Medicare are less than 3% while the private Industry that always touts how efficient they are range from 20-30% administrative costs. They raise their premiums and are gouging people and spend millions on lobbying Congress because they took our premiums and gambled them on high-risk / high return Wall Street investments and lost big time.

Now after all these decades of abusing us they are whining about having to compete against a well run public option. Well all those who like the plan they have can keep it, and we'll see how many do like their plan when comparison shopping. Those companies can survive if of course they provide good care and supplemental plans that people like. If they don't and their CEOs refuse to take reasonable pay and benefit packages for themselves they can pick up their marbles and sail home to Barbados on their yachts. They can go wherever they want to and good riddance I say because they would just prove that for them it is all about money and not about providing decent healthcare. But then we knew that anyway and no one should shed a tear for them.

If they do close up shop IH there will be some aspiring entrepreneur who will take their place and vigorously compete with the public option. Someone with some nads know-how and vision and we will all benefit from that competition. You would not have to go on a "Government Run Plan" if you don't want to because there is so much waste and exorbitant profit taking in the present system that someone more reasonable will come along and take up the slack if the present Big Boys fold.

Likely however they won't fold. After screaming like Homer Simpson to scare everybody they'll just shrug and you'll see their contrite little underhanded smile, and then they'll adapt and then you'll know what I'm saying is true.

Just my opinion.

I support measures that can lower cost, I do not support universal healthcare. The government should not be running healthcare, they cant even run something relatively simple as a stimulus package, now you want them in control of covering your healthcare, of pumping 43 million new people into the system. Why dont we reward doctors who provide good care, by lowering their insurance cost. Or lowering the premiums for individuals with good health and low expense. I support these measures. I support measures to digitze medical information. What we are heading for is a rushed patchworked bill that in the end will make things worse.

You are probably right, GOPGuy. What is needed is a simple not for profit single payer system.

http://www.fayettedailynews.com/article.php?id_news=3836

On heath care -- President Obama’s dirty little secret

2009-06-29

By Rich Lowry

President Barack Obama knows health-care policy. Give him an hour and a half to hold forth,
as ABC News obligingly did at a town-hall meeting, and he will invariably impress with his fluidity.

This makes it all the more remarkable that he often appears unable to understand how his
health-care program threatens private insurance. At a recent press conference, Obama argued
that the very notion of it doesn't compute: "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides
the best-quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the
government -- which they say can't run anything -- suddenly is going to drive them out of business?
That's not logical."

This is exceptionally brazen sophistry. Private insurers are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the federal
government because they don't have the power of the government to dictate prices to doctors and
hospitals. That's what Medicare does, and why it pays less for health services than private insurers.

Surely Obama understands the competitive advantage that this confers on the government. If the
public option in ObamaCare underpays providers in a similar fashion, it will charge cheaper premiums
than private insurance. Employers will dump their employees into the public plan, and a massive
"crowding out" will occur. The respected health-care research firm The Lewin Group estimates as
many as 119 million people could migrate from private insurance to the government plan, whether
Obama considers it logical or not.

Since Medicare doesn't pay hospitals enough to cover costs, they have to make up the expense
by charging more to private insurers. According to Lewin, as Medicare hospital payments declined
from 95 percent of costs in 2003 to 91 percent of costs in 2007, private payer rates steadily increased.
A massive new government plan that doesn't pay its own way will augment this cost shift, making private
insurance more expensive still and sending ever more people into the arms of the government plan.

ObamaCare, then, could unravel the entire private system very quickly. And in Obama's telling, it all
would have been a strange accident of fate. All he wanted to do was reduce health-care costs, and lo
and behold, he ended up with the Canada-style system no one thought politically possible. What dumb luck.

Since some 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care, Obama must minimize the risk
to them. This is why one of Obama's signature lines -- almost up there with hope and change -- is the
promise that anyone who wants to keep his health insurance can do so. "If you like your health-care plan,
you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period," Obama said in his speech to the American Medical
Association. "No one will take it away, no matter what."

This stark language is becoming less sustainable, though. According to the research group HSI Network,
the version of ObamaCare currently before the House Ways and Means Committee would cover most
of the country's 47 million uninsured, but at a cost of $3.5 trillion over 10 years and while crowding 64 million
people out of private insurance. Obama wants to pretend that getting to universal coverage is an essentially
costless, win-win proposition, when it will come at enormous expense and disrupt the insurance of millions
of American happy with their health care.

Asked at his press conference about his frequent reassurances that people will get to keep their current
insurance, Obama reached for wiggle room. He explained that the government won't "make you change
plans." Well, one is thankful for little things. But Obama implicitly left open the possibility that his reform
will tilt the system so that employers, on their own, unload their coverage. Which is exactly the problem,
and why Obama's reform threatens private insurance.

