Saturday, August 15, 2009

For True Insights on Healthcare Reform, Watch Meet the Press Sunday Morning: 10 am ET, 9am CT

I am asking all of my readers to watch Meet the Press on Sunday morning (9/16/09). They are having a healthy debate about Healthcare Reform. Guests this Sunday will be: Dick Armey, Tom Coburn, Tom Daschle and Rachel Maddow.
Please watch the show and decide for yourselves: Who is telling the truth! Who is trying to scare the American Public with Lies!
Watch the show and decide for yourselves!
Meet the Reports:
A Special Edition of Meet the Press: As anger reaches a boiling point at town halls across the country, health care reform takes center stage. We'll take an in-depth look at the debate with some leading voices: Fmr. House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), now the head of FreedomWorks, an organizer of protesters at town hall meetings; Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), an informal adviser to the White House and author of "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis"; & Rachel Maddow, Host of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. Plus we'll get perspectives from around the country with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY); Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce; and Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO).


ultima said...

There is some misinformation out there as Obama has stated but Americans have become wary of 1000 page bills with abstruse legalese that few have the time to read and understand. Who can blame them? In some sense, it is better to take a dim view of anything that Congress is working on and hold their feet to the fire to make them answer the difficult questions. And yet, their answers and Obama's mean very little at this point because no one knows what will be in the final bill. How can the president, or anyone else for that matter, say what the thrust of the final bill will be.

It is my view that almost all of the reforms that are needed can be achieved without a public option. A new bill will do nothing to eliminate fraud in Medicare and Medicaid that is not already possible under existing law.

A simpler law could eliminate the onerous practices of insurance companies vis a vis the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. I favor a utility type approach with local untility commissions charged with controlling insurance costs and executive salaries in the same way they review all price increases in other utilities.

Republicans have made at least 31 positive suggestions to improve the health insurance reform bill but Pelosi and Reid have blocked every one of them.

Let's prohibit any new taxes until the fraud rate in Medicare and Medicaid is less than 1%. They say they will save $500 billion in Medicare through various measures none of which will reduce benefits or increase the cost of premiums. If you believe that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

One of the so-called myths that some have been trying to dispel is the coverage for illegal aliens.
The House bill specifically forbids coverage for illegal aliens but makes no provision for checking the bona fides of applicants so the effect is the same as if there were no such prohibition. This illustrates that there is more than meets the eye in this bill and no amount of rhetoric will dispel the notion that Congress is trying to pull a fast one.

Dee said...

I am looking forward to Meet the Press in the morning.

I think all True Americans should watch this open forum and public debate on Healthcare Reform.

Let's decide for ourselves who is telling the truth. Let's decide for ourselves who has a negative agenda.

Let's watch and see!

Vicente Duque said...

Social Security Legislation of FDR - Obama could learn from Franklin D. Roosevelt

Los Angeles Times
The arguments against healthcare reform -- It's socialism. It will hurt private business and create a huge bureaucracy -- echo the ones made against Social Security, but FDR took control of that debat
By Nancy J. Altman
August 14, 2009

President Barack Obama could learn from Franklin D. Roosevelt,0,6660527.story

Some excerpts :

In a series of fireside chats and other broadcasts, the president anticipated arguments and responded before public opposition got out of control. "A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing," he said in one talk. "Sometimes they will call it 'fascism,' sometimes 'communism,' sometimes 'regimentation,' sometimes 'socialism.' But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical. ... I believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing -- a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals. ... We remain, as John Marshall said a century ago, 'emphatically and truly, a government of the people.' "

In order to generate both sound legislation and broad-based support, Roosevelt established an interagency committee with a professional staff to craft the legislation and an advisory council made up of sympathetic representatives of business, labor and the general public, carefully balanced with Republicans and Democrats, to endorse and explain the new program.

