The advocates of a skinny bill apparently lost....
Posted on 02/23/2010 5:23:31 AM PST by truthandlife
President Barack Obama's health-care proposal is a victory for those in the White House who want to press ahead with ambitious legislation over those who counseled scaling it back.
The proposal, unveiled Monday, reaffirmed Mr. Obama's support for the policy's sweeping objectives: expanding health-care coverage to some 30 million Americans, new efforts to control health spending and new rules for health insurers.
Continued pursuit of a comprehensive health-care overhaul had been uncertain following the victory last month of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate election. Mr. Brown won partly by campaigning against the health bill, which was proving increasingly unpopular with voters.
"People were in shell shock after Massachusetts," said one person close to the White House deliberations.
The night of the Massachusetts vote, the president met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and asked the speaker if she had the votes to move the Senate bill through the House, a senior White House official said. She replied that she didn't know yet. After that, the internal White House debate involved what was feasible given the political pressures on Capital Hill.
Advocates of a "skinny bill," including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, made some headway with their case after that defeat, according to people involved in the discussions. This camp argued for a slimmer measure that would include provisions from the pending Democratic legislation—such as forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. The argument was a more expansive measure could not win enough votes to pass through Congress.
Mr. Obama himself publicly suggested such a step. A day after the Massachusetts election, he signaled he might support a smaller measure. "I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on,"
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Quote: “Mr. Brown won partly by campaigning against the health bill, which was proving increasingly unpopular with voters.”
Oh come now, health care bill, he hardly mentioned it at all. Was it even an issue in his campaign? /s
he rejects the American people, this is no news......
Couldn’t be because of his ego and arrogance... must be due to his “vast experience and knowledge” of the healthcare industry. /s
Prediction: I see another epic failure in your future, Zero.
STUBBORN
I for one am shocked, shocked I tell ya! SARC OFF
Obama is a Communist.
That's why their symbol is a jackass.................
Actually, he probably figures we haven’t understood his explanation of how we want socialized medicine well enough yet. I’m sure his teleprompter doesn’t even need warming up, and here come more explaining, or campaigning, or complaining.
Amazingly, this dude has all of the characteristics falsely applied to President Bush. They said Bush was arrogant, stubborn, refused to listen, etc, etc. None was true, he is a humble guy. All apply to Obama, and in a dangerous manner. He is an egomaniac and narcissist.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod was among those to articulate the arguments for moving forward with the comprehensive approach, in conference calls with congressional leaders and elsewhere, according to Democrats familiar with the debate, though the senior White House aide said he did not take sides in the central legislative strategy debate.
This is the recurring theme from unidentified WH sources (whom I don't blame for remaining anonymous, given the thugs in charge). Axelrod is not exactly part of the debate, but he shapes the policy. After Obama spoke to Congressional Dems in their last televised kabuki dance, it was Axelrod who then met with them in private and off-camera, when Franken had his temper tantrum. The same theme emerged in the controversey over the decision to mirandize the panty bomber. It was Axelrod who pushed that as policy.
Forget Gibbs and Jarrett; they may be the Obama adoration society, but my money's on Axelrod as the power behind the fake Greek columns.
The “Brown 41” tee shirts say it all.
And we reject him. I wish he would just go away. I can’t stand having him as “president”.
STUBBORN
And thank the Lord that he is! The reaction to his continual arrogant overreaching is the one thing that may turn this country around.
There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear good advice.
Is Axelrod connected with Soros in any meaningful way? If so, we would have the complete puppetry-string-set figured out.
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!
Sen. Scot Brown's number is 202-224-5443
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Snip
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.
oh, and a marxist madman with the tenacity of Rasputin.
The advocates of a skinny bill apparently lost....
Too bad we couldn’t live in a cartoon world where the law of gravity would, um, solve the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.