Only if Obama successfully obfuscates this point will he get his public option. Otherwise, the chances
of his big-bang change to the American health system radically diminish.

I would have much preferred a straight forward single payer approach to this stealth evangelical approach, even if the later works, as you suggest it might...

My fear is that Obama will, again, be a day late and a dollar short.. that we end up with no strong public option and
find that we have agreed to using tax money to buy every everyone an expensive health insurance policy and
continue the present strategy of corporate welfare...

Not true. They (the Government) runs Medicare and the VA and the Military and the Post Office and they do a better job than the "private sector" because it is not about profit. They (local governments) run the Fire Depts and the Police Depts.

Blackwater and Haliburton for example are terrible at running anything because all they care about is profit. Most Americans want a strong public option. If the private sector is so good they ought to welcome the chance to show how inept the government run plan is. If the Big Boys can't compete with a public run option in prices and care then the divine marketplace you worship has spoken.

Whining about not being able to compete is a lame ass argument. In the marketplace ultimately I am a consumer. And as one I do not give a rat's ass for the excuses made by Health Insurance CEOs or their "Study Groups". I want low or no cost quality Health Care and I can judge that for myself. Also as a small businessman I know for a fact that my customers (businessmen all) would welcome being relieved of their burden in paying for Health Insurance Plans for their employees. It would increase their ablity to compete with their foriegn competititors.

I am sick and tired of the excuses made by the Big Insurance Companies why they can't cover everybody at reasonable prices. This is all on their greedy little heads and they've been warned for decades that if they kept raising prices and denying care this would come. They gave us all the finger and now it's their turn. We will not listen to them anymore. Plenty of countries have Universal HealthCare and their economies are doing better than ours. Their businesses out compete ours and they have less costs per capita in healthcare. If we are so worried about where the money will come from let's cut the bloated defense budget and use the money to pay for it and say "goodbye" to all those Pentagon Generals who will retire in protest and promote those generals who somehow believe they can still defend this country from North Korea with something less than several times the Military Budgets of all the rest of the countries in the world combined.

Just my opinion.

I wonder how many more jobs will go when the profit is removed from health care? Hummmmm

Anyway...here's another comment I mined from Bloomberg today:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aNfbrgd1neHY


Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University, and a member of the private panel
that dates the start of recessions and recoveries -- suggested the economy will contract into next year,
and that the pattern of economic turnaround will be more of a seesaw than what he called “a beautiful symmetrical W.”
...

Feldstein also said the Obama administration must reduce the budget deficit, estimated at about 12 percent
of gross domestic product this year, to below 5 percent to help contain inflation. He said the country cannot afford
the cost of the administration’s plan for reforming the health-care system.

------------------------------

Too bad the expectations for budget deficits (if they continue at this rate) are to climb to 82% of GDP by 2030.
I think they are only expected to hit about 23% in the coming three years though. What we have now is unsustainable,
whopping new trillion-dollar programs are gasoline nearing the fire, IMHO.

Have you ever had to wait in emergency room for more then 48 hours because the hospital has no beds?
Have you ever had to wait to be admitted to a hospital and sent home to wait for a call that you can now be admitted because they found nursing staff to cover needs?

The first was my daughter who ended up having meningitis and the second was myself as I was in atrial fib and needed to be cardio- converted (clear).

Even the president is saying that an overhaul will put more patients in the system receiving the care they need. The president has said that staffing of doctors offices, rehabilitation and hospitals as well as out patient services will be high in demand.

What I hear is there will be so many jobs that we need people to train for from medical records, EMS, transportation, nursing, Physicians assistance etc.

Soooooooooo Indianhead your statement"I wonder how many more jobs will go when the profit is removed from health care?"" is soooooooooo over stated.

Green jobs will create a whole new work area also.
If people out of work could get living wages and education they could train for the new 21st century jobs.

Anyway, if you believe, you believe...and far be it from me to hinder someone's beliefs.
It may be hard to pass "health care" though, according to what I'm readin in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4491072.story

Paying for healthcare overhaul may fall unevenly on states
States such as New York are most likely to pay higher taxes to fund expanded coverage but have less to gain, policy analysts say.

By Janet Hook
July 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- When Congress decides how to pay for President Obama's signature healthcare initiative,
some of his strongest political bastions may be footing a heavy bill.

And in a political irony, states that went for Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona,
in 2008 are among those likely to benefit most from Democratic healthcare policies.


