Universal Health Care for America

[Guest Sheri]

BTW... Bronco. My husband and I work hard for our money thank you very much.

[Guest Congresswoman Johnson]

“People who have health insurance have seen insurance premiums double in the last nine years, deductibles continue to climb, and out-of-pocket costs shoot up by a third,” Congresswoman Johnson said. During the recession, we have seen many people lose jobs—and losing a job often means losing health insurance coverage.

 

“Furthermore, there are already 47 million people who don’t have health insurance in the U.S., and many of them live in Texas,” she continued. “People without insurance are often forced to use emergency rooms for their primary care, and they aren’t able to access the medical knowledge they need to stay healthy.”

 

After outlining the House health care reform bill, she opened the discussion to questions from callers.

 

Early in the call, Congresswoman Johnson discussed the ways in which small businesses will benefit from the enactment of the House bill.

 

“We are going to put a plan together that small businesses can afford,” Congresswoman Johnson said. “Small businesses will find coverage in the health insurance exchange, as will the self-employed. I think that most small businesses will want to help their employees have insurance.”

 

In response to a question about the community health centers in the 30th District, Congresswoman Johnson emphasized the benefits to making primary care available to everyone. Throughout the call, she emphasized that emergency care is the most expensive kind of care there is.

 

“We hope to divert people away from the emergency rooms and to these community health centers,” she said. “Eat differently, exercise more, get the weight down—we will insist on people having the opportunity to educate themselves so that they can be responsible.

 

Finally, in response to a question about giving every American access to the health insurance that Members of Congress have, Congresswoman Johnson replied that a goal of health care reform is to make quality health insurance available to everyone.

[Guest Tim Hassel]

Republicans are horrible. They create misinformation, and thrust it upon the political system, bombarding Congress with phone calls and hijacking town halls. Now those who have cancer will suffer because of it.

 

There is a proposed 20 percent cut by Medicare in payments for radiation therapy is before Congress. An American Society for Radiation Oncology survey said it would result in many cancer centers, especially in rural areas, closing or consolidating operations.

 

I cannot believe that Obama is giving up the fight.

[Guest Damon]

I think the co-op is a good idea and has both the White House and Republican opponents of the President's health care reform in agreement

[Guest LAW]

It looks like the public option is fading.

 

President Barack Obama is willing to embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan as the White House faces mounting opposition to its broad overhaul of the nation's health care system.

 

Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats, Obama's administration signaled on Sunday that it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance. The shift leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.

 

Officials from both political parties are looking for concessions while Congress is on an August recess. Facing tough audiences, lawmakers and the White House are looking for a way to cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured while maintaining political standing.

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

 

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

 

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

 

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

 

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

 

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

 

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

 

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

 

Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months, although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.

 

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

 

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

 

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

 

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation."

[Guest LAW]

Conrad Outlines Plan to Rein In Health Care Costs

Senator Hears from Slope County Leadership on Need for Health Care Reform

 

Senator Kent Conrad met today with leaders from across Slope County for the latest in his series of statewide, health care-based listening sessions. Senator Conrad is advocating health care reform legislation based on three principles: choice, value and coverage.

 

“With the cost of health care spiraling out of control and swamping the budgets of North Dakota’s families, it is clear that America’s health care system needs serious reform,” Senator Conrad said. “I am working to pass reform that reins in skyrocketing health care costs, expands coverage, and improves quality for all North Dakotans.”

 

Senator Conrad made his remarks at a gathering that included health care professionals, small business owners, and Slope County community leaders.

 

The Senator is spearheading a bipartisan group of six senators – three Democrats and three Republicans – charged with developing a compromise health care plan to cover more Americans while curbing the skyrocketing expense to America’s families.

 

At today’s meeting, Senator Conrad warned that without significant reform, Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years. More than 105,000 North Dakotans currently receive Medicare benefits.

 

Additionally, the cost of health insurance in North Dakota is increasing three times faster than wages. By 2016, it’s projected that families will spend $20,000 a year on health care – or 41 percent of their income.

 

The Senator also noted that the United States is spending twice as much as any other industrialized nation to care for its sick, without significantly better outcomes. Studies show that nearly one in three dollars spent on health care is being wasted.

