|
White House to Democrats: ‘Punch back twice as hard’ – Carrie Budoff Brown – POLITICO.com — None of this would have happened if the lazy Congress decided not to take a month vacation, would it?
Top White House aides gave Senate Democrats a recess battle plan on Thursday, arming the lawmakers with tips for avoiding disastrous town hall meetings while showing them polling on popular aspects of the reform effort.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told senators to focus on the insured and how they would benefit from “consumer protections” in the overhaul, such as ending the practice of denying insurance
based on preexisting conditions and ensuring the continuity of coverage between jobs.They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.
And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.
“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.
Meanwhile this is getting ugly. When you have a real unemplyment rate of perhaps 16-percent or higher, you don’t want this sort of thing to develop. At the end of the day, it’s something to do and fun for a lot of people. Bigger and bigger riots will happen. The vacation month just started.
There’s a lot in this bill besides healthcare. Maybe the healthcare system does need an overhaul, but this bill has had so much stuff added to it that this bill is about a *lot* more.
Healthcare should be a separate discussion from this bill. This bill needs to NOT pass…. google around, it is scary.
#58, ME
The current laws on health care forbid individual States from regulating health care.
This is incorrect.
Federal laws have supplanted State regulation for employer based health care. Since the vast majority of insured people are insured through their employer or Federal programs (Medicare, etc) the States have no authority over them. They do have regulatory power over self insured.
So that sentence above should have been:
The current laws on health care forbid individual States from regulating health carefor the vast majority of Americans.
#58
> I notice you didn’t list one
> of those alternatives.
Just streamlining the laws so that health insurance companies can insure anyone from any State would be a prime example of something that could be done in the short term that would reduce cost that would not require tearing down the current system.
> The current laws on health care
> forbid individual States from
> regulating health care
Then let’s fix THAT problem instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
> And, in case you don’t ever
> read the Constitution, this
> is a Federal matter.
Actually, I have read the Constitution quite thoroughly many times and there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything about granting the power to the Federal government to centralize all health care coverage.
#62
If Obama had mandated that the States find a way of providing “basic” health care coverage for all of its constituents, I’d be more on board with that than a Federal solution. In addition, we need to find a way of changing the target customer of health care coverage from the employer to the individual. If we did that, along with making it possible for any insurance company to insure any citizen in any State, that would go a long way towards reducing cost.
Looks like the “Haves” are working their hardest to ensure the have-nots have even less.
Their latest tactic is to brainwash have-nots into becoming unpaid astroturfers.
#65 Well, I think you’re missing part of the pictures. You’re correct, but the “have-nots” are also being manipulated by the other side. It’s very naive to say that the “Haves” are not in the government.
#60, This country is a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
Article IV – The States
Section 4 – Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The Constitution states this is a Republic, not a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
Apply all the modifiers you want, it doesn’t change the fact.
The reps are supposed to work WITHIN the Constitution, NOT try to circumvent it. And the Constitution clearly states that unless it is specially called for, the FG can’t do it.
However, I don’t blame you for misunderstanding that. The public school system consistently teaches that fallacy and the FG is constantly talking about “spreading democracy.” You just need to be de-brainwashed, that’s all.
Read the 10th Amendment again. And this time, please try to use an open mind. I know it doesn’t fit your worldview and probably makes you mad that I’m right, but that’s the way things are.
#64, Thomas,
Once again you demonstrate you only know Republican talking points.
. . . with making it possible for any insurance company to insure any citizen in any State, that would go a long way towards reducing cost.
That wouldn’t solve the problem of the insurance companies overcharging premiums, dropping coverage, allowing doctors to double dip, covering those who can’t afford coverage, CEOs being paid nine figure salaries, 30% of premiums going to overhead instead of health care, dropping or not covering pre-existing problems, or forcing doctors to spend hours on the phone trying to have a patient get a procedure.
All you want to do is remove even more regulation, what little there is.
#68
Again, your ad hominem shows that you really don’t want to understand the myriad of reasons for having a republic.
*Competition* would solve the problem of overcharging premiums, dropping coverage all else you mentioned. There is almost none right now and insurance companies completely cater to employers instead of individuals. Frankly, I could care less if a CEO is getting a billion dollars if the service his company provides to me is worth it AND I can go somewhere else if it does not. Do you care if the CEO of Coca-Cola gets millions of dollars when you buy a coke?
I never said we need to remove regulation. We need to *streamline* regulation so that any insurance company in any State can cover any individual. Further, we need legislation that forces the insurance companies to only sell to individuals and not employers. In other words, we need the Federal government to eliminate the barriers to competition. In CA, there is stiff regulation on coverage to small companies with less than 50 employees. Insurance companies are only allowed to charge 10% above or below their standard rate and they must post their rates to the Dept of Insurance. Something akin to that would work well IMO. Thus, to parrot the radical left tripe of “You Republicans just don’t want regulation” is nonsense. *Conservatives* want regulation that fosters fair competition in a way that maintains the authority of the States.