Some of the "bluest" states that propelled Obama into the White House are among those most likely to pay more in taxes
to fund expanded health insurance coverage and make other changes to the system, analysts say. People in states such
as Illinois, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York have a higher share of wealthier taxpayers and
residents who get generous healthcare plans through work -- and both sets of people may be tapped to raise money
for the healthcare overhaul.

Moreover, those states have less to gain from a national effort to expand health insurance coverage because their
residents already are more likely to have insurance than are Americans as a whole.

Those conclusions by a range of policy analysts may point to future tension in the healthcare debate: Though battle lines
so far have been drawn largely in partisan terms, lurking regional divisions could fracture Congress even further.


"New York is going to be asked to pay a lot more taxes, and people in Iowa and Montana will not," said Robert Blendon,
a professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Obama has proposed raising money for a healthcare overhaul by reducing the tax breaks available to high-wage earners,
such as those for charitable giving and home mortgage interest. Another idea backed by some Democrats would tax the
most generous health insurance policies provided by employers, which some have called Cadillac healthcare plans.

Regional differences may help explain why Senate leaders such as Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa),
who are, respectively, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Finance Committee, are more enthusiastic about
taxing employer-provided benefits, while House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) is cooler to the idea.

California ranks among the states whose residents would be most likely to pay higher taxes if Obama successfully limited
tax breaks for high-wage earners. About 1.4% of taxpayers would face potential increases, according to a study cited by
the group Citizens for Tax Justice. That places California among the top 15 most vulnerable states.

But employers in California as a whole do not offer particularly generous healthcare plans, according to data compiled by
the Economic Policy Institute, so the state would not be among the hardest-hit if employer health plans were taxed.

When the policy institute assessed one proposal for taxing the most expensive health plans, which had been developed
by a tax reform panel under President George W. Bush, it found that 36% of people with family plans in California would
be taxed, compared with 41% for the nation overall.

In addition, California has a higher than average share of residents lacking health insurance, and so it might be among
those to gain the most by expanding access to insurance. About 18.5% of state residents lack insurance, compared with
15.3% nationally, according to 2006 and 2007 data compiled by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health insurance trends.

To be sure, the precise effect of any healthcare bill is hard to assess before the details are known. And all states could
benefit if the legislation succeeds in its goal of driving down healthcare costs.

Moreover, many people see improving access to health insurance as a broad national goal. "Everybody will benefit from
universal coverage -- in red states and blue states," said Judith Feder, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University
and senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Still, the basic concepts Congress is considering could affect some regions more than others. So far, regional fault lines
in Congress have been more pronounced in the debate over other issues, such as Obama's efforts to crack down on
greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. But that may soon change as the debate gets more specific.

"Now the debate is mostly in the abstract," Blendon said. "But people soon will start saying: 'What will this mean for
New York, L.A. and Philadelphia?' "

Critics of taxing higher-cost employer health plans say that it would hit many people who happen to live where costs
are higher than average, not necessarily those whose packages are overly generous.

That is why the idea of taxing the priciest health benefits could run into resistance from lawmakers representing
high-cost cities such as Chicago and New York.

--------------------

But I guess Nebraska and Louisiana would do better...
that's cool. Maybe Graham can pay for my health care.

If I saw a meter maid about to give your car a ticket, and I had a quarter in my hand, I would not put it in your meter
I would assume you would think the meter maid should give you a ticket, as you would be breaking the rules
and as such, who am I to deny you the pleasure.

I pay $2750 a month, maybe YOU with the mouth should be paying mine.

I was speaking to my post office guy and I remarked just this morning, I should have a job there, just to get benefits.
He told me he pays about $100 a month or so. Forever.
Then he said not from the post office, but because he is a vet

A-HA....so you get your insurance for only a hundred a month or less.
That explains your cavalier attitude.
Maybe try paying what an average person pays who has insurance not financed by the feds or a corporation
then come whining back to me, okay

#1 I have no veteran's insurance, I never heard of it.
I do have the opportunity to go through the VA System, which I did one time 32 years ago
to get a broken finger set - that's it. I don't use the VA drug plan, haven't gotten a partial disability
and don't even have an account card.

I believe heavily in karma when it comes to veterans' care - and God blessed me in service,
so I leave services to those less blessed - and there are many.

It costs me about $390 a month for my half of Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Insurance,
and my employer pays an equal amount. (He actually pays my portion and I pay me wife's).
Again, that's probably because I've been blessed in life to be healthy and enjoy it by
participating in athletics and outdoor activities.

