Obama's Attempt at a Bipartisan Health-Care Summit

I agree with Valerie. I have seen no evidence that the Republicans are remotely prepared to offer any constructive advice on the any form of health care reform. Senate Democrats spent most of the summer attempting to bring Republicans on board. Nothing. Even Republican Senators like Snow who had initially been supportive were pressured to support the filibuster. Let me emphasize that. The Republicans have specifically declared that they will not permit a vote on health care reform in anyway.
The "backroom deals" are typical of many, many laws. The fact that they are repeated endlessly indicates that they can scarcely be called "backroom," which by definition is meant to be secret. Nelson and Landrieu merely cut deals for the benefit of their state, as is exceedingly common in legislation, not for their personal benefit (which would be a bribe). Research why the District of Columbia is located in where it is to see just how old this practice is.

Obstructionist Republicans? Really Dr. Dixon?

I'm no PhD, but I can count and I was under the impression our beloved President didn't need the Republicans.

It would seem the Community Organizer ran into a community he could not organize, namely the Democratic party.

God bless Barrack. In his short term, he has done more to advance conservative values than Reagan and Thatcher combined.

I "hope" the "change" continues in November, a la NJ. Va. and Ma. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

If you think that the Democrats are the only politicians in Congress that have cut backroom deals regarding healthcare you are either naive or you are toxic on Rovian Coolaid...Sen. Jim DeMint's (R) comment declaring the GOP's goal to make healthcare Obama's "Waterloo" is the operant goal for the party of NO; about that they have been transparent. The GOP has been AWOL in ideas and intent to serve the American people who want reform of healthcare. They are in lock step with the healthcare lobby and to deny that would be simply disengenuous.

And now they have a new found abhorance to deficits when during their last attempt at governing as Cheney so eloquently stated, "Deficits don't matter" , parroting Ronald Reagan. If the GOP wants to attain the high ground they have a lot of political sewage to shovel beforehand.

You don't like Maddow because she has been replaying the statements of policy support that the GOP is now against so as not to give Obama and the American people any political comfort.

The important thing is whether what Rachel Maddow is saying is TRUE or not.

Is it TRUE that the ability to purchase insurance across State lines is addressed in the current health care legislation?

Is it TRUE that the ability of small businesses and individuals to pool resources for better buying power is addressed in the current health care legislation?

Is it TRUE that the ability for State innovation to lower costs is included in the current health care legislation?

Is it TRUE that tort reform is addressed in the current health care legislation?

The "Death Panel" claim made by Republicans regarding the current health care legislation, proved to be FALSE.

The "Government Takeover" claim made by Republicans regarding the current health care legislation proved to be FALSE.

The "Socialized Medicine" claim made by Republicans regarding the current health care legislation proved to be FALSE.

Do those who insist that Republicans (or Democrats) are acting in good faith have any responsibility to find out whether the claims made by either party are TRUE or FALSE?

I have done my best to locate independent sources to determine the veracity of claims on both sides. Unfortunately, the overwhelming balance of spreading deliberate falseness seems to lie squarely at the feet of the Republican Party. This is not to say that Democrats have not stretched the truth - they have. But, as in so many other areas, the Republicans have been objectively demonstrated to be so shamelessly over the top that there's not really any comparison that can be made. Of course, those who rely solely on FOX and "conservative" sources for their information exist in an alternative reality.

The John Galt's in this country and world have gotten us into this mess. We need John Galt like we need a poke in the eye with a sharp stick...sorry I coildn't resist (one ideological jab to another).

You go girl!!

What about the Republican seats that have been lost to Democrats? Do THEY bear a message about change? How many of them are there, compared to the 3 Republican seats you have noted as a sea-change for Republicans? If you are going to do a valid comparison, wouldn't you need to count the number of seats REPUBLICANS have lost, and compare those to the 3 you are using to prove your point? Where's the other half of your equation?

"Hardworking citizens of the United States, the richest nation on earth, die daily because they cannot afford the health care they need."

