Support For ObamaCare Decreases….MSM Blames The Ignorant American People

Loading

Support for Obama’s socialized health care plan keeps dropping and who does our MSM blame for this? The stupidity of Americans:

While viewers may seize upon numbers that indicate the size and scope of reforming health care — 47 million uninsured Americans or costs in the trillion-dollar range — most eyes glaze over when terms like “public option” or “bundled payments” get tossed around on the air.

“It’s not only not a cable TV-friendly story; it’s not a journalism-friendly story,” said John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC.

Harwood, also a political writer for The New York Times, explained that reporters need to first understand the intricacies and nuances of health care policy before they can then try getting the story across to viewers and readers. Last week, Harwood said, he was “trying to get [his] head around the issue of cost control” before penning a Times column.

“It’s incredibly complex to try and explain to people,” Harwood said.

“The problem with health care is that it’s so big and so complicated that the public is never really going to understand all the moving parts of this,” NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner said on air Wednesday.

“So the public is really always going to be sort of amenable, if you will, to demagoguery and arguments one way or the other that don’t necessarily link to what the substance is,” Rovner continued. “We saw this during the Clinton efforts.”

Baloney. We understand this is all smoke and mirrors (PDF). Obama and company want to create a huge increase in the number of people insured by the government which increases demand and the cost associated with that demand. On top of that Obama wants to keep the price low which means quality of care will decrease, as it has in every country with socialized medicine. Look at DMV, look at the VA, look at Medicare. There are many examples for us average Americans to see everyday that tells us the government taking care of our medical needs is a recipe for disaster.

Karl at Protein Wisdom describes what we are all seeing:

The answer may be that even those Americans not steeped in the arcana of healthcare policy know enough to spot obvious chicanery. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that healthcare reform means a cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefits, most Americans can smell the horse manure. Most Americans know their government well enough to know it is not in the fishes and loaves business.

Accordingly when they hear that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scores the House bill as a fiscal disaster, they tend to believe it. Indeed, even establishment outlets like the Washington Post and Newsweek now run op-eds essentially accusing Pres. Obama of misleading people on this basic point.

And the people have spoken:

Memo: No health vote before recess
Democratic leaders have apparently thrown in the towel — telling their Republican counterparts that there will be no health care vote on the House floor before the August recess starts this Friday, according a Republican memo obtained by POLITICO.

The memo:

From: Cavicke, David
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:51 PM
To: REDACTED
Subject: Schedule

Democratic Leadership has told Mr. Boehner’s staff that there will be no vote on Health on the Floor before recess and we will leave Friday.
We still have no confirmation of plans to resume or end the Committee Markup.

David L. Cavicke
Republican Chief of Staff
Committee on Energy and Commerce

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“So the public is really always going to be sort of amenable, if you will, to demagoguery and arguments one way or the other that don’t necessarily link to what the substance is,” Rovner continued. “We saw this during the Clinton efforts.”

No kidding! How do you think Obama got elected??

Well didn’t that just ruin my day – NOT!

I’m pleased to be a card carrying member among those Americans who felt they could do the job their politicians cannot – read the dopey bill and know exactly what Obamacare really means.

However, I would like to thank the Statist Media for showing themselves once again to underestimate the American public. They just keep making fools look good.

The Final Bill is not written yet as it is in committee. The CBO has no clue as to the actual cost.

Dennis Prager offers 10 Questions at Townhall that need answers before any vote is conducted.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/28/10_questions_for_supporters_of_obamacare?page=full

We have every right to expect answers before it comes to a vote. We must demand some clarity on this because if it becomes law it will be next to impossible to correct it or make it go away. It is a huge “investment”. I hope that when it comes out of committee, it gets full debate and close scrutiny. There is nothing URGENT about this. No rush to a vote with only it’s authors having read it.

Public confidence is now waning on this Obama Nation Spending Orgy. It is time to question every piece of legislation created in the current environment by the Parliament of Whores. The usual suspects are crafting it in Secret.

Congress….what a bunch of feckless crap-weasels.

My God these people are clueless! It was ok when all of the hicks and yokels voted for BHO without any background or understanding from the MSM but now that some background on the health care bill is being reported on by other sources and we are getting it, they think we are too dumb to understand it. If you are old you get it. If you are young and healthy you get it. If you are middle class you get it. We all know we are going to get SCREWED!!! Only the illeagle aliens are for it. Alinsky would be proud BHO.

JUST CANCEL YOUR CABLE SUBSCRIPTIONS. STOP WATCHING THEM. THAT’S THE ONLY MESSAGE THEY UNDERSTAND, RATINGS. SHEESH!

From the CNN article (last paragraph)…..

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that’s strictly taboo in the bills). I’ll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms

TV reporters are the worst when it comes to any news that involves economics. Print reporters are only a bit better.

When you get right down to it, if they could grasp economics, they would be working in financial services sector.