I was joking about you or anyone else paying for my health care (thus the laughing face).
I for one don't think there is some sort of gauranteed level of care owed me as a citizen of the U.S. of A.
While I believe in God and Jesus, I read Darwin and Einstein. Just as when Bush is in office I read the NYT
and watched MSNBC more; now that Obama is president, I watch FOX and read the Wall Street Journal more.
That's because, coming from The Fourth Estate, I believe there is a neccessary, adversarial relationship
between power and the press. Therefore...I read this, this a.m.:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709502661214861.html

OPINION JULY 9, 2009
Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers
So why should we trust him with health care?


By KARL ROVE

In February, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while making lavish promises
about the results. He pledged that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed
all across America." He also said the stimulus would "save or create up to four million jobs." Vice President
Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would "drop-kick" the economy out of the recession.

But the unemployment rate today is 9.5% -- nearly 20% higher than the Obama White House said it would
be with the stimulus in place. Keith Hennessey, who worked at the Bush White House on economic policy,
has noted that unemployment is now higher than the administration said it would be if nothing was done to
revive the economy. There are 2.6 million fewer Americans working than Mr. Obama promised.

The economy takes unexpected turns on every president. But what is striking about this president is how
quickly he turns away from his promises. He rushed the stimulus through Congress saying we couldn't afford
to wait. Now his administration is waiting to spend the money. Of the $279 billion allocated to federal agencies,
only $56 billion has been paid out.

Mr. Biden has admitted that the administration "misread" the economy. But he explained that away on ABC's
"This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday by saying the administration had used "the consensus
figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there" to draw up its stimulus plan. That's not true.

The Blue Chip consensus is an average of some four dozen economic forecasts. In January, the consensus
estimated that GDP for 2009 would shrink by 1.6% and that unemployment would top out at 8.3%.
Team Obama assumed both higher GDP growth (it counted on a contraction of 1.2%) and lower peak
unemployment (8.1%) than the consensus.

Instead of relying on the Blue Chip consensus, Mr. Obama outsourced writing the stimulus to
House appropriators who stuffed it with every bad spending idea they weren't previously able
to push through Congress. Little of it aimed to quickly revive the economy. More stimulus money
will be spent in fiscal years 2011 through 2019 than will be spent this fiscal year, which ends in September.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden, backpedaling from his drop-kick comments, said that "no one anticipated, no one
expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money."

This fits a pattern. The administration consistently pledges unrealistic results that it later distances
itself from. It has gotten away with it because the media haven't asked many pointed questions.
That may not last as the debate shifts to health care.

The Obama administration wants a government takeover of health care. To get it, it is promising to wring
massive savings out of the health-care industry. And it has already started to make cost-savings promises.

For example, the administration strong-armed health-care providers into promising $2 trillion in health savings.
It got pharmaceutical companies to promise to lower drug prices for seniors by $80 billion over 10 years.
The administration also trotted out hospital executives to say that they would voluntarily save the government $150 billion over 10 years.

None of this comes near to being true. On the promised $2 trillion, everyone admits that the number
isn't built on anything specific -- it's an aspirational goal. On drug prices, a White House spokesman
admitted that "These savings have not been identified at the moment." It is speculative that these cuts
will actually be made, when they would begin, or whether they would reduce government health-care spending.

None of this will stop the administration from arguing that its "savings" will pay for Mr. Obama's $1.5 trillion health-care
plans. By the time the real price tag emerges, it will be too late to do much more than raise taxes and curtail spending
on urgent priorities, such as the military.

The stimulus package is a clear example of how Mr. Obama operates. He is attempting to employ the same tactics
of bait-and-switch when it comes to health care, only on a much larger scale.

Mr. Obama has already created a river of red ink. His health-care plans will only force that river over its banks.
We are at the cusp of a crucial political debate, and Mr. Obama's words on fiscal matters are untrustworthy.
His promised savings are a mirage. His proposals to reshape the economy are alarming. And his unwillingness
to be forthright with his numbers reveals that he knows his plans would terrify many Americans.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
---------------------------

BTW, I'd drop the quarter in the meter for ya too.

you do realize Karl Rove wrote that

and one of the major problems in this country is BOTH SIDES having their OPERATIVES take over as impartial news or talking heads

this goes bothways

Begalia and Carville and Matalin and the twosided Dick Morris were bad enough

but Karl Rove is now a talking head. Karl Rove belongs in jail (any vet should want someone who outed a spy in jail).
he is a talking head

and of course his article is fair and balanced, right???

As a fellow lover of freedom of the press, both of us should vomit at the same time and realize what has happened to the once great press
(back when the WSJ was ok, even if I did not agree with their corporate viewpoint, I felt they were not trying to bring the nation down and apart).

And Rob Emanuel is a perfect rabbi.

Your political myopia is staggering. Both are Big Brother.