When the legislation was introduced in Congress on Jan. 17, 1935, the president delivered a message asking for speedy action, and, once again, he framed the debate. His legislation, he explained, "has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned, [including] ... the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts."

He concluded forcefully. "No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future depressions, but we can reduce these dangers. ... This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and a method of alleviation. We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity -- and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action."

And Congress did act. Social Security was signed into law 74 years ago today.

Vicente Duque

Dee said...

First of all, ANYONE who says "Death Panels" are in any bills is a LIAR!

The perpetrators of these LIES are Insurance Companies and those that pander to them! Like Dick Armey's "Freedom Works." I want Armey on the hotseat. Will he continue his LIES? Will he continue to write scripts for the Teabaggers and Deathers? I want to see what this republican has to say. I want to see his feet held to the fire!

ultima said...

Here a few of the Republican amendments that were crushed by Pelosi:
1. Eliminate the unneeded public option that will be the deathknell for private plans.
2. Prevent bureaucrats from making personal medical decisions for patients.
3. Require members of Congress to get their health insurance from the same place the rest of us under the bill.
4. Delay outlays for disease prevention until the budget deficit dips below $1 trillion.
5. Keep the federal government out of health care decisions; no cost effectiveness studies to determine who gets what treatment.
5. Repeal the plan if wait times exceed current private plan wait times.
6. Eliminate job-killing employer mandates.
7. Waive the employer mandate if it will cause layoffs, worker salarly cuts, or reductions in hiring.
8. Protect employers from unfair taxation.
9. Protect employers who offer health care coverage to their employees.
10.Create small business health plans
11.Tort reform
12.Prevent taxpayer-funded benefits from going to illegal aliens
13.Ensure states are not forced to provide abortions benefits
14.Require government plans to operate under the same rules as private plans
15.Keep Obama's pledge not to raise taxes
16.Assure health care reform will not add to the deficit
17.Prohibit government unfair competition with private plans

Dee said...

Republicans had 8 years to promote and pass healthcare. Did they do it? Nope. They are the party of NO out to kill any reasonable ammendments. They LIE and say there are Death Panels. They LIE and support the lies pushed by Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin and Hannity.

The Republicans, the party of NO that wishes for our President and our country to FAIL!

Dee said...


Look at several of their incidents from the past:

In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason" and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House "found in the files a blueprint for socializing America."

When John F. Kennedy entered the White House, his proposals to anchor America's nuclear defense in intercontinental ballistic missiles -- instead of long-range bombers -- and form closer ties with Eastern Bloc outliers such as Yugoslavia were taken as evidence that the young president was secretly disarming the United States. Thousands of delegates from 90 cities packed a National Indignation Convention in Dallas, a 1961 version of today's tea parties; a keynote speaker turned to the master of ceremonies after his introduction and remarked as the audience roared: "Tom Anderson here has turned moderate! All he wants to do is impeach [Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren. I'm for hanging him!"

Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn't lack for subversives -- anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and '50s.

The instigation is always the familiar litany: expansion of the commonweal to empower new communities, accommodation to internationalism, the heightened influence of cosmopolitans and the persecution complex of conservatives who can't stand losing an argument. My personal favorite? The federal government expanded mental health services in the Kennedy era, and one bill provided for a new facility in Alaska. One of the most widely listened-to right-wing radio programs in the country, hosted by a former FBI agent, had millions of Americans believing it was being built to intern political dissidents, just like in the Soviet Union.

So, crazier then, or crazier now? Actually, the similarities across decades are uncanny. When Adlai Stevenson spoke at a 1963 United Nations Day observance in Dallas, the Indignation forces thronged the hall, sweating and furious, shrieking down the speaker for the television cameras. Then, when Stevenson was walked to his limousine, a grimacing and wild-eyed lady thwacked him with a picket sign. Stevenson was baffled. "What's the matter, madam?" he asked. "What can I do for you?" The woman responded with self-righteous fury: "Well, if you don't know I can't help you."