 

“We need to improve quality and contain costs. And we must provide health care coverage to more families,” Senator Conrad said. “We need to focus like a laser on making our system more efficient.”

 

Senator Conrad outlined a bipartisan, compromise health care reform proposal modeled after the co-ops common in North Dakota. The Senator's plan would create private, consumer-owned, non-profit cooperatives that would provide an additional choice to help families, individuals and small businesses afford quality health care.

 

Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a Senior Member of the Senate Finance Committee.

[Guest Zach]

About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

 

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.

 

AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Barack Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.

 

"We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership."

 

The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.

 

He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.

[Guest AmericanSeniors.org]

The American Seniors Association (ASA) invites any American Association of Retired Persons member to mail us your torn AARP card and receive a 2 year- for- 1 year membership with ASA. Our organization representing hundreds of thousands of members believes we need health care reform, but we want what is best for seniors. ASA wants to cut wasteful spending in Medicare. ASA wants to see the Congress work to curb frivolous lawsuits that drive up the costs of doctor’s malpractice insurance. Our system needs an overhaul, but we do not need expensive Obamacare or anything resembling it.

 

ASA is looking out for seniors by fighting a health care reform bill that will cost upward of $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years and cuts in Medicare of $500 billion. ASA wants seniors to live longer, more fulfilling years of life-- not an “end of life” continuum that this bill suggests.

 

So please mail ASA your torn AARP card and/or visit our website www.americanseniors.org and ensure your voice is heard.

 

American Seniors Association, 3700 Mansell Road,Suite 220, Alpharetta, GA 30022

 

AMERICAN SENIORS ASSOCIATION BLASTS OBAMA AARP HEATHCARE PUSH

 

“President Obama must think the American people are idiots if he thinks the healthcare rationing, restrictions and regulations being debated in Congress will save money and result in better preventative medicine,” says Stuart Barton, president of the Atlanta-based AmericanSeniors.org that represents hundreds of thousands of members nationwide.

 

“The president told the AARP meeting that opponents are “making people scared.” ”Well, they ought to be scared at current proposals,” Barton said. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan’s cost over 10 years would be $1.2 to $1.8 trillion. That’s absurd in a recession, let alone good times.”

 

The ASA has three major concerns:

 

1) a government-run plan would limit patient- doctor choice

2) there would be an employer mandate that would kill jobs and lower wages and

3) the current legislation being debated attacks baby boomer and seniors by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years.

 

"On page 425 of the bill, a person must go to counseling every five years to basically learn how to die,” Barton says. “As I read this and hear about no preventative care, it dawned on me that Obama’s plan is to let all these baby boomers die quicker so we don’t have to care for them in old age.”

[Guest Fiscal Republican]

Why not cap the annual tax subsidies that employers get for providing employees health care. Washington could see a revenue flow of several hundred billion dollars, if not more. That could pay for a big chunk of the trillion dollars it will take (at least) to finance a health care overhaul.

[Guest Human]

But the Government will make sure that Pre-Existing Conditions WILL be covered by Insurance companies, and part of the Price for Universal Health care is that the Senior, and disabled community WILL pay the highest price of all "DEATH".

 

It's a simple REALITY; There is a price for all of this.

 

Hey!!! anyways the public voted for this. They "The General Public" voted for this with electing Obama.

 

Anyways let the general public EAT what they voted for, because what can't be done legislatively? WILL be done administratively.

[Guest Michael Winship]

We know health care has to change, which makes it even more infuriating and frustrating that the national, you should excuse the expression, "dialogue" on the issue has deteriorated into so much gorilla dust, a hurling of invective, menace and disinformation meant to intimidate and force a retreat.

 

Those vein-popping, pistol toting, don't confuse me with the facts town hall meetings are more like hockey brawls than an open exchange of ideas.

 

But this uncivil disobedience and bullying are just the tip of the spear, the front line of an all out offensive on the streets, in the media and on Capitol Hill aimed at turning the debate over health care reform on its head and possibly keeping any kind of change from happening at all.

 

On Friday, Bloomberg News reported that 3,300 Washington lobbyists are working on health care: "That's six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense.

 

More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy."

 

According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, in the first half of the year, this adds up to $263.4 million worth of high-level kibitzing around the House and Senate office buildings and various other DC locales where ears and elbows are bent in advance of twisting arms.