Where is Fit fit and Larry? I’d like to hear a defense of this:

Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ’spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

AP Sources: Senate group omitting Dem health goals

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090727/D99N33S81.html

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) – After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.

The effort received a boost during the day from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally a close ally of Republicans. In a letter to committee leaders, the business group called for the panel to “act promptly, preferably before” the Senate’s scheduled vacation at the end of next week. In doing so, the business organization dealt a blow to the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other GOP lawmakers who have called repeatedly for Democrats to slow down.

In yet another boost for the drive to enact legislation, PhRMA, which represents drug companies, has purchased more than $500,000 worth of television ads to air during the week in nine states.

Obama’s top domestic priority has suffered numerous setbacks in recent weeks, and Republicans have stepped up their criticism. A Senate vote has been postponed until September. Administration and Democratic leaders hope to show significant progress before lawmakers begin their monthlong recess in hopes of regaining momentum.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, “We’re on schedule to do it now or do it whenever,” when asked whether the House would complete its bill before lawmakers leave at the end of the week. Democrats called a meeting of all their House members late Monday afternoon.

In the Senate, officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.

They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.

Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. These businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.

Democratic-drafted legislation in the House includes both a penalty and a requirement for companies to share in the cost of covering employees.

Any measure along the lines under discussion could face difficulties on the Senate floor, where Democrats command a 60-vote majority.

Additionally, negotiators are likely to call for a commission to recommend long-term savings in Medicare that would take effect automatically unless overturned by Congress. Unlike some of the other provisions, that is an issue that unites the White House and business groups seeking to rein in the cost of medical care.

Among tax increases likely to be adopted is an excise tax of as much as 35 percent on insurance with very high annual premiums, perhaps over $25,000.

The senators involved in the negotiations are all members of the Senate Finance Committee, and include Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican. Others participating are Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

They have met for hours in recent weeks in Baucus’ office, joined by aides and outside advisers such as actuaries summoned to explain arcane details of insurance. Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, has also attended.

Baucus has been under intense pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats in recent weeks to convene the committee to vote out legislation to advance Obama’s goal of extending health care to millions who lack it while curbing the explosive growth of health care costs overall. He has so far declined to do so, opting to give the bipartisan negotiations as much time as needed to succeed.

Several Democratic officials have said he recently pledged to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the committee would meet next week to vote on legislation, a timetable that implies time is growing short for the bipartisan group to wrap up its work.

Much of the cost of the proposal would come from curbing the growth in fees to insurance companies and other providers under Medicare.

But congressional aides in both parties as well as lobbyists said a proposal limiting Flexible Savings Accounts to $2,000 annually is also a strong possibility. FSAs permit the use of pre-tax income to pay for items such as health care and child care.

Negotiators also are considering fees on the manufacturers of medical devices and on the makers of both brand name and generic drugs coming onto the market.

To cut down on the cost of the bill, the bipartisan group may include only one year of a long-term plan to adjust reimbursement fees under Medicare.

Officials said the legislation under discussion in a series of private meetings would likely cost under $1 trillion, include an expansion of Medicaid, and provide federal subsidies for individuals and families up to 300 percent of poverty to spread health care more broadly.

Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance, but companies would not have a requirement to offer it.

It was not clear whether companies would be required to reimburse Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor, for the cost of covering any employees enrolled.

Nor was it clear what, if any, provision the proposal would include to make sure companies did not simply withdraw insurance as a fringe benefit to millions of workers who now have it.
***************************************************************************

Summer Recess could kill this beastly bill if We keep the pressure on Congress & the Senate.
Reform, Yes. Obama Care NO!

@Aqua:

The residents of the Lefty fever swamps have broken out in a flop sweat.

The polling numbers are plummeting.

The post-racial mask has slipped.

The facade is developing cracks.

Folks who were avid, adamant supporters have fallen silent now that the facts cannot be argued away anymore.

Reality is coming home to roost.

Heck, even Sky55110/cRAP, our resident unemployment recipient hasn’t dropped by in quite awhile.

Maybe we need to put out a MoonBat APB.

@ Aye
No doubt. I just got an email from a friend to check out an article at HuffPo. Even they are turning on the healthcare. Check it out. Obama’s Dr. says President’s Vision for Healthcare Bound to Fail
Granted, his doctor is a single payer advocate, but he slams the current bill.

Health Care for Dummies
I might be willing to really look into supporting the Healthcare bill if two things happen.
Check out my take, and stick around for more good content.
http://libertarianhumor.com/2009/07/29/health-care-simple/

@ BigEdsBlog
You should add a subtitle to the tort reform with teeth issue. If lawyers get to make all these decisions on healthcare, doctors should get to make all the decisions on tort reform. What could go wrong? Look how well Obama, a lawyer coincidentally, has grasped all the healthcare problems.

Tort Reform should have been a vital part of that bill!

@Old Trooper:

Probably it’s cornerstone. Unfortunately, too many lawyers are involved on both sides of the isle, i.e., too much self-interest to be bothered with actually doing the job they were elected to do.