How many American will die as a result of the passage of this bad legistaltion?

How many drugs will never be invented?
How many cancers will never be curred?
How many of our best and brights will not go into the field of medicine?

You see we can oppose this bill in the name of "social justice".

Remember according to the CBO 93% of the uninsured between 20-35 will pay the fine instead of buying insurance.

"Republicans complain they have been left out of the process. However, Republicans sit on every committee in the Congress that has considered this."

And what pray tell does that mean? On this bill in particular the formal committe meetings have never been where the action was. The process that matters is the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the administration, the interest groups, and Congressional leadership. Republicans have been frozen out of those.

"In my personal opinion, Congressional Republicans have not acted in good faith. They have put party and politics before policy and the common good."

Oh dear! There's politics going on in Washington! Next thing you know there'll be gambling at Rick's Cafe Americain. And of course, the Democrats are completely pure. The payoffs for Landrieu and Nelson? Didn't happen.

"They have put party and politics before policy and the common good. They have intentionally stalled health-care reforms that will bring health care to millions of Americans who do not have it."

No. This is about health care insurance. Health care itself is broadly available to all who need it.

"And the president keeps trying for bipartisanship."

No. This is the first time that Obama has seriously acknowledged the existence of a Republican health care agenda.

"To keep trying for bipartisanship seems insane. However, I know that President Obama is not an insane man. He is no fool. Perhaps he is acting on faith, and very often faith looks foolish."

Why do I get the feeling that Ms. Dixon is trying to talk herself into something here?

LV

My hope is that the televised event will better inform those FOX viewers who had their feed of the President's live address to the Republicans cut when he began to enumerate their specific falsehoods and distortions.

Their message is only effective because most fail to challenge them and demand they tell the truth.

I want to encourage all my FOX friends to find another channel this time should their live coverage suddenly come to a halt :).

Once again, Yuval Levin makes some good points about the politics of health care reform that tie in to Valerie's thoughts on whether working together is possible.

Here's his point:
Both sides agree there are huge problems with the current system, and they even agree on what some of those problems are...Liberals argue that we should move in the direction of socializing insurance coverage...Conservatives argue that we should move toward a genuine individual market in insurance coverage...That means that, beginning from where we are now, liberals and conservatives want to move in roughly opposite directions. And they each tend to think that moving in the other's direction would be worse than just keeping what we have for now. That's why the offer of moving in the Left's direction but not quite as far or quite as fast as the Left would ideally like isn't really very attractive to conservatives. It's why the individual pieces of their bills that the Democrats try to point to as incorporating Republican ideas don't really win any Republicans - because the question is which direction are you moving the system in on the whole?

He goes on to say that, The larger public, I think, is not so tied to either direction, but is opposed to doing anything huge. That's a big part of what the Democrats have done wrong this year: They have proposed too much. Whichever side is smart enough to propose some modest and sensible incremental steps in its preferred direction will have far better luck with the public.

I think it's pretty fruitless, in the end, for Obama to try to win Republicans over. Not because I think the GOP is invested in being "the party of no" or because they don't have any ideas of their own. It's because finding a compromise that both sides think moves the ball in their direction is virtually impossible. This summit is no more than an opportunity for each side to try to get a good photo op.

Here's a link to his entire comment:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDY3Zj...

"I have seen no evidence that the Republicans are remotely prepared to offer any constructive advice on the any form of health care reform."

Then you, like Valerie, have not been watching. Republicans have offered a variety of ideas, from lifting the ban on tax-free HSAs to tax credits for insurance purchase to tort reform, that Democrats have not even deigned to respond to, much less formally reject. Sticking your fingers in your ears and crying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" doesn't mean the other side isn't speaking.

Health care is NOT "broadly available" to all who need it. Please detail exactly everywhere the 40+ million Americans who need it but do not have health insurance can go to receive health care - as opposed to emergency treatment, as they are not the same thing. I have uninsured family in several states who would like to know where all this "broadly available" health care is.