 

Bloomberg notes, "Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies."

 

The attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton's plan for health care reform back in the '90s were a tiptoe through the tulips compared to the current assault. That's because it's about a lot more than attempting to ease the financial pain of illness - or a socialist government takeover of medicine, depending on your point of view.

 

Organizers (such as former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey's FreedomWorks), special interests and people who are just plain mad as hell have turned it into a shrill national referendum, reigniting age-old prejudices and fears that bubbled at the surface during last year's presidential campaign.

What's interesting is that there appears to be an emerging backlash from some of the more reasoned thinkers of the conservative movement.

 

It seems to have begun late last week with a blog entry by former Bush speechwriter David Frum on his Web site, NewMajority.com. He asked, what if the right wins the health care fight? What happens then?

 

"The problem," he wrote, "is that if we do that... we'll still have the present healthcare system... We'll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and underperforming system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican Party exists to champion."

 

Frum elaborated while in conversation with my colleague Bill Moyers on the current edition of public television's Bill Moyers Journal.

 

"They're going to pass something," he said of the health care reform fight. "So the question for Republicans is what do you want that to be? You have an interest here, too. You would like to see the rise in healthcare costs slow. And you would like to see more room in the federal budget for tax cuts in the future...

 

“But if the Republicans win, this is not going to be a great victory for individual liberty. It's going to be a victory for the status quo."

 

Frum's sentiments have been echoed and amplified by conservative economist Bruce Bartlett. He's worth citing at length.

 

Writing on the Daily Beast Web site on August 12, Bartlett noted that, "Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves.

 

"In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama's policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies...

 

"Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect."

 

One way to reestablish some shred of that credibility would be any kind of viable health care reform alternative from the GOP. Another would be to engage in a more reasoned debate. Neither has happened so far, and in the heat of the current ugly fray, neither seems likely.

 

Too much of the gorilla dust they're throwing has blown back into their own eyes.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Before you liberals get all high and mighty. You might want to read this article by your great liberal paper.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?bl&ex=1250740800&en=7d0939d85b32733a&ei=5087%0A

 

A couple of months ago the Obama administration made a secret and extremely troubling deal with the drug industry’s lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The lobby agreed to contribute $80 billion in savings over 10 years and to sponsor a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in support of health care reform.

 

The White House, for its part, agreed not to seek additional savings from the drug companies over those 10 years. This resulted in big grins and high fives at the drug lobby. The White House was rolled. The deal meant that the government’s ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices was off the table.

 

EXTRA!!! EXTRA!!! OBAMA SOLD OUT!!! OBAMA BROKE HIS PROMISE!!! I LOVE THIS!!!

[Guest Dennis]

The masquerade is over! The "public option" is ... dead.

 

Health care reform is now a private option: WHICH FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANY DO YOU WANT? You have to choose. And you have to pay. If you have a low income, under HR3200 government will subsidize the private insurance companies and you will still have to pay premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

 

The Administration plan requires that everyone must have health insurance, so it is delivering tens of millions of new "customers" to the insurance companies. Health care? Not really. Insurance care! Absolutely. Cost controls? No chance.

 

You will next hear talk about "co-ops." The truth is that insurance company campaign contributions have co-opted the public interest.

 

The hotly-debated HR3200, the so-called "health care reform" bill, is nothing less than corporate welfare in the guise of social welfare and reform. It is a convoluted mess. The real debate which we should be having is not occurring.

 

Removing the "public option" from a public bill paid for by public money is not in the public interest. What is left is a "private option" paid for with public money. Why should public money be spent on a private option which does not guarantee 100% coverage nor have any cost controls? A true public option would provide 30% savings immediately which would then cover the 1/3rd of the population who presently have no health care.

 

Unfortunately, under HR3200, the Government is choosing winners and losers in the private sector; proposing to spend public funds on subsidizing insurance companies who make money not providing health care. This process will insure only the expansion of profits. Gone is the debate over cost.

 

As a result of current negotiations, the Medicare Part D rip-off will continue for another decade, further fleecing senior citizens. Drug importation has been dropped, so no inexpensive drugs can be accessed from other nations.

