GOP says they will agree to meet with Obama over the Health Care bill if he agrees to start over from scratch……good for them.
No more of the typical Dem way. Meaning the backroom deals, the buying off of politicians, no more Obama telling the country what we need. Instead, you listen to us and WE tell you what we need.
In the end, this ain’t gonna happen. If Obama gives in to the Republicans & the American people then he will lose his base even more. This bill is only about votes. It’s no longer about fixing real problems with health care in this country. So he will meet and try to dictate terms. Does the GOP have the spine to say no?
According to this letter it does:
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people
~~~Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills
~~~Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?
Ok, now it comes down to if the Republicans can show the courage to refuse this invitation if Obama will not support starting over from scratch.
I’m not so sure.
I hope they do since this is obviously just a ploy by Obama to get face time on the networks to say “hey, we invited them to talk to us.” When the only thing that is going to happen is Obama will try and dictate terms to conservatives and the majority of this country.
See author page
Okay, besides you not being smart, here’s the problem. For insurers, who are in the business of *staying* in business to provide services to others, taking on the known who have pre’existing conditions requires that you collect from people who are *not* a cost drain. This is true whether or not you are privately insured, or have some pie-in-the-sky single payer coverage. Why the heck are they mandating the healthier youth pay insurance but so that they can cover those that are a medical drain?
Despite what you believe is a moral injustice, anyone not capable of paying is not denied treatment with the Medicaid programs. After that their max 12 month period (not always extended out that far, BTW) is over and their insurance kicks in.
This means that the medical drain for those with pre’existing conditions is limited to a year MAX… and considerably less than spending your life on Medicaid if you simply eliminate individual insurance policies as we know it. And during that time, they have alternative coverage.
geez…. fish in a barrel.
Well there’s the first sane question you’ve asked. Tho you are still exhibiting those reading comprehension problems…..
If you will refer back to @my previous comment about the Health Insurance Exchange concept etal, you’ll see that what we’re looking for is an intra/interstate portal from private competitive insurers for basic coverage common to all states… rather like a Lending Tree was to loans. The States provide a similar portal for those that offer individual state riders for the state mandated extra coverage.
For the 12 month exemption period, one can either rely on the existing state coverage, or create a temporary waiting pool for any claims that come in during that period.
And to cap it off, there needs to be 24/7 inexpensive clinics so that ERs, with their high overhead costs, are not the mainstain for miscellaneous injuries that drive costs up unnecessarily. As an example of the insanity of costs… none of which this idiotic legislation is addressing… read a recent experience of mine with a local urgent care clinic because you couldn’t get either doc appointments, or clinics were closed for a simple cat bite. The fact I wanted to pay cash didn’t dissuade their pricing whatsoever. Absurd when you think of the admin costs I was saving them.
There is a very real problem with costs, but as I’ve pointed out in this thread, this legislation doesn’t affect the cost of supplies sold to medical providers, who then pass their costs on to the patient (via the insurer in most cases). And, in fact, most patients don’t *ask* what the cost is because they perceive it to be “free” via their insurance.
But it is not free… and instead of an individual absorbing the cost of their treatment, they are placing that burden on the taxpayer at large as a “cure”.
Horse manure.
Mata, you are just an idiot and you prove it more and more.
“Therefore if you have a GM private insurance policy, and you are over 65 and mandated as a Medicare patient, what Medicare covers is what you get, and your GM private care refuses the alternative treatment.”
What makes you think that all GM retirees are over 65, or on Medicare? They aren’t of course. And having done workers’ comp case for Ford, I can tell you that autoworkers take a beating and many are physically disabled come their company retirement age . . . which might be at age 53 for some. This is where your stupidity drowns out all the rest of the drivel. And, sorry, but your “personal experience in Medicare primary care that renders secondary insurance refused” doesn’t answer the simple question, which you, again, ducked: do you think Medicare expenditures would increase or be the same if GM disappeared? If you say “no difference”, then you are simply nuts.
Why don’t you just admit the obvious: a LOT OF PEOPLE would have been forced onto the Medicare and Medicaid rolls if you morons had had your way. And a lot of people would have been drawing, or seeking to draw unemployment comp, had you brain donors prevailed. Property tax revenues, payroll taxes, all would have decreased.
@BRob: If all you have to offer the discussion here is a tiresome string of insults I hardly see the reason to permit you to continue commenting here.
You might want to retract the statement above and apologize to Mata.
Or aren’t man enough?
Early retirement is a choice any employee makes from any company… and that includes what they do with their insurance and their pension draw. However, as Aye points out, bankruptcy is not necessarily the end of a business life, and as we see, the taxpayers are paying for GM’s survival instead of them competing on their own…. essentially owned by the unions you apparently revere.
