Posted on 08/16/2009 5:03:02 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, August 16th, 2009
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association; John Rother, executive vice president for policy and strategy at AARP.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): FreedomWorks chairman and former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colo.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius; Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sebelius; Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., Tom Price, R-Ga., and Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas.
Great stuff, hope Rush catches this for tomorrow.
This reminds me of the time I was making the shift from private insurance to Medicare. When I told the doctor’s office I would be going on Medicare (in about two weeks) but until that time my private insurance would pay 100%, they got me in the day before Medicare started for my colonoscopy.
You see no excitement in the obozo meetings whatsoever. Wait til Palin has her first rally and then let the establishmedia trash her. She is a breath of Alaskan air.
Pray for America
LOL!!!
*bookmark* to read later....
FOX news is saying that Sebulius is stating that Obama will back off the “Public” option...supposedly in exchange for “Co-Ops”....and I DO BELIEVE we have been WARNED in the past that this might happen...AND I have read...DON’T BE FOOLED.... that Co-Ops will be NO DIFFERENT than the Public Option!!!
Please clarify what "we" accomplished today, so I can call Rush and tell him not to waste valuable broadcast time on it tomorrow.
Oh dear Lord, I saw that.
Lawrence O’Donnell sure made a fool out of himself.
I think the pub guy should have walked off the set but I’ll give him this....he did say a couple of times to my smirky smiles...”This is why nobody watches MSNBC”.
How about that, a pub hands an MSNBC partisan hack his head?
What O’Donnell was doing, for those who didn’t see it, was the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen on a so-called political talk show.
Lawrence O’Donnell was yelling and screaming like he had rabies at the pub guy, Culberson from California I think. His White House talking point was that MEDICARE is a gubmint program.
He kept badgering the pub...”Would you have voted for Medicare in 65? Why are you lying to the American people? “ Screams and spit come out of his mouth and if he only knew how awful he looked, absolutely pathetic.
The pub should have walked off the set but he kept saying he don’t know what he would have done in 1965 and wasn’t that just the dumbest damn question?
O’Donnell wanted the pub to put out a great big ole talking point...INFLUENTIAL REPUBLICAN SAYS HE WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR MEDICARE!!
This way, boom, the seniors get scared and it’s the pubs eliminating Medicare again. Medicare is what folks on disability and old folks have. It’s how it is and we live with it. But if we had to do it again for sure we’d think some things through. Obviously when you’re elderly or disabled the thought of losing Medicare scares you but it’s not because Medicare is the best system ever or that there was another choice we could have made that might have been better.
Or else...talking point number two....INFLUENTIAL REPUBLICAN SAYS HE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR MEDICARE IN 1965. So now the state run media can tut-tut at the hypocrisy of the pubs who lambaste gubmint run health care but admit they would have voted for it.
The pub didn’t fall for it but like I said, this was a lose-lose question and O’Donnell, that lying pathetic sack of shit who sold his soul, wanted desperately to be the one to get that lose-lose sound byte from a pub while Chrissie Matthews was on vacation, heh.
The pub did take O’Donnell on, unlike other pubs the prior week who collapsed under spit and glares from Chrissie. He did say, a couple of time...”This is why nobody watches MSNBC” and he was right!
Next, the pubs should walk off the set at this sort of partisan browbeating. When they do this I’ll think perhaps they have grown a pair somewhere between the legs.
For years, as a teacher, I did not pay into SS. When I went to work for a company, I started paying SS. I love how the lady at one of Specter’s townhalls was surprised by how much was withheld.
The Obamites really believe that all this Govt spending will pay for itself because it will stimulate all sorts of Economic activity which will generate more tax revenue thus covering all their spending by generating new income.
They really believe FDR spent us out of the Depression. Only problem is that notion is completely with base in fact.
Contrary to popular perception, the Obamites aren't evil, the are stupid.
As the old saw goes
Never assign to malevolence what can be explained by simple stupidity
That link is earlier in this thread.
You are correct. Obama will impose regulations on the insurance industry that will be the equivalent of the public option.
“The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about “health-insurance reform,” rather than “health-care reform.” The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.
Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market. Start with the reality that nine out of 10 people under 65 are covered by their employers, most of which cover all employees and charge everyone the same rate. President Obama’s horror stories are about the individual insurance market, where some 15 million people buy coverage outside of the workplace.
Mr. Obama does have a point about insurance security. If you develop an expensive condition such as cancer or heart disease, and then get fired or divorced or your employer goes out of business—then individual insurance is going to be very expensive if it’s available. But what the President and Democrats won’t tell you is that these problems are the result mainly of government intervention.
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit “discrimination against the sick”—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That’s one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama’s proposal for “guaranteed issue” on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as “community rating” imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don’t join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
There are better ways to go. Tax credits to individuals to buy insurance would make it more affordable and thus strengthen the individual market. Other tax rule changes could also make it easier for people to join and form their own risk pools beyond their employers, such as through business federations, labor unions or, say, the Kiwanis Club. They would no longer be hostage to one job for insurance.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions (”orphan diseases”) that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as “reform.”
The Pollyanna Democrats looking for a political utopia of socialism, where equal outcome outweighs equal rights never ceases to amaze me.
These idiots really do believe what they say is possible, and achievable.
Hey rodguy! I’m sure Rush will have a field day with this weekend’s interviews.
Yeah for sure, its even tougher when you are an employer and have to pay double for everyone.
Thanks for the ping AB.
Just in from church, watching FOX News Sunday on DVR and will peruse the thread.
Why is this lunatic clown still even put on the air? Remember, this is the same freak that was on an said, seriously, that after Bush got elected in 2004 the Blue states must seriously start thinking about secession.
That they take this guy seriously any longer indicates MSNBC are not a serious news organization but the the National Enquirer of Cable News.
But I side with Kudlow and think it's just an all out attack on Free Market Capitalism.
Rush was talking about being gone this week. Hope not.
Well he may be a freak...but what's wrong with that?
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.