 

Instead we are told the pharmaceutical companies will accept a 2% cut in the growth rate of their profits - they call this cost control!

 

If the matter were not so serious, it would be farcical: The executive branch pretends that the proposed health care reforms are something they are not. The legislation is being attacked for something it is not. Congressional leadership and the White House defend the legislation, pretending it actually is the very proposal that is being attacked. But it is not.

 

A commonsense government health care reform policy would insure that every single American has full access to health care by expanding Medicare to cover everyone under a Single Payer System. We are already paying for a universal standard of care, it is just we are not getting it.

 

I need your help to spread the word and rally the nation around true health care reform which covers everyone and maintains fiscal integrity without subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies and breaking our nation's bank!

 

My voice in Congress will continue to challenge the special interests who do not want "single-payer" to succeed. I need you to join me in combating the special and corporate interests who spend millions to try to win this Congressional seat. With your help WE will win again. With your help I will continue to represent your concerns, be YOUR VOICE in the United States Congress, and be the voice for health care for all Americans!

 

With your help, we can accomplish ANYTHING in America. Persistence, dedication, truth and courage will lead the way and win out in the end.

[Guest LAW]

August 18, 2009

 

PRESS BRIEFING BY

PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

 

Q What's been the response so far to the suggestion that the health care reform might not include a public option? I mean, is it winning any converts? Is it angering supporters?

 

MR. GIBBS: First part of the question again?

 

Q What's been the response so far, what kind of feedback to the suggestion in recent days that a public option might not be part of the health care reform?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, as I've said, now, yesterday and earlier today, the President -- his position, the administration's position is unchanged; that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The President prefers the public option as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the President has said for months. Coincidentally that's what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has said for months. It's what I've said for months. I think the suggestion somehow that anything that was said Saturday or Sunday as being new administration policy is just not something that I would agree with.

 

Q There seems to have been a lot of people -- a lot of people took it as kind of floating a trial balloon, maybe looking for --

 

MR. GIBBS: Meaning the media.

 

Q Well, no, your supporters -- some of your supporters in Congress actually do read it as a change. And in fact, Robert, if you look at what the President said to the AMA on June 15th, he said, "The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend." He's not saying that anymore.

 

MR. GIBBS: What do you mean?

 

Q He's no longer proactively -- forgetting about what he's leaving in or out. Let's just say he's proactively saying --

 

MR. GIBBS: Ed, you --

 

Q Can I finish my question?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, I'll finish my answer first.

 

Q Okay, go ahead.

 

MR. GIBBS: The President was clear in two questions that he received at the town hall meeting on Saturday about the public option. The second question, which was a man in a red shirt over on the right-hand side, asked about the public option, and then the second-to-last question, the guy -- about the debate -- in the second or third row right off the podium, had the same question.

 

Let me read this to you, Ed. This is -- you'll notice -- let me just read -- Secretary Sebelius, July 12th, 2009: "I think you're going to hear from senators in a little while about a variety of strategies to get to a public option. This isn't one size fits all. I think the President has said we could have competition -- the issues of competition and choice and how to bring that into the private marketplace. There are probably a variety of strategies, all of which are on the table." Any guess on what network that was on?

 

Q I'm assuming it was on CNN, but on Sunday she was also on CNN --

 

MR. GIBBS: A very correct assumption.

 

Q Okay. So on Sunday she was also on CNN and said that the public option is not the essential part of health reform. She didn't say that on July 12th or whenever you picked that out. And in -- on June 15th to the AMA, repeatedly the President proactively said, you know, the public option was the way to go, and said the public --

 

MR. GIBBS: I just said it was the preferred option. I just said it was the preferred option. But what I think --

 

Q But then why did he on Saturday say, if there is a public option or there's not, and then the Secretary on Sunday says it's not the essential part --

 

MR. GIBBS: No, no, the President said that on Saturday.

 

Q Right, I said on Saturday, he said if there is one or not one -- he hasn't said that before. Well, answer that one part before you get -- he had not said if there is one or there is not one. He's not said that --

 

MR. GIBBS: The President said -- the President has said repeatedly that he's open to different ideas and discussions; that his preferred option was the public plan. He said that on Saturday. He said that on -- he said that on Saturday. I said that on Sunday. Secretary Sebelius on your network said that on Sunday. This notion that somehow something is markedly changed -- let's understand, first of all -- I want to step back just for one second and discuss -- because we threw around the notions of choice and competition. Let's discuss why you need choice and competition.