Also anyone who loses their jobs has the same problem as any of the GM employees, had the taxpayer not paid for the unions and Obama to take over. Again we come back to the ability to purchase group insurance (not as an employee) via a portal. Either employers offer group plans, or individuals can purchase group plans via another path. Either way, if you want insurance, everyone pays for it, billy bob.
I don’t “duck” your comments. Most of the time I ignore the obvious idiocy. But I see I have to spell things out slowly for you. Brace yourself, bozo… NO DIFFERENCE. If they are over 65, they are on Medicare by mandate, so the expenses are already unavoidable. If they are under 65, they do not affect Medicare expenses because they are not eligible.
ADDED: Only caveat is if you are on disability, you can be eligible
fish in a barrel…..
You can’t “force” anyone onto Medicare… the gov’t already does that at age 65. End of that discussion. You want to discuss Medicaid now? Have you any clue as to Medicaid eligibility?? The only way you can’t be eligible is if you make too much money, billy bob. You don’t have to own a home, but if you do, most will place a lien against it… but only after you’re deceased.
Then let’s talk about all these people who become unemployed, and within 12 months not only don’t find another job, but also become a massive drain on the nation’s health system in that period. Just what statistics are you babbling about? Most of the “drains” are older. They’re on Medicare. There are some of the young who have terminal or high maintenance conditions, but they certainly aren’t a huge percentage of the population.
And are you now suggesting that employment ain’t as rosy as you and YOUR POTUS suggest, if they don’t obtain other employment/insurance in a year’s time? That’s “bait”, BTW…. need to help you along.
@Mike’s America, in all fairness, it’s not like I haven’t called billy bob out for what he is as well…. LOL Not that I don’t appreciate the gentleman in you, having my back. But I assure you, I’m just as direct with billy bob as he is with me. And I do my mea culpa in that.
Like I said… be sooooo very happy to see him as the attorney on the opposite side of any case of mine.
billy bob=fish in a barrel
Mata, the more you comment, the less sense you make:
“Why the heck are they mandating the healthier youth pay insurance but so that they can cover those that are a medical drain?”
Because “healthy” youth who have no health insurance get in car accidents and get pregnant and get injured playing flag football and slip on ice and break ankles. And “healthy” young people get cancer . . . like my ex GF who got lymphoma at age 28. Just because you are “healthy” doesn’t mean you have no need for health insurance . . . DUH!
If you are young and uninsured and you get injured, you will either be a charge on the general public, or you will be a charity case, and/or you will be stuck with a $35,000 bill for a surgery and hospitalization for a broken ankle. Same thing if you are an illegal immigrant. Which is why they, too, should be in the risk pool. It not only lowers the average age of the pool, but also provides them coverage should something happen to them . . . so John Q. Public or the County Hospital doesn’t get stuck with $200,000 of uncompensated care.
Headed on to a new moving target now, eh billy bob? No… it’s not that I don’t make sense… except to the reading impaired, of course. And most especially those that pull a sarcastic sentence out as an excerpt in which to refer….duh wuh
But I’ve actually covered this subject in some prior posts that I shall reiterate briefly here for you. (since you’ve already demonstrated you have no interest in reading links…. perhaps you’ll provide your paralegal’s e’addy for us so she/he can do it for you?)
The health care mandate is a *requirement* for the current plans. Need some business help here? Try Gillian Hubble’s article in Health Care.change or MSNBC’s “every one in the risk pool!” article. Both of these should be progressive enough for you to figure out the fiscal realities. They have to rape the young to pay for their single payer plans, which include huge federal government admin expansion.
So now you’re on record, demanding that the young get insurance for the “accidents”…. slipping on ice, breaking ankles, football, etc. Well, how do you know they aren’t already on a family group plan for these events?
duh….
And for the over age, non-dependents who are no longer on their parents policies, yes…. I agree they should have options. THAT THEY PAY FOR and AFFORDABLE! However you and I disagree that we should mandate what, and how much they get covered.
I have suggested tier insurance levels.
1: Base tier: tax credit medical account, to cover basic visits
2: Secondary minor events: broken bones, etal, as you describe
3: Catastrophic coverage: cancers, heart conditions, etc.
4: Specialty riders: diabetics, i.e.
Level one should be a tax credit account, used for medical purposes only. Level two is what most of the younger health types would go for… that skiing or skateboard accident (post high school or college graduation, and off family policies). This would be somewhat affordable for them via a competitive portal.
Level one offers the ability for primary care doctors to accept reasonable cash agreements for regular check ups, sans middle man costs.
Level two is one the young could afford, and is most likely to obtain. Most will not need the catastrophic coverage. And yes, there are exceptions. In which case they obtain these after diagnosis. Then they would most likely fall into the MAX 12 month exemption, pre’existing, as we have now. There can either be a temporary pool, as I mentioned above, until their group coverage kicks in.