The Massachusetts Health Care Mess

mass. saw the mistake of compromise

no retreat no surrender

we need 100% gov't and get rid of all the insurance companies

with 100% choice of doctors, no limits

everyone wants it, polls show it, people need to realize we are the gov't and our money will pay for it

your soundbytes don't work, because I am not a Rahm fan.
And Hillary was the #2 senator who took the most from insurance companies

Or, if you believe....



I even had to laugh...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...O8fq_wD99FO1L80

A breakdown of the cost of the House health bill
By The Associated Press – 35 minutes ago

A trio of House committees began work Thursday on $1.5 trillion, 10-year legislation from the Democrats that would fundamentally reshape the nation's health care system.

It would require everyone to have health insurance and make employers provide it or pay a penalty; subsidize the poor to help them buy care; and create a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare to compete with private insurance companies.

The Congressional Budget Office has not completed its evaluation of the plan or assigned final costs to all its pieces. The estimates it has made public so far have been based on an earlier discussion draft or on updates provided by lawmakers, rather than on an analysis of the bill language as filed. However, here are some details on what's known so far of the price tag:

___

_Costs of expanding Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program; providing subsidies to help people buy care; associated effects on tax revenues; and providing tax credits to small employers who provide care: $1.28 trillion. (Source: CBO)

_New costs in Medicare, including for reforming payments to physicians: About $370 billion. (Source: CBO)

TOTAL PROJECTED OUTLAYS: $1.65 trillion

___

The bill's costs are partially offset by savings and new revenue sources within the health care system including:

_Fees paid by uninsured individuals and employers that don't offer qualifying insurance, or whose workers take other coverage: $237 billion. (Source: CBO)

_Medicare savings, including payment reductions to private insurers and more money provided by drug makers: About $525 billion. (Source: CBO)

Lawmakers are also proposing new tax increases to pay for the bill:

_Income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $280,000 and families making more than $350,000: $544 billion. (Source: Ways and Means Committee)

_Corporate and foreign tax changes: $37.2 billion. (Source: Ways and Means Committee)

TOTAL OFFSETS AND REVENUE-RAISERS: $1.3 trillion

We finally have a fiscal assessment of all the rhetoric, the flim-flam, the soaring rhetoric:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9071602242.html

Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs
CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 17, 2009

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted
by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators
in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose
"the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly
Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve --
of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting,


"The curve is being raised. " His remarks suggested that rather than averting

a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.


Elmendorf's blunt language startled lawmakers racing to meet Obama's deadline for approving a bill by the August break.
The CBO is the official arbiter of the cost of legislation. Fiscal conservatives in the House said Elmendorf's testimony would
galvanize the growing number of Democrats agitating for changes in the more than $1.2 trillion House bill, which aims to
cover 97 percent of Americans by 2015.

A lot of Democrats want to see more savings, said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who is leading an effort to amend the bill before
next week's vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. "There's no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not even close."

Republicans also seized on Elmendorf's remarks, with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) saying they prove "that one
of the Democrats' chief talking points is pure fiction." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Elmendorf's testimony should
serve as a "wake-up call" to Obama and Democratic leaders to heed requests from lawmakers in both parties to slow down the process.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she delivered that message directly to Obama at the White House yesterday, and strongly urged
him to give up his August deadline so bipartisan negotiators in the Senate Finance Committee can craft a new reform plan that does more to control costs.

"I think it would be prudent for the president to be patient," said Snowe, whom Obama is courting aggressively. Bipartisan approval of a
finance bill "can provide huge impetus for the success of this legislation and achieving broader support as it goes through the legislative process."

Talks in the Senate broke late yesterday, with plans to resume next week. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the
group is considering about a dozen options to cover the estimated $1 trillion cost of its package, including reductions in Medicare spending
and additional tax increases.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), whose support could compel numerous GOP senators to take a serious look at the package, said he is "hoping"
to embrace the final product. Otherwise, he said, "I wouldn't be at the table." After Elmendorf's testimony, Grassley said Senate negotiators are
determined to "overcome the shortcomings" of the House proposal.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), also has taken a leading role in the Finance Committee negotiations.
Yesterday, when Elmendorf appeared before Conrad's committee to testify about the nation's long-term budget problems, Conrad focused his
questions on the House and Senate committee measures, which were drafted without Republican input.

"I'm going to really put you on the spot," Conrad said. "From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported,
do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"

Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion
to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing
federal health spending overall.

Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far
do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal
health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for
reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy"
that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages.

Key senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week objected, saying
that the idea, which Obama opposed on the campaign trail, does not have enough support to win passage. Yesterday, Baucus said White
House opposition had hindered acceptance of the tax, which critics said would target police and firefighters who receive generous benefits packages.