Dee said...

I am glad everyone can see what a big fat blowhard Liar Dick Armey is! Watch Meet the Press. He is proving what a moron he is all by himself.

Dee said...

Coburn is another one. Armey and Coburn promoting FEAR and ANGER against this needed Healthcare Bill.

Dee said...

Dick Armey and his group Freedomworks have an agenda. They want to Dump Medicare. Freedomworks is an Insurance Industry mouthpiece. He is a partner of the Teabaggers. He is partners with Americans For Prosperity.

These are FRONTMEN FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. They are Demonizing the President AND the Healthcare Bill because they want us ALL Dependent of the Insurance Industry and their Price Gouging!!

Dee said...

FACT: We have to fix our Healthcare system because status quo is not acceptable!

Tamale Chica said...

Thanks Dee!

Vicente Duque said...

Dee :

I find great illustration in what you post.

I have read with Great Delight the Article in the Washington Post that you referred :

"In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason"

Wonderful Article, this is a Great Motivation that comes from the past : To know that there was Meanness and Imbecility of Republicans in those times. It is the same today.

So thanks a lot for the Washington Post Article. I am collecting many articles about the times of FDR the Social Legislation of Lyndon Johnson and other beautiful things of History.

Vicente Duque

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Republicans had 8 years to promote and pass healthcare. Did they do it?"

Democrats had 8 years under Clinton to promote and pass healthcare. Did they do it?

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Let's decide for ourselves who is telling the truth. Let's decide for ourselves who has a negative agenda."

I don't consider the following to be a negative agenda:

1. Explicitly exclude illegal aliens from the program by requiring incontrovertible evidence that a person is in the U.S. legally before he or she can participate in whatever reform is enacted.
2. Drop the public option as unneeded and unfair competition for private plans.
3. Require jail terms and fines for all cases of Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Use the fines to offset the cost of enforcement.
4. Outlaw onerous practices by insurance companies; require the insurance companies to use the same criteria for care and drugs as prescribed by Medicare.
5. Reduce Medicare/Medicaid costs only through fraud prosecutions not by an arbitrary cut in the Medicare budget.
6. Label any government subsidies as welfare.
7. Legalize doctor-assisted end of life decisions.
8. Remove any cost-effectiveness decisions from the bureacracy; require a separate vote of the Congress on any proposal that would ration health care.

The most important thing is that whatever bill emerges from the conference committee should make explicit all the things the president says will not be part of the reform. His words mean nothing unless they are backed up with explicit language in the bill.

I note that the Senate has apparently removed any language related to end of life counseling to make sure no one uses innocuous language on this subject to actually prescribe end of life options.

I watched both "This Week" on ABC and "Meet the Press" on NBC.
I wonder how many Obamabots did.

ultima said...



This is a political game both sides play with equal fervor rather than listening to their constituents. How often have we received letters from our representatives explaining their views but taking little note of the points made in our communications?

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "FACT: We have to fix our Healthcare system because status quo is not acceptable!"

The former assertion doesn't necessarily follow from the latter.
Example: The status quo of Social Security and Medicare is not acceptable but through several administration and Congressional turnovers nothing has been done. They seem to have felt no imperative in those case; how is health care reform different?

Nevertheless, most would agree that health care reform is urgent and I predict if Obama causes the public option to be removed along with other provisions that would increase the deficit, the bill will pass with bi-partisan support.
Republicans agree something must be done but find some provisions of the present bill abhorrent. There is room for compromise here if reform is really urgent. Most of the objectives of the bill can be accomplished without the public option.

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "they want us ALL Dependent of the Insurance Industry and their Price Gouging!!"

Well, let's outlaw price gouging by making rate changes, executive salaries, and policy changes subject to local utility commissions.

Dee said...

Please answer the 1st point. Answer the question: Do you believe the right wing talking point:
1. Do you believe Death Panels were in any version of any bill before Congress?
--- Do you believe this right wing extremist LIE?