The specialty riders would be much the same as the catastrophic, but less in cost. Diabetes is common, costs should be predictable and managable (if we actually got drug costs and availability more managable… none of which is apparent in O’health care). Drugs like penicillin, insulin, tetanus…. no reason for their prices these days. They weren’t discovered yesterday.
This allows for all to choose a level of insurance that suits their health and their lifestyle. The period of uncertainly can be a year of a temporary pool until regular insurance kicks back in.
And every bit of this is contrary to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid want. Because they are busy trying to make up for decades of collecting Medicare/Social Security from every working citizen, and spending it on anything BUT Medicare and Social Security. THerefore they want everyone covered to the maximum in order to collect the maximum, so they have a “trust fund” to rob for the future.
Not while I’m alive. Count me as a big NO NO and NO! I will agree to reasonable reforms that reduce the costs of drugs and equipment to providers, tort reform that makes it more feasible to start a practice without losing your shirt to a shyster like you, and different levels of insurance based on your reasonably predicted health. Beyond that, it’s highway robbery of a nation at the point of a gun.
One more thing, billy bob. INRE your comment:
First of all, the ER costs are absolutely negligible costs compared to health care overall. But as I already pointed out, Mr. Reading Comprehensive Challenged, 24/7 lower cost clinics for injuries that don’t require rocket scientists, are most definitely in order. And most of the costs you quote are those I disagree with as litigation preventive over charges. But then, they keep the trial lawyers employed, don’t they?
Giving incentives for more of these cost efficient clinics popping up as private enterprise (NOT gov’t run or funding) would be a very wise “create jobs” incentive tax credit measure.
Mata, as usual you have done an excellent job of dismantling the legal arguments and the technical aspect of the issue. Please allow me to put a more bucolic spin on the rebuttal to MrRabidBob.
RBob,
Several times you’ve posed the question, but what would happen to the workers at GM if it were allowed to default. Well Bob, frankly, I don’t give a damn. They are primary causes of the failure. They should damn well drink from the poison cup they poured. The wage rates for union auto workers is insane. You also plead about how it beats their poor bodies up. Well guess who’s fault that would be. Every time that GM tried to automate their assembly lines, which would protect the workers health, guess who stood against it. The workers unions.
And further, to the point of the catastrophic cost of all these poor union workers out on their asses, just how much more would that cost then what we are already on the hook for bailing them out? How much did we sell our collective souls for when we trampled contract law?
Plus I don’t buy your line of crap. Auto plants aren’t any worse on their bodies than any other blue collar job. Sure you may have represented a couple bad cases, but that would be why they hired a lawyer. Because they were exceptional to the norm.
BTW, Obama’s Stimulus plan didn’t do a damn thing for unemployment. And that is the real crime here. The solution to unemployment isn’t extended unemployment. The solution is a damn job.
Having read your tripe, I now know why Rham would call the folks on your side of the isle F-ing tards.
This administration exempted the union “cadillac plans” in a back room deal, ripped off investors, somehow made the UAW part company owners and gave the employees benefits to the UAW to adminstrate. But, that wasn’t enough. Ron Gettlefinger wants national healthcare, why not? they payed the dems to play, so they think they are owed. Now, we find that there is not enough money in the UAW’s healthcare kitty for their future responsibilities as the kitty is fed by a percentage of company profits. Now, ObamaScare is on the rocks, good job Barry!
Lessons learned for Obama’s UAW pals? do your part in mucking up the auto industry, then we will rip off the investors and force the taxpayers to fix the rest of the mess. We also know SEIU’s Andy Stern has had more input into this lame bill than those representing the bulk of the taxpayers that in ever increasing numbers, are saying “NO!” But, evident for months we all know that Obama owes them too.
Union auto workers taking early retirement will still receive their healthcare benefits, but who knows how long? So far their benefits have not been interrupted so those retirees under 65 have always had coverage and have not…. been a threat to medicaid. When the UAW took over their $10 co-pay was negotiated away, they will now be paying 25% of their HC bills, they also lost dental and vision coverage. Perhaps like Mata, they will learn to trim their healthcare expenses.
Still, these are benefits that many workers in the small business arena would love to have but do not, yet these taxpayers and their company’s owners will be on the hook should ObamaScare go through in it’s present form. They either get insurance or someone pays penalties, others will pay taxes on their benefits and some small companies will be in the dastardly rich category and have to pay pay a penalty for being “wealthy.” Union members benefitting from cadillac plans, thanks to the union dues that went into the Obama campaign coffers, will not suffer this tax burden.