 

In an insurance market where 30 million or 40 million or 46 million new participants or consumers could come into the marketplace, in a marketplace that's potentially dominated by, in some regions or areas of the country, one insurer dominating the market -- my home state of Alabama, BlueCross/BlueShield has roughly 89 percent of the private health insurance market, okay? We all understand that in a monopoly, where one side dominates the entire market, it's going to be hard to keep down costs, right? If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap?

 

Q Probably not.

 

MR. GIBBS: Probably not. If you had two places to eat, my sense is competing dishes might not be as expensive as if there were only one.

 

The notion of adding that consumer choice through greater competition is the goal that the President has always said has to be paramount. When he talks about the essentialness of health care reform, okay, let's understand the principles that he's put up there, right? We have to cut costs for families and small businesses. That's essential. It has to be deficit-neutral. That's essential. What's essential is ensuring that we provide accessibility in health care reform to millions of those who don't currently have it.

 

Q So when you say a public option is now the President's preferred choice, has been and is his preferred choice, is it --

 

MR. GIBBS: I'm not just saying that now, I'm saying --

 

Q Okay.

 

MR. GIBBS: -- I said that repeatedly; the President has said that repeatedly.

 

Q Okay, so is the public option an essential part of health reform?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think the President answered that on Saturday.

 

Q So it's yes. So why did --

 

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no.

 

Q Why did the Health Secretary say no on Sunday?

 

MR. GIBBS: What did the President say on Saturday?

 

Q So it is essential.

 

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. What did the President --

 

Q It is essential. The Secretary said Sunday it's not.

 

MR. GIBBS: Ed, Ed, what did the President say on Sunday? Or Saturday?

 

Q Saturday he spoke positively about a public option but also said we could have or -- we may have it, we may not have it.

 

MR. GIBBS: I think he used the word "essential."

 

Q I'll have to go back and see if he used the word "essential."

 

MR. GIBBS: You go back and look at the transcript --

 

Q So let's say, let's say -- I don't have the transcript, but if he did use the word "essential" on Saturday, why did his Health Secretary not use the word "essential" on Sunday?

 

MR. GIBBS: They said the same thing on Saturday as they did on Sunday. Go back and look at the transcript, Ed. I think you'll find --

 

Q If it's essential, why did she say it's not? You can't answer that.

 

MR. GIBBS: Go find the transcript, and I promise you you'll answer your question and wonder why you were phrasing it the way you did because, no offense, Ed, you seem to have heard what the Secretary said on Sunday but not what the President said on Saturday.

 

Q I heard what he said.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, go back and take a gander at the transcript.

 

Q Understanding that the President believes the public option is the best way to force private insurance companies to bring down their prices, is the White House -- does the -- is the President convinced that co-ops, while not as strong a measure, would be able -- are a viable alternative to the public option, is he convinced that cost savings could come from co-ops?

 

MR. GIBBS: Jake, in all honesty, I don't think anybody has seen a level of detail thus far that would -- that you'd be able to make a completely educated assumption on what we've seen.

 

Q Conrad said on Sunday that the votes are not there in the Senate for the public option. Do you guys agree?

 

MR. GIBBS: I’d have to talk to Leg Affairs on that. I think that's simply what -- that's what a lot of people have said.

Q Right, but you guys count votes and you guys are involved in --

 

MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked to them recently about the exact vote count.

 

Q Okay. There's also a thing I wanted to read you. In a letter sent last week to the White House from the National Association of Postal Supervisors, the President of that union, Ted Keating, said that his union had a "collective disappointment that you -- meaning the President -- showed the postal service as a scapegoat and an example of inefficiency." Does the President -- has the President seen that letter? Has he responded? Does he regret using the post office as an example of inefficiency?

 

MR. GIBBS: I doubt he's seen that letter and I don't have any reason to believe he regrets it, since he repeated it.