Grassley said he urged Obama earlier this week to reconsider the tax, which the CBO has repeatedly identified as one of the best tools available
for driving down long-term federal health spending. Obama said he could not do that, Grassley recalled. "Does he really want to bend the
cost curve? He ought to be out in front on this issue and endorse it," he said.

The benefits tax is also hugely unpopular in the House, which has instead proposed a surtax of as much as 5.4 percent on income
exceeding $350,000 a year to pay for health reform. "You're not going to get a tax on health benefits," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.),
chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she welcomes other efforts to improve the bill, including demands for additional savings.
"Can there be more? I think so," Pelosi said. "And that is what the legislative process is about. You don't write the whole bill, introduce it
and then go to the floor. This is the time now for an open process of bipartisan review of the bill in the committees."

Meanwhile, a growing number of physician groups are also objecting to the House package. Although the chief executive of the
American Medical Association pledged yesterday to "help build support" for the legislation, as many as 20 state medical societies
have drafted a letter to congressional leaders vowing to fight creation of a government-sponsored health insurance program that
could compete with private firms.

Staff writer Ceci Connolly contributed to this report.

If it were possible to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have done so in much better economic times.

If the numbers don't add up to make this revenue neutral even with taxing the rich more, then do three things.

1. Demand lower costs in bulk purchases from Pharma and Hospitals and Doctors, and let all the outraged doctors and Hospital and Pharma Execs to leave the country for Oh... maybe Zimbabwe where all the real capilatists still live.

2. Make up any remaining difference from the Defense Budget and let the outraged Generals retire to their Villas (hopefully somewhere else) and promote better Generals.

3. Send Glen Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and all the Health Insurance and Financial Industry Execs to Zimbabwe with one way postage and do not allow their return.

(P.S. And allow all who want to join them to do so - maybe they can start a new country over there.)

Just my opinion.

Here we go again...strip the military and exile the opposition.

If you care to read the extent to which this boondoggle has spread - here is a site with the text of the recently
committee passed version of the House idea. On the House Majority Leader's web site.

The first dozen pages are just definitions of the terms they create. The remaining 1,006 wander like an alzheimer patient
through hall after hall, tunnel after tunnel, into the very home, the very head of people and their most private, physical
and mental selves. It's as though they want to micro-manage everyone from business to family to hospital, to college;
and depending on one's race, ethnicity, geographical location, habits and income you are neatly pigeon-holed.

Then there is a "public option" to compete with co-op-based plans and private insurance firms.
Your alumni association, favorite blog, glee club or Masonic Lodge can all co-op a plan for left-handed
linguists.


The time it gets extremely vague is when it comes to how to fund it...and what "savings" are imagined.

If you believe in really BIG government, and therefore BIG BROTHER in every aspect of your life...buy it.


I can't, but that's just me (and other Blue Dog Democrats). This bill is so thick you could beat someone to death with it...and I imagine some that vote for it will fall victim.

Government should be just as "big" or as "small" as is needed to be "good" and "effective". Right now there is a "BIG" Insurance Industry Exec with a BIG House and a BIG Yacht and a BIG Bank Account paid for by denying needed healthcare to millions of others. And if you don't like it he magnanimously grants you IH the "Freedom" to go to some other BIG Insurance Exec and beg him for BIG "honor" of paying him to deny you your healthcare. Or (according to them) you can die and go to that BIG place up in the sky. At least that is the experience of a BIG slice (and getting BIGGER) of the American people.

Besides Zimbabwe is a nice place I hear... all privatized healthcare and magnificent walled enclaves for the rich. I think those guys would love it once they subjugated the natives.

Just my opinion.

"good" and "effective"...ahh there's the rub...

what is medicine for some is poison to another...and force-feeding it
causes the victims to be discovered only after their departure.

The hubris of those who think they know what is best for all of us
is outrageous, staggering and an invitation to rebellion, IMO.

Hmmm... I guess those BIG Insurance Execs better watch out then...eh?

Build charity hospitals, fund medical scholarships with contracts for years of service; these things I understand.

But the attitude with which this administration approaches governance was reflected in a comment today:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The White House agenda won't be impeded by the economy, said Larry Summers, a top advisor
to President Obama on Friday. Many economists are worried about the mushrooming federal budget deficit and believe that more
time should be spent reducing government spending over the medium term rather than launching new programs.

But the White House will not be deterred, Summers said.

They will lose popular support...and I think they know it...thus the rush.

Que sera sera...

In a desperate push, the president just spoke about how "savings"
(remember that's the part the CBO says is fantasy) will "pay" for
two-thirds of the health care legislation in "the bill I will sign".