Employees taking buyouts, not sure if they receive HC or pension benefits. My daughter’s best friend was given over $70,000 and a $25,000 voucher for her Rubicon… green sheeted on top of the voucher. She was very pleased, employed at Chrysler for 12 years, she’s now 36, hoping to start her own business training dogs, goes to classes and works part time for her parents. Parents were Chrysler retirees, worked their 25 years and retired at 43 with full benefits. Have to ask our little Jenny about healthcare for those accepting the buyouts, she’ll tell me anything.
There’s a lot of blame to go around, including the years and years of legacy costs negotiated by the unions the auto companies not being to say no as well. BTW, this is all going to repeat with government union workers, glaring example….state governments like California and Illinois, now Obama is growing the Federal gov’t……liberally, leaving one big mess of runaway benefits to be paid by the next generations.
This healthcare fiasco definately needs a “start over.”
@B-Rob
I can very much relate to the following except I’m not young nor am I uninsured:
Today I’m sporting a flaming pink cast on my broken ankle. I wasn’t engaging in any dangerous activity, simply navigating a set of steps when I went down. The cost of my injury is a real eye opener in several ways.
1. Because I’m insured and the insurance company will only pay $12,700 of the hospital bill, which came to just over $26,000 the hospital will “write off” the difference and bill other patients excessively to make up the difference. My 20% co-pay means I get off the hook for a mere $2700. Not a bad price to pay for a debilitating injury.
2. Individuals without insurance, most likely those least able to pay, would be saddled with the entire $26,000 bill.
Most individuals that have health insurance provided by their employer’s have no idea how much that benefit truly costs until they are laid off and confronted with a COBRA payment that runs from $500 to $800 per month, allowing them to keep their current coverage. This cost is often a shock to the individual, especially when their income has been cut drastically and they are trying to make ends meet on an unemployment check. One instance of confronting the cost of a COBRA payment will taint the thinking of most people concerning the cost of health care insurance for a long time into the future.
However….. Insurance does NOT NEED to be so expensive. Catastrophic Health Insurance is relatively inexpensive and can in my state be had for a mere $145 per month. Health insurance used to be a risk management tool, designed to hedge against that major unexpected health crisis. When we buy homeowners insurance, we buy a policy where if the roof leaks, the insurance will pay to repair the damage caused by the leaking roof. The insurance does NOT pay for repairing the roof. Our current health care system seems to have morphed from a risk management tool into something more akin to an extended warranty instrument.
The average American visits the doctor 2.4 times per year (I could look up the reference but I’m lazy). The average doctor visit according to Answers.com is Family practice: $95 to $265
Specialist: $115 to $325. Now lets do the math for the yearly cost of health care coverage for the average American using middle of the road figures with a Catastrophic Health Care plan.
Premium $145 x 12 = $1740
Family Practice Doctor visits $170 x 2.4 = $408
Total annual cost = $2,148/12 = $179 per month.
There are 173.33 working hours in each month. Cost of health care on an hourly basis = $1.03 for normal non-catastrophic coverage
But… Catastrophic health insurance typically has very high deductibles… yes, this is true, and in my example above the deductible is $5,000. This is a figure that is, for most working class individuals, beyond what their normal day to day, month to month budgets can withstand.
A sensible alternative to trying to provide each and every American with a “extended warranty” type of insurance policy is to ensure that in those trying times when a health care crises emerges within a family, the individual can weather the cash flow issues of a high deductible. To that end I would suggest that it might be time for the Government to extend to the individual similar guarantees that it extends to fat cat bankers and mortgage lenders. A guaranteed credit line for health related emergencies.
No free ride… a loan. A health credit card that where the indiviudal could access up to $5,000 in credit in order to meet their deductibles. Repayment at $17 per $1,000 of credit extended (the most it would cost is under $100 a month in payments). At an interest rate of 1% per month on any unpaid balance. This “credit card” could not be used to make premium payments. As an incentive to participate, unlike “Jail ’em Pelosi”, I would advocate for a re-write of the bankruptcy laws, exempting those individuals that rack up large medical bills without insurance from being able to claim medical bills in a bankruptcy proceeding.
What is wrong at all levels is the current two tiered pricing system that we currently have in place and the furthering of such injustice through government policies that pay a fraction of the true cost of care, thus foisting the cost of making up shortfalls on the uninsured. Not everyone that is uninsured is a deadbeat. I for one have a bill from my wife’s surgery when we were uninsured that will take me 10 plus years to pay off because her unemployment checks at the time, didn’t place her in a status poor enough to get a write-down/off. Yet we are paying double what the hospital would have taken from an insurance company. This two tier pricing is simply wrong on so many levels. One procedure… one price.
Don Bly, I will not try to explain why you are “wrong” because you acvknowlege there is a serious problem and you come up with a solution. Would it work? I have no idea. But let’s try.