 

[Guest PhRMA]

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Senior Vice President Ken Johnson today reiterated PhRMA’s commitment to health care reform:

 

“We have been working diligently for more than a year to advance bipartisan health care reform. We’re proud of those efforts, and they are completely consistent with our core principals, reflecting a fundamental belief that every single American should have access to high-quality, affordable health care coverage and services.

 

“In the end, we believe our companies’ shared goal will benefit patients, the economy and the future of America by fostering continued medical progress that could lead to new cures for debilitating and often times deadly diseases. Saving money during these difficult economic times is very important, as demonstrated by our $80 billion commitment to health care reform. But you simply can’t put a price tag on our commitment to saving lives.

 

“Health care reform, if done right, will be a substantial step toward expanding coverage to millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans and changing the course of health care in the U.S. toward real prevention and disease management, rather than just damage control. If we can help patients avoid expensive hospitalizations and unnecessary trips to the emergency room, it can lead to significant savings to the U.S. health care system in the long run.

 

“Millions of Americans suffer from largely preventable chronic disease – such as diabetes and heart disease. Chronic disease is a leading cause of death and a key health care cost driver in our country. The Milken Institute has estimated that lost workdays and lower employee productivity due to chronic disease results in an annual economic loss in the U.S. of more than $1 trillion, according to the latest figures available. If we are going to bend the curve – and bring rising health care costs under control – then it is time to get serious about addressing the chronic disease epidemic in America.”

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, which are devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. PhRMA companies are leading the way in the search for new cures. PhRMA members alone invested an estimated $50.3 billion in 2008 in discovering and developing new medicines. Industry-wide research and investment reached a record $65.2 billion in 2008.

 

PhRMA Internet Address: http://www.phrma.org

 

For information on stories of hope and survival, visit: http://sharingmiracles.com/

[Guest PhRMA]

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Senior Vice President Ken Johnson released the following statement after the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up of the House Tri-Committee bill:

 

“PhRMA remains committed to working with the Administration and Congress to help enact comprehensive health care reform this year. Our policy agreement with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, which provides $80 billion in meaningful cost-savings over 10 years, clearly demonstrates that commitment. We share the same goal of helping ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health care coverage and services.

 

“We applaud members on the House Energy & Commerce Committee for passing a bipartisan biosimilars amendment that strikes an appropriate balance between the desire for enhanced competition and preserving incentives for innovation. Such incentives are vital for ensuring continued development of biologics that patients with complex diseases rely on today and will help to provide cures in the future. Recently, the Senate HELP Committee also agreed overwhelmingly to support this important provision.

 

“Unfortunately, the totality of the efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives, while well-intentioned, represents a step in the wrong direction in the health care reform debate.

 

“PhRMA opposes the House Tri-Committee bill because it undercuts the main goal of health care reform which is to help all Americans access needed healthcare coverage and services. The bill would effectively act as a tax increase by raising premiums for seniors in the popular Medicare prescription drug program, severely restrict patient access and choice and hurt an innovative sector that currently employs hundreds of thousands of workers. The result could mean significant job losses in the middle of a recession. In addition, the legislation allows broad override of protections for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries by unelected officials, with no chance for review.

 

“Under the House bill, we’re concerned that the federal government will wind up rationing health care and dictating what medicines doctors can prescribe to their patients. This may well prevent patients from gaining access to the critically important medicines they need to fight diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

 

“What’s more, even the Congressional Budget Office has said that government negotiation of Medicare Part D prices would save little, if any, money.

 

“While we will continue to work toward supporting comprehensive health care reform, we will vigorously oppose legislation that hurts patients and the American economy.”

[Guest Truthseeker]

Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post obtained from a health care lobbyist a July 7 memorandum that listed what PhRMA had agreed to and what it was getting in return.

 

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

 

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

 

See memo:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

[Guest Cartman]

The Obama administration made a deal with former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.

 

For 15 years, Tauzin was one of the more conservative Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994 elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

 

However, on August 8, 1995 Tauzin himself became a Republican, claiming that conservatives were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. He soon became a Deputy majority whip, becoming the first Congressman to have been part of the leadership of both parties in the House.

 

Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill through Congress, which had been criticized by opponents for being too generous to the pharmaceutical industry.