Short Answer:
Yes or No.

If you are a sane, logical person, you will answer NO, of course.
However what is WRONG with the Republicans' response to the Healthcare Debate is to spout LIES in order to Shut Down the Discussion.

That is the problem most Republicans, even the sane ones, refuse to acknowledge.

Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Malkin are LYING to their audiences.
Armey and his Insurance/Pharmaceutical backers want to STOP the discussion.

Join sane people in America and tell them to STOP THEIR LIES!
Are you BRAVE ENOUGH to tell them that?

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Please answer the 1st point. Answer the question: Do you believe the right wing talking point:
1. Do you believe Death Panels were in any version of any bill before Congress?"

I'm not sure this is a yes or no question for anyone except an Obamabot. But let's concede that if the import of the bills go no further than what is contained in their explicit language, then there were no Death Panels in any bill that I am aware of.

I think the term "Death Panels" was a little hyperbole on the part of Palin and others to alert the public that there was some potential that this first step would lead to actual policies that would imply that if you were of a certain age or if you had certain untreatable conditions, the government would not subsidize anything except palliative care. Former Demorat Governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm, said it best when he suggested that the old and the infirm had a "duty to die". There are probably a lot of people in and out of government that share that sentiment whether they are willing to say so or not.

When you get right down to it, there is little reason to have panels of the nature described in the bill unless they ultimately come up with ideas for the most efficacious treatment of various conditions at various ages. The logical outcome of such studies could indeed result in the denial of certain drugs or treatments which in some folks' minds is tantamount to suggesting that death is the preferred outcome because there is no treatment that offers much hope of success so why waste the money. This is essentially the Medicare approach--certain treatments and certain drugs are approved and covered, others are not. In effect,a bureacrat will have determined in advance what treatment you can receive, rather than you and your doctor after considering your particular condition or circumstances. This may even come down to a situation in which your priority for medical care is determined in advance by such a bureaucrat. Now I freely admit there is no explicit language in the bill that remotely suggests death panels. However, if you are willing to think outside the box, you would see that the proposed panels could indeed be the foot in the door leading to more drastic rationing and prioritizing of health care. It would be well for all of us to be on guard against any unreasonable offshoots of the panel discussions. If the
"death panel" folks have alerted us to that possibility, we are all in their debt. However, at this point they should admit their hyperbole. Of course, I have known others who appear on this blog who regularly fail to admit to their hyperbole and ad hominem comments and posts.

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "However what is WRONG with the Republicans' response to the Healthcare Debate is to spout LIES in order to Shut Down the Discussion."

I guess you could say that they were driven to desperate measures by Pelosi's crushing of every Republican positive suggestion. That doesn't make it right but what alternative did they have in the light of Dictator Pelosi's recalcitrance. Perhaps you should reserve some of her ire for her. A good bill could well on it way to approval if she stopped her demagoguery. Surely any fair person would see that there are two sides to every issue and there is no reason to expect that only one party has any insight into what is best for the country. Bi-partisanship requires that some reasonable accommodation needs to be made for the ideas of the other party. We have too many politicians and not enough statesmen who recognize that fact.

Perhaps we should be looking not at the so-called lies but at the actual Republican proposed amendments and how Pelosi ran roughshod over them.

I consider myself a reasonable person and I am in favor of health care reform even though I am worried about the cost and the resulting deficit. I just believe a one party bill that shoots down all the Republican attempts to contribute ideas and a way forward.

The extremists who spout lies should be marginalized but that can only happen if the Democrat extremists stop rebuffing every effort to make the bill bi-partsan. They are no doing the American people a favor by refusing every Republican amendment. That's not what we want. We want Congress to work together not just as one party dictates.

How about we agree Congress should adopt a reasonable number of Republican amendments to it can claim a true bi-partisan bill and in return we Republicans denounce those who through excessive zeal have indulged in hypebole and ad hominem pronouncements. That's the way it should work. If one party is denied any input, don't expect cooperation in denouncing the lies born of desperation.