The problem I have with the GOP is that, if they succeed in what they are trying to do, there will be no change whatsoever in the system as it is. Not your proposal, not the Obama proposal, nothing at all.
This is delightful! John Boehner, acknowledging that the whining about no public meetings has backfired.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/boehner-how-dare-obama-televise-the-health-care-debate-after-i-demanded-he-televise-the-health-care.php?ref=fpb
@B-Rob
33 pieces of GOP proposed legislation dealing with health care is NOT doing NOTHING. Everyone acknowledges that there are some problems with health care in the US… only the democrats seem to feel that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have the government take over the entire system. And… That is their stated goal.
Despite the link in post 64 commenting on Bohmer’s concerns about televising the “health care summit”, he does not indicate that he is against such a policy, only that he wants more information about the “set-up”, which is reasonable.
@Donald Bly: It’s far easier for BLOB to keep repeating the big lie that the GOP has nothing to offer on health care than it is for Dems to deal with the substance of their ideas.
I’ve already linked the outline the GOP offered Obama at the Baltimore meeting:
http://www.gop.gov/download?folder=misc&file=better-solutions-1-10.pdf
But we already know (well maybe BLOB doesn’t know) about all the GOP ideas that were offered as amendments in both the House and Senate legislative process as Dems steamrollered to get the bill that they now cannot pass even with their huge majorities.
GOP House health care amendments shot down by the REAL PARTY OF NO:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/08/cutting-through-disinformation.html
GOP Senate health care amendments shot down by the REAL PARTY OF NO:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/09/senate-gop-amendments-show-democrats.html
Even if the GOP were the real party of NO, it would only be because most polls show Americans would prefer congress did nothing instead of screw up health care.
TSgt Ciz — A few thoughts:
I did not represent the employees; I represented Ford, and other auto industry employers, public sector employers, municipalities, hospitals, etc. The auto workers.
And the idea that it is the union’s fault that they employees are injured is simply nuts. Honda, another big employer here, is non-union and their blessings of a younger workforce than the Big Three is coming to an end. The result? The same kinds of repetitive stress injuries, tears, etc., that the Big Three have had.
You have no respect for the labor that those people did and do. That kind of work built this country, but you diss it. Whatever . . . but your attitude explains why blue collar workers remain wary of conservatives in general. When you folks oppose the knds of OSHA regulations that would help trim the injury rates, and you support “self inspection” under the guise that “big government should not be inferreing with business”, you are asking for more workplace disasters . . . like the people who were incinerated last weekend in Connecticut. You may not care; I do because (a) they are human beings; (b) they are hard working Americans; and (c) it is a hell of a lot cheaper to make a workplace safe than to deal with the fallout of a worker death. TRUST ME on this one, as someone who dealth with the fallout of a fatal explosion.
And more pithy wisdom:
“BTW, Obama’s Stimulus plan didn’t do a damn thing for unemployment. And that is the real crime here. The solution to unemployment isn’t extended unemployment. The solution is a damn job.”
Simply nuts. As Rachel Maddow shows in this clip, even the GOPers who opposed the stimulus acknowledge the jobs it created:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/rachel-maddow-calls-out-gopers-by-name-for-stimulus-hypocrisies.php?ref=mp
A bridge project here is going forward using stimulus money. Cops stayed on the jopb in some cities because of the extra cash. Even conservative adulterer Mark Sanford (R-Appalachian Trail) and Rick Perry acknowleged that they onlyu balanced their budgets because of the stimulus money. And I love Claire McCaskill taking it to the fools:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/give-it-back-then-mccaskill-swats-mo-gop-for-stimulus-hypocrisy.php?ref=fpblg
You want to rail against the stimulus money, cons? They don’t friggin use it to balance your budgets!
and Better gather all the cons together and get your story straight!
groan…. so many Talking Points Memo and Rachel “Madcow” propaganda flying outta billy bob’s keyboard that I feel the need for a second shower today.
This is simply priceless!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/02/mccaskill-asks-mo-state-legislators-to-put-stimulus-money-where-their-mouths-are.php?page=1
Don Bly —
“33 pieces of GOP proposed legislation dealing with health care is NOT doing NOTHING. ”
C’mon! Of course it is “doing nothing”! It’s just like the newfound horror over running deficits and trying terrorists in federal court: why are you so jazzed about it now, when it was not on your radar when a GOPer presidential administration and a GOPer Congress were doing the same damn thing?
If the GOP actually thought there was a problem with the health care system, they would have done something when they had control of the House, Senate and White House. No, I take that back: they did two things that I recall — health care savings accounts and the drug entitlement for Medicare that they failed to pay for. One being a fart in a windstorm, the other making the entitlement problem even worse.
You can’t sit back and ignore a problem for years, or make it worse, then when the opposition actually tries to address it, throw up 33 proposals that you never ever championed before and claim you were “doing something” constructive all along. That shows a lack of good faith and sincerity.