 

This link was explored at great length in an April 1, 2007 interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The report, Under the Influence, pitted Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton against Tauzin and accused him of using unethical tactics to push a bill that "the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote". Their claim is supported by CSPAN video, the fact that it was the longest roll call in the history of the House of Representatives, and the 3 a.m. voting time. Along with Tauzin, many of the other individuals who worked on the bill are now lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group.

 

http://www.opinionjo...y/?id=110004664

[Guest LAW]

Here is the actual memo you are talking about:

 

August 17, 2009

 

The Honorable Billy Tauzin

PhRMA

 

950 F Street NW, Suite 300

 

Washington, DC 20004

 

Dear Billy,

 

Appeasement rarely works as a conflict resolution strategy. This is as true in the arena of policymaking as it is in schoolyards across America. When a bully asks for your lunch money, you may have no choice but to fork it over. But cutting a deal with the bully is a different story, particularly if the "deal" means helping him steal others' money as the price of protecting your own.

 

The simple truth is, two wrongs don't make a right. And the short-sighted health care deal PhRMA struck with the Obama Administration at your urging provides confirmation of this time-tested maxim on an epic and tragic scale.

 

The "bully" in this case is Big Government. At your behest, PhRMA has chosen to accommodate a Washington takeover of health care at the expense of the American people in hopes of securing favorable treatment and future profits. It's a short-sighted bargain that leaves your own customers and employees behind. And it now has all the markings of a deal gone sour.

 

The Obama Administration tacitly acknowledged last week that the President will not be bound by the $80 billion limit PhRMA and its board of directors were led to believe had been secured in exchange for your organization's support of the Administration's health care takeover, and key Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), have said explicitly they will not honor the agreement. In other words, now that the deal is publicly known and would be messy for you to reverse, Big Government is changing the terms. . .because it can. Consequently, the jobs of PhRMA workers are no more secure than they were before, the threat to PhRMA's groundbreaking medical research remains, and the American people - including PhRMA's customers and the families of PhRMA employees - face the prospect of higher costs and reduced quality in health care.

 

You will inevitably object to this letter and quarrel with its premise. You'll no doubt argue PhRMA has publicly opposed the version of the bill backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But the simple press release your organization issued objecting to the House bill is dwarfed by the $150 million advertising campaign your organization has launched in support of ObamaCare with the assistance of well-funded political organizations on the Left.

 

PhRMA would do well to halt this short-sighted, misguided campaign and listen to the American people, rather than continue to collaborate on an effort to spin them.

 

Republicans across the nation have listened, and here's what we've learned: Americans are frustrated with their government in Washington and skeptical of those who run it. They want health care reform that lowers costs and increases choice - not government-run health care that increases costs and limits options. They want legislation that helps families and small businesses with their problems, not legislation that adds to their problems while empowering an elite few. They're worried about the debt being piled on our children and grandchildren, and they want the spending and borrowing spree in Washington to stop. They want policies that support job creation and protect freedom, not bills that force responsible citizens to subsidize bad behavior from those who insist on being irresponsible.

 

The millions of American families who are PhRMA customers and the hard-working professionals who work for PhRMA companies deserve better than the government takeover of health care being forced upon them. I urge you to rethink your organization's stance, listen to the American people, and join the call for responsible bipartisan health care solutions that truly reflect their priorities.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John Boehner

 

 

[Guest Brendan Buck]

I think the co-op is a good idea and has both the White House and Republican opponents of the President's health care reform in agreement

 

Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement regarding the inclusion of ill-defined co-ops in a health care reform package.

 

“Health care reform should start and end with empowering patients,” said Congressman Price. “We welcome any discussion of new ideas that will bring patients closer to the care they need without government getting in the way. A co-op by definition, however, does not include government control. The specifics of including a co-op are murky at best. Any Washington control over such a structure would raise immense concern. Patients should be wary of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A co-op that is simply another name for a public option, or government-run plan, will be rejected by the American people.

 

“Positive changes to our system will give patients greater control over the purchase and ownership of health care coverage. Any increased control given to Washington is control taken away from patients and their doctors. With the American people becoming increasingly engaged in the debate, we have a great opportunity to move health care reform in the direction of those most intimately affected by the legislation: patients. Given time to do this right, I am confident we can achieve positive, patient-centered health care reform.”