Interesting. Now, suppose the proposal includes say tort reform and modifications to tax-free HSAs (I know I currently am allowed to contribute a maximum of my yearly deductible to my HSA tax-free) do you suppose we'd get a substantial number of Republicans to climb aboard?

How many drugs are invented in nations with some type of government-administered health care?

How many cancers are cured in nations with some type of government-administered health care?

How many of the world's best and brightest in the field of medicine practice in nations with some type of government-administered health care?

People need to counter unanswerable, speculative, fear-mongering questions with realistic questions and answers of their own.

As you can see from my questions and previous statements, I do not support this bill, so I agree with the last statement.

Medicare for all :)!

Nonsense. Most drug companies spend their money on marketing, not R&D. As for our "best and brightest" not going into medicine, hospital administrators are making those decisions.

Question: based on what precisely are you suggesting that (1) lives will be lost, (2) drugs that otherwise would be invented won't, (3) cancers won't be cured, and (4) some number of the best and brightest won't go into medicine??

Without answers to such, I'm afraid it's an attempt to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

To answer your specific objections, tax-free HSAs exist and are not a substitute for insurance. They are only successful when there is a known medical expense that you can sock money away for. Insurance purchases are frequently tax deductible, so the purpose of tax credits is unclear.
The principal reasons people don't get health insurance are the insanely high cost for individual policies and denial due to pre-existing conditions. I fail to see how tax credits address either issue.
Finally tort reform. Democrats have attempted to address this, though it is interesting one of the major points of GOP reform is to reduce how much victims of medical malpractice can be compensated.
With the possible exception of the tort reform, none of the policies you suggest will deal with the second major issue, the continuing rising cost of health care. The cost of health care per capita (in real terms) has doubled since 1990 and is over 7 times what it was in 1970.

Several major drug companies are based in France, Germany, the UK, and other countries with government health-care considerable more intrusive than the reforms in Congress. So let's not worry about this bill as stiffling creativity. I'd say more will die because this bill doesn't go far enough.
To answer the third question. How many cancers aren't cured (or even curred) now because the patient can't afford the existing drugs?
So back to the main question, how many will die because of our overly-expensive flaky system?
Here's a list from Fortune magazine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceut...

RE tort reform:

I think it's been proven that in States with tort "reform", health care costs are no lower than they are in States who have not enacted tort "reform."

And that, if enacted, tort reform would only change the cost of health care by 1-2 percent.

AND, that when Republicans advocated tort "reform" and Democrats actually took it up, not a single Republican - INCLUDING THE 7 WHO SPONSORED THE BILL - voted for it.

Good faith?

Those are legitimate questions, not nonsense.

Most drug companies spend their money on marketing, not R&D.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. I assume you meant to say that some drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on R&D. That may be true. But that doesn't address the question raised. prk seems to believe that there will be less of a profit motive for drug companies to invent new drugs if this bill passed. If that is true, it's a legitimate question.

As for "best and brightest" going into medicine. Every year fewer and fewer doctors choose to treat Medicare patients because the reimbursement levels are so low. Under the bill, reimbursement rates would be further cut. As the government takes on the responsibility of paying for more people's health care more doctors are going to feel the pinch of government set reimbursement levels. If current doctors and potential doctors don't feel like they can make a decent living and pay off their student loans, they're going to get out or choose a different career. This is not nonsense.

If the Democrats dump the stuff that is either unconstitutional (the individual mandate) or would harm the economy, probably so.

Thank you for making my point. You can argue about whether the Republicans' specific ideas are good and beneficial (there are a lot more than the ones I named), but your original point was that they hadn't made any. That's what I was objecting to--the constant refrain that the GOP has no ideas or has made no proposals of its own. Of course it has--they just haven't been accepted, and most of them not listened to, by the majority.

BTW, a couple of responses on substance: the GOP agrees that denial due to pre-existing conditions should be banned. On tax credits, it's simply a matter of making them large enough to cover the cost of a typical insurance plan.