Indeed, Don — if they had the 33 proposals in hand, why the hell didn’t they ever try to pass any of them?
Mata —
She used their own votes and their own subsequent words to show them for the hypocrites that they are. How is it “propaganda” to show someone opposing a bill in Washington, then taking credit for the positive aspects of the bill back home?
Admit it: the stimulus worked. All the GOPers who sit in their states and districts and take credit for the Obama cash and the jobs it creates, should acknowledge the obvious: the stimulus bill created jobs, no thanks to the GOPers who voted lock step to oppose it.
Indeed, don’t you have a teensy moral problem with the way the GOPers in the Maddow piece have basically lied about their own job performance?
My guess is you’ve never seen the floor of a edit suite, billy bob. Hey, aren’t you all the queens of complaint when the Big Zero comes on with comments, and you scream “out of context! out of context!”
I don’t know anyone who thinks the stimulus was in the least bit “stimulating”. Can a Rachel MadCow report change my mind? Right about the time I admit I’m the Virgin Mary. Don’t think there’s another MSNBC host that has less credibility save Ed Schultz. Is he going to be your next source now?
And perhaps you should turn your attention on that specific argument (stimulus results) currently being waged with you on the other thread. You’ve run out of “distraction” chits on this one….
billy bob. In interest of being “fair”, I have forced myself to sit thru a Rachel MadCow segment (which I normally reserve for moments of demented and delicious entertainment.. .LIKE WHEN SCOTT BROWN WON THE MA SENATE SEAT! :0)) TRust me… this is a major effort on my part which I offer to you. THere are much better things I can do with my time. So I will give you my feedback… and doing so in one who is an “equal opportunity disdain voter” for both parties.
MadCow’s first litany of “GOP just does the opposite” has no sound clips to support her setup of the segment. It’s all Rachel, and all predictable Rachel. Therefore the first 1’30” are throwaway commentary meant to specifically “set the tone” from the extreme left.
Moving on to “stimulus” specifics: From 1’51” to 2’36”, it’s comments on an “unstimulating” stimulus. THe latest “dated” comment I can discern is McCain’s mention of the Dec 10.2% unemployment. Other comments are chopped (i.e. “cutting room floor”) have unknown dates of delivery and full content of statement.
I’ll agree.. not an unusual media/propaganda tactic from either party. Shall we continue?
From 2’36” to 3’36”, it’s all MadCow “synopsis” babble over photo ops. Are they grant money? Do they represent viable spending? Do we even know who they are, or what portion of the $787 bil law vs the over $3 tril cost over a decade it represents? Nope…. Lots of pretty pics tho. If everyone knew what the money was, how much, how many jobs it translated to, or what effect it had on the economy (apparently via today… none to almost none) would they still celebrate?
Nope. This is editing tricks. A skill I am vastly familiar with.
Then, from 3’36”, MadCow then shows unreadable news articles where anti-stimulus GOPers congratulate recipients on various projects and proclaim ambitious employment. What do those projects total? How much effect did they have on new jobs? Hell… we don’t know. Those facts are optional for presentation.
But apparently you and MadCow prefer to see an elected representative trashing anyone receiving cash.. even if they think the cost for giving them that cash to the nation was fiscally damaging.
This would be the same as if I found out a friend scammed an insurance company and got a huge claim that was unjustified…. knowing full well it’s going to raise my rates as a result. Do I say to that friend, “screw you and your settlement.. have any idea what that does to me??”. Or do I simply say, “congratulations on your good fortune”. Are all politicans, of any stripe, in the business of cheerleading their constituents (despite reality) or not?
Ya know, when you are bitten by a rattlesnake in the middle of nowhere, sans a knife and knowledge to draw the venom, all you can do is make the inevitable more palatable.
But… geeez… I’m missing all the details on the “quoted” few words soundbytes MadCow depends upon in those predicted “new jobs” stimulus. Did it happen? How many jobs did it create? How much local “stimulus” is really there vs one company’s good fortune? Did their expressed “hope” that it would indeed create jobs in the locality come to fruitition?..
Or are those facts optional to MadCow? uh huh….. Of course they are. There was no follow up to the politicians… spit no matter what the party… comments.
And oh, BTW, using your favorite pet peeve… did the CEO and sharholders abscond all the cash and hire temporary immigrant workers at dirt cheap prices?
Ain’t reality a bitch? But it sure makes for a good soundbyte in the editing suite. Been there… done that.
So welcome to MadCow Productions. I see the tricks. Know the tricks. Have used the tricks. As an elected official who voted against the legislations, you can’t change the legal outcome and renege on the settlement, but you can graciously congratulate the recipient… despite it’s effect on the rest of the constituents and the nation at large.