[Guest Cahn]

This is getting out of control. Demonstrators are coming armed with weapons at public meetings.

 

[Guest Sheri]

Conservatives are just dragging this country down into it's grave.... I'm so sad.

[Guest Donna]

It is sickening the way the media is framing this whole Health Care debate. They show only these nutjobs for two weeks screaming and yelling and lying on camera with little or no challenge and then run out and take a poll to see where the public stands on all of this. What an absolute farce this is.

[Guest Time Flies]

The Obama administration made a deal with former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.

 

For 15 years, Tauzin was one of the more conservative Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994 elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

 

However, on August 8, 1995 Tauzin himself became a Republican, claiming that conservatives were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. He soon became a Deputy majority whip, becoming the first Congressman to have been part of the leadership of both parties in the House.

 

Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill through Congress, which had been criticized by opponents for being too generous to the pharmaceutical industry.

 

This link was explored at great length in an April 1, 2007 interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The report, Under the Influence, pitted Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton against Tauzin and accused him of using unethical tactics to push a bill that "the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote". Their claim is supported by CSPAN video, the fact that it was the longest roll call in the history of the House of Representatives, and the 3 a.m. voting time. Along with Tauzin, many of the other individuals who worked on the bill are now lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group.

 

http://www.opinionjo...y/?id=110004664

 

Cartman, Why would Republicans attack a deal that Republicans made with Obama?

[Guest Fargonut]

Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement regarding the inclusion of ill-defined co-ops in a health care reform package.

 

"Health care reform should start and end with empowering patients," said Congressman Price. "We welcome any discussion of new ideas that will bring patients closer to the care they need without government getting in the way. A co-op by definition, however, does not include government control. The specifics of including a co-op are murky at best. Any Washington control over such a structure would raise immense concern. Patients should be wary of a wolf in sheep's clothing. A co-op that is simply another name for a public option, or government-run plan, will be rejected by the American people.

 

"Positive changes to our system will give patients greater control over the purchase and ownership of health care coverage. Any increased control given to Washington is control taken away from patients and their doctors. With the American people becoming increasingly engaged in the debate, we have a great opportunity to move health care reform in the direction of those most intimately affected by the legislation: patients. Given time to do this right, I am confident we can achieve positive, patient-centered health care reform."

 

You are right. This is a fantastic plan that everyone should accept. Senator Conrad has been pushing co-op legislation for months.

 

Conrad Outlines Plan to Rein In Health Care Costs

Senator Hears from Slope County Leadership on Need for Health Care Reform

 

Amidon – Senator Kent Conrad met today with leaders from across Slope County for the latest in his series of statewide, health care-based listening sessions. Senator Conrad is advocating health care reform legislation based on three principles: choice, value and coverage.

 

"With the cost of health care spiraling out of control and swamping the budgets of North Dakota's families, it is clear that America's health care system needs serious reform," Senator Conrad said. "I am working to pass reform that reins in skyrocketing health care costs, expands coverage, and improves quality for all North Dakotans."

 

Senator Conrad made his remarks at a gathering that included health care professionals, small business owners, and Slope County community leaders.

 

The Senator is spearheading a bipartisan group of six senators – three Democrats and three Republicans – charged with developing a compromise health care plan to cover more Americans while curbing the skyrocketing expense to America's families.

 

At today's meeting, Senator Conrad warned that without significant reform, Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years. More than 105,000 North Dakotans currently receive Medicare benefits.

 

Additionally, the cost of health insurance in North Dakota is increasing three times faster than wages. By 2016, it's projected that families will spend $20,000 a year on health care – or 41 percent of their income.

 

The Senator also noted that the United States is spending twice as much as any other industrialized nation to care for its sick, without significantly better outcomes. Studies show that nearly one in three dollars spent on health care is being wasted.

 

"We need to improve quality and contain costs. And we must provide health care coverage to more families," Senator Conrad said. "We need to focus like a laser on making our system more efficient."

 

Senator Conrad outlined a bipartisan, compromise health care reform proposal modeled after the co-ops common in North Dakota. The Senator's plan would create private, consumer-owned, non-profit cooperatives that would provide an additional choice to help families, individuals and small businesses afford quality health care.

 

Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a Senior Member of the Senate Finance Committee.