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Are you BRAVE ENOUGH to tell them that?

Yes, I am. Are you willing to tell Pelosi and the Democrat party to craft a true bi-partisan bill as I suggested above?

This is not a one way street.

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Armey and his Insurance/Pharmaceutical backers want to STOP the discussion."

Perhaps you should also mention all the Democrats who receive donations from insurance and drug companies. Also, you might want to consider all those who are backed by the lawyers who oppose tort reform and thus contribute to the escalating health care costs as the price of malpractice insurance goes up to line the pockets of bottom feeding lawyers.

It's not really fair to mention only the Republicans who are supported by insurance and drug companies while ignoring the Democrats who also feed at that trough and then move over the trial lawyer trough. That's what is wrong with the political discourse--the attempts to put all the blame on one party and one set of lobbyists. Obama promised a lot about excluding lobbyists from the Washington discourse but has failed miserably to deliver on that promise. Lobbyists remain the most important force in D.C.

For another perspective see this

ultima said...

dee wrote, "The Republicans, the party of NO that wishes for our President and our country to FAIL!"

You got that all wrong. The abominable "no" person is none other than Nancy Pelosi and the president doesn't appear to have the backbone to stand up to her. Let's not continue to equate the President with our country. They are two different entities as one would easily be able discern if there was time to review all of the comments about Bush II. Surely you didn't equate him with our country.

Dee said...

So you are saying you ARE brave enough to call Armey, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity and Beck LIARS for saying there are Death Panels in any version of any healthcare bills?


Say it. I will forward your message on to them to let them know even THEIR side is acknowledging they are LIARS!!

Thank you for your help.
I am awaiting your comment specifically saying this so I can forward them your message.

Once received, we can talk about your Pelosi comments.

Dee said...

I thought Rachel Maddow did an excellent job today in dispelling Armey's myths. On her show this past week, she proved his connections to the Pharmaceuticals and to the Insurance companies. As the chairman of "Freedom Works" he has provided SCRIPTS to the Deathers and Birthers at the Town Hall meetings and teabagger rallies. I almost feel sorry for the rich yuppie teabagger SHEEP in their little yuppie shorts screaming Nazi and Death to Smoochy...anything to STOP the Discussion. They blindly follow Armey, Beck, Hannity, Malkin and Dobbs' talking points.

The only people who are suffering are the American People! Because they blindly follow their leaders, we the American People cannot talk about the need form Healthcare Reform!
Shame on them!!

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Say it. I will forward your message on to them to let them know even THEIR side is acknowledging they are LIARS!!"

If they have stated H.R. 3200 has a "Death Panel" provision, Armey, Beck, Palin, Hannity and Limbaugh are liars. They are dealing in hyperbole. No such language appears in the bill as presently written.

ultima said...

Dee wrote, "Once received, we can talk about your Pelosi comments."

Okay. Your turn to deliver. I couldn't say directly all those you named were liars because I did not read nor hear their remarks directly. I did point out later that if you read between the lines some of their concerns were not completely outlandish. In particular, I mentioned the parallels between the "health care for illegals" and "illegal entry". In both cases either a proposed law or an actual law is supposed to prohibit them but we know because of a lack of enforcement and enforcement tools, the law against illegal entry might just as well not be on the books. Similarly, unless the House bill is amended to add a provision for checking the bona fides of all applicants,an enforcement mechanism, and specific fines and jail time for fraud, the prohibition against health care for illegals is not worth the paper it is written on. Tell that to Pelosi and tell her that if she wants a bill to lighten up on Republican proposed amendments rather shooting down every one of them. Your turn for action.

ultima said...

More Healthcare Reform discussion on Meet the Press tomorrow and also probably on "This Week" with George Stepanopoulis.

Page Hits