I’ll give you a summary here. You need someone to edit/create an end product that fits your political needs? I’m your girl. Know just how to do that.
Will I? Nope… no amount of money to me personally is worth the big lie to the nation. Evidently “ratings” for the desperate Madcow are.
No matter what the GOP proposes, the likes of B-Rob will always ignore the fact that there are GOP proposals on the table and demand instead that we jump in our time machine and introduce them 6 years earlier. Their argument is specious.
Mata, you can spin all you want. But when GOPer congresspeople vote against the stimulus, then turn around and take credit for the individual jobs created in their district by the bill they all opposed, that is little more than lying to your constituents.
You know what this sounds like? The flipside of Sarah Palin claiming she “said thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she was in favor of the project! It is just a flat out lie to imply that you are responsible for a job-creating project in your district when you never supported the thing in the first place. And don’t sit in Washington in front of cameras and say the stimulus did not create any jobs when you then turn around and are talking credit for the jobs it created in your friggin district or state!
And another thing: you have NEVER seen me say anyone is quoted “out of context”. You know why? Because the people who claim they are quoted out of context are usually unwilling to admit that they said the embarassing thing they got caught saying. In my world, something is either a true quote, or it is a lie. If it is true and you can prove that context is important, then provide the explanation.
If you think Maddow quoted someone “out of context”, then why hasn’t anyone run anything showing that Rachel Maddow lied about them taking credit for stimulus projects when they actually opposed those projects? That is the only way that the context of their comments matters. Obama called the House GOPers out on this bullsh*t; more Dems should do the same.
In this case, GOPers are standing at a ribbon cutting, taking credit for projects that are funded by dollars they opposed being spent, applauding and taking credit for jobs being created that, if they had their way, would never have existed. They theyu turn around and castigate the Dems who took the heat and created the jobs the GOPesr are taking credit for. Yeah, I mean you, Mike Pence, Mr. Fiscal Conservative. The GOPers should at least give a shout out to the Dems they blame for overspending when they Bogart the credit for the benefits of that “overspending.”
And Claire McCaskill put it best: if you oppose the stimulus, then don’t take the f-ing money. That’s like someone complaining about your poor taste in wine as they drain the last drop from the bottle. Deserving of a headslap.
bob, there was no stimulus. it was pork for the dims pure and simple. take credit for that? sure, i’ll saddle ole old pelosi with that. she is the pork queen. there is nothing to take credit for bob. the economy is in the frigging tank. got it.
billy bob… see ensuing comment and try “spinning” your ass again…
BTW, billy bob… INRE your comment:
Because no one gives a shit about Madcow since she has virtually no viewing audience.
MATA i read on google that former congressman CHARLIE WISON died at 76 …was on cnn i though you want to know bye
REPEAT for error CHARLIE WILSON
@BRob:
Oh, that’s too good, go ahead, listen to McCaskill. She’s in trouble in the big MO, has been for awhile. Check out what they think of healthcare and then tell me how long they will tolerate her “don’t take the f-ing money” regarding the stimulus.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/commit/HCR0018C.HTM
The resolution passed on a vote of 111-46. You may think she put it best about the stimulus when she unfortunately mouthed that comment, but, I think you are grasping, my Missouri friends are embarassed by Ms. McCaskill, have been for awhile. Think maybe she’s getting desperate, kind of flying blind, I bet the mighty MO gets rid of her.
stodghie —
On the stimulus — watch the Maddow clip where the GOPers take credit for the jobs created by the stimulus bill. THEN I would like your comments. Because there are only two possibilities here:
a) either those GOPers are lying when they say the stimulus has created no jobs, or
b) they are lying when they say the stimulus has created those jobs in their district.
Which is it? Were they lying then, or are they lying now? I would accept an “I was mistaken then” or even a “clarification” that they meant “net jobs” or some other b.s. recovery answer. But one of those statements is not true. i think I know which one it is.
Mata —
You post is indecipherable. I can tell you were angry, but you make very little sense there. But I did pick up on this:
“But apparently you and MadCow prefer to see an elected representative trashing anyone receiving cash.. even if they think the cost for giving them that cash to the nation was fiscally damaging.”
No, dearie, I am talking about someone taking CREDIT for a constituent getting cash when, in fact, they did everything to keep them from getting that money. I am talking about opposing the very job-creation mechanism you are claiming was your idea. Mike Pence did that sh*t and his explanation was, shall we say, less than noble.
I like your admission that, in effect, you would accept a night on the town from a friend who got a settlement scamming an insurance company. But you know what it is more like? Celebrating the admission of a person to a sorority when you tried you damndest, but were unsuccessful, in getting them black balled.