Okay so the bill will cost $1.5 Trillion and 2/3 of that is $1 Trillion.
So, we are to "believe" $1 Trillion can be cut from Medicare and Medicaid
and it will not cut services, drugs or coverage?

Am I the only one (with the CBO) that thinks this is pure propaganda?

And, that the pushing of the speeches (his best assault) sets off the
desperation alarm (along with the calender rush)?

We are in the crucible...bets are doubled...sweat is popping on the foreheads...
"pledges" of trillions of dollars of savings from the pharmaceutical companies,
hospitals, doctors and nurses (or more accurately the big organizations that represent them)...
are reiterated incessantly.

But, state medical societies, insurance companies and individual pharmacy
companies are not making "pledges". They know they won't back them,
just as do the umbrella agencies making them...but the umbrellas don't have to
deliver...the states and companies would.

Anytime someone rushes you on a decision on something that sounds too
good to be true...I suggest you step back, research and not get conned...
a la Madoff, a la Citi Group, a la AIG. Have we learned nothing?

Oops, looks like not all educated New Yorkers are buying in...

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print....ises_179667.htm

O'S BROKEN PROMISES

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

July 17, 2009 --

PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue.
The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either,
a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these
"qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan.
If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year
-- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars --
as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care
plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care
and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance
until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab
comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed
predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation
will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they
become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly
sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering
the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families,
services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied
with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States
than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1
out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
and a former lieutenant governor of New York.

As we get more and more detail on "National Health Care" (or Obama-Care as many call it)
there is a one-two punch coming down the pike: Deficit and Abortion.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ency_97531.html
...
And if Bill Clinton had survived both Monica and a growing recession on the basis of his balanced budget,
George Bush left office tagged with both an unpopular war and record borrowing.
...
Barack Obama should pay particular attention to this morality tale, as his hyper-Keynesian advisors talk casually
about a second stimulus, perhaps $9 trillion more in debt to come, and (more quietly) a new "gorge the beast" philosophy
of running such record deficits with new spending that higher taxes on the more affluent will be necessary - and with such
taxes the long desired equality of result and redistribution of national wealth through a punitive tax code.

Obama can talk endlessly about the "reset" button, the prior "mess", and "Bush did it". But as his uncontrollable deficits climb,
so too will fall his approval ratings.(see below)
...
Add in the depression-era rhetoric of ‘"spread the wealth" and "pay your fair share" talk, along with the idea that the new taxes
will not even pay down the deficit, which will in fact soar and require both inflation and higher interest to pay it down. The result
is a growing anger that higher taxes in this administration somehow still ensure higher deficits. So Clinton gave us high taxes
and finally a surplus. Bush at least gave us tax cuts - but a large deficit. Obama gave us the highest taxes in recent memory and
the highest deficits in our history. That is not a winning combination.

Balance the budget - and President Obama could, as Clinton, be forgiven for quite a lot. Run up record deficits,
and the voters will give him even less empathy than they did George Bush. Just watch ...

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University


RCP Poll Averages
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve
56.2
Disapprove
37.8
Spread +18.4

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve
32.0
Disapprove
57.3
Spread -25.3

Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Democrats
39.3
Republicans
35.3
Democrats +4.0

Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction
36.2
Wrong Track
55.6
Spread -19.4

Can you see the trends?

--------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090717-713581.html
JULY 17, 2009, 6:20 P.M. ET

Anti-Abortion Democrats Emerge As Obstacle To Health-Care Bill

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A group of anti-abortion Democrats opposed to U.S. House health-care legislation
in its current form have emerged as a major obstacle to Democratic leaders' goal of passing the measure by August.

A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they
"cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any
government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."

The letter comes at a time when other blocs of House Democrats, such as the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition,
have threatened to withhold their support for the bill. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., warned that Democratic leaders should
heed the group's letter, saying the bill is endangered by the defection of anti-abortion Democrats.

"I told leadership repeatedly, but they just sort of ignored us," said Stupak, who signed the letter. "They ignore at their own peril."

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have avoided painful debates on abortion thus far. Obama has
largely stayed above the fray on culture-war issues, and the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court justice
nominee Sonia Sotomayor have done little to ignite passions on the issue.

But abortion debates have creeped up in recent days in Congress. The House voted Thursday on a rule to limit amendments
on a financial-services spending bill, with 39 anti-abortion Democrats voting against the rule because it bars a vote on an
abortion-related amendment.

The House health-care bill doesn't explicitly mention abortion, but the Democrats who signed the letter are a guarantee
that it wouldn't allow the federal funding of abortions or require that private health-insurance plans pay for abortions.