In such a situation, good manners would dictate that you say nothing to the person. Or you congratulate them on their good fortune. But your don’t lie and say “I am so glad you made in it to Pi Epsilon Delta” when everyone in the know knows that you did your best to keep that from happening. And you certainly don’t claim the credit for them getting in.
So to apply the analogy, the GOPers who opposed the stimulus should not be championing the projects if they think the damn thing was wrong. Or they can say nothing. But to act as if they were behind the project, or to tout the jobs the project will create (when you spend the rest of your time claiming the exact opposite) — that is just rank hypocrisy bordering on lying.
Missy —
Nice attempt at changing the subject. But you failed to address the obvious:
If the stimulus was so bad, then why did the GOP in Missouri take the f-ing money?
Why didn’t they just cut the spending by a billion dollars instead?
Why didn’t they ask the Magic Tax Cut Fairie for more magic dust to make revenues grow to close their deficit?
I bet they won’t respond to Claire, just the same way you did not respond. They will change the subject, the same way you did.
This all proves one thing, of course: GOPers will not gove credit where credit is due and, even worse, prefer to bite the hand that feeds them. Without the stimulus money to close their budget, they would have had to lay off people and cut spending. With the stimulus money, that did not happen. So don’t friggin tell me “the stimulus did not work”. Because the weasels in Missouri balancing their budgets with stimulus PROVES THE POINT.
The gall . . . how do you drink the last swallow of Obama’s wine, then complain that you don’t like the vintage?
BRob said; “If the stimulus was so bad, then why did the GOP in Missouri take the f-ing money?”
The GOP is not the only party that holds power in that state. The fact that the state took the money isn’t solely because of their Republicans. Democrats in that state are responsible for using the stimulus money too, even if they criticized it on the campaign trail or in public speeches.
Take for example, representative Paul LeVota of the 52nd district of Missouri, who has publicly stated to constituents that the stimulus bill wasn’t the answer to solving the states economic issues, then he decides to support the use of the funds last year and will continue to use them in the this year and next year. Of course, sometimes he defends using it too, when it serves his interests.
Does this vindicate the stimulus bill in anyway? No it doesn’t, because people are right to say that government hand outs (and they are) like this ought to be limited. And one state that has politicians from both parties trying to “have it both ways” (to quote McCaskill) hardly does anything to make this argument lose veracity.
There’s a fine line defining what’s within our means, and the most recent stimulus bill crossed that line a long time ago. The stimulus didn’t create jobs, it helped facilitate an increase in job loss. Any jobs created in the near future (hopefully) will be done so because of the American people finding solutions to the economic problems.
Deplorably, you tried to pass the fallacy that the good market experienced during the holiday season proves that Obamas leadership and stimulus money were the reasons before you went on hiatus from this blog. That tactic failed overwhelmingly for you back then, and it isn’t working well for you now.
As for us having the gall “to drink Obamas wine, then complain that we don’t like the vintage.” I think the more correct term would be kool aid. And we’re not drinking it, it’s being forced down the throats of Americans even though a vast majority of us from both sides of the aisle were vocal about our distaste for it since the beginning. The stimulus had good intentions, I am not denying that. But a few periods of good market numbers aren’t indicators vindicating the stimulus bills performance in the American economy.
May I mention that the stimulus bill has lost jobs in more places than just our country? Many people from other countries who let us borrow money from them have lost everything from their life savings to their careers and businesses. Sure, one can argue that they chose to take the risks by loaning us money during a global economic crisis. However, that hardly does the trick to make the largest increase in irresponsible spending in American history wrought by Obama look any better than it is.
Do you think Soros pays B-Rob by the word?
@Donald Bly: LOL! It would explain the Dickensian rants, as well as the time wasted on them, wouldn’t it?
@BRob:
Is there any chance that you might know what this thread topic is?
Well they be damned, damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. Wasn’t too awful long ago that the democrats were squealing about Republican governors that didn’t want the stimulus, now McCaskill is posturing and squalling that republicans have no right to an opinion on what’s goin on in their districts.
But, funny thing about Missouri, their DEMOCRATIC Governor, Jay Nixon, had stimulus money spent in JANUARY, 2009 before it even got there. Their stimulus funding originally was overseen by Nixon’s DEMOCRATIC pal. Want to bet he appointed another DEMOCRATIC crony to take his place? Now NIXON is coming back for more.
B-Rob has some problems.
Democrats for years have said paying more in taxes is good yet B-Rob can not point to any of them that have paid one cent more in taxes than they had to.
Is second problem is with the so called clips of republicans taking credit. I did not see dates on them. That being the case the clips could have been from 2 years ago.
Third, he seems to think the Minority Party that can not stop a Democrat bill with the votes of all it’s member can pass a bill when the Majority Leader does not allow the bill a vote on the floor.
Evidently this alleged attorney is not one, he certainly has not made a case.