Both private plans and a public-health insurance plan would be available to individuals seeking health coverage through a
health-insurance "exchange" created by the bill. The Department of Health and Human Services would make the final determination
on what those plans would be required to cover.

The department would seek proposals on what to cover from a health benefits advisory council created by the bill.
The anti-abortion Democrats state in the letter they want to ensure that the council "cannot recommend abortion services
be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package."

-By Patrick Yoest, Dow Jones Newswires

------------------------

The DNC can produce all the slogans, all the "It's Time Senators" ads they want, but as we all know The Devil is in the Details.

any one against Obama should be charged with treason in federal court and executed if they stand in the way

wouldn't bother me.

If you loved Hilliary Care, I guess you'll love:

Michelle Care

Graham: careful putting your words in the air...they may come for you.

Hyperpole is a widely accepted tool in political rhetoric...this, however, is fu*king rediculous...

Even though the feeling behind it is understable--given the shamefull tactics being used by the cheap labor conservatives and emotionally challenged religious nuts...for example, the Huckabee show on Fox last night...

Who is on first? It seems the details are overloading rhetorical circuits...e.g. Google headlines this hour:

Sebelius: Possible tax on rich for healthcare
CNN - ‎6 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More work is needed on proposed health care legislation to make sure that it
doesn't add to the budget deficit, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday.
White House Less Firm on Date for Health Care Bill New York Times
White House stands by August goal for healthcare Reuters

Looks like a well-oiled machine can still throw a rod...

90% tax and drop the defense department and CIA

nobody will have to worry about health costs again

Just like they took it all away from Bernie and Mrs. Made-off, they should do the same to all rich
they are expendable as are republicans, if there are any left

The difference is that Sebelius gets paid to talk a long time with out saying anything, while the Huck gets paid to tell
lies with half-truths...

indianhead you like your health insurance, you pay you said about $300 bucks a month

you obviously don't care when people are going broke just trying to pay theirs at almost 10times the amount a month, not even taking into account
the deductibles, let alone drug costs.

crowing on and putting people down, while people are suffering, I don't recall religion teaching us that, does yours?

Huckabee is one of what is so wrong in this country. Given a media show while being a candidate seems to insure a not fair and balanced show to start off with. With the retired Sarah soon to be getting her own, and Begalia, Carvelle and KKKarl Rove, next W will get a talk show, maybe he will
spend half the days in a bar, the other half as a chef at a BBQ, being that the mantra was you could drink with him and be friends at a BBQ with him
(though the only thing he grilled was our civil rights, and he got off on prisoner's burnt skin).

It costs me about $390 a month, and I have always supported a charity hospital system.
It's not that I don't care about people, it's called triage...life experience taught me...
and a fear that big government will only break the (federal budget) bank in an effort
which will totally complicate the system...reaching into every facit of life and health.

The problem is not the "idea" that everyone should be cared for...it's the "details"
that emerge when you try to draft such a whopping program...thus:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...204652920090720

Support for Obama on healthcare slips - poll
Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:43am EDT

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Public support for President Barack Obama's handling
of healthcare reform, the pillar of his legislative agenda, has fallen below 50 percent for the
first time, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday said.

Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have run into stiff opposition this month as
they try to pass legislation to restructure the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry through
the creation of a government-run health insurance program.

Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats argue the plan, with an estimated cost
of more than $1 trillion, could hurt small businesses, add to budget deficits and reduce the quality
of medical care for many Americans.

Those concerns may be having an impact on the public, according to the poll, which showed
49 percent of respondents approving of Obama's stand on the issue compared to 57 percent in April.

Those saying they disapproved rose to 44 percent from 29 percent during the same period.

-----------------

Personally I'll be relatively okay either way...my family W-2s out far below the tax-load break,
and I don't expect to live to be 110 like my materal grandmother...I want Social Security and
Medicare strengthened, not reduced...before we expand the reach of fiscal fumbling hands.
It's not what our country can do for us...it's what we can do for our country. And, fiscal responsibility is #1, IMO.

I never imagined that this hybred bird would fly...personally, I would just as soon wait a little longer and get real reform--a universal single payer fee-for-professional-service program with a democratically regulated fee schedule
and democratically regulated price control on drugs...rationing sugar didn't kill us during WWII. In a capitalistic system, everything is rationed for the 90% of the population who don't hold the purse strings...

that poll #s are dropping is not surprising giving that the Insurance companies are going full force as if in war mode
to stop it at all costs

small biz doesn't make a million dollars in profit a year. It is the biggest LIE in the history of the spin doctoring

but one that they use again and again

and morons listen to it

goes to show