Today, Romney tries to remove his RomneyCare weakness
Yesterday it was Newt Gingrich; today, the political spotlight turns to another Republican vying for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination, Mitt Romney. And the spotlight is particularly bright because Romney today is making a two-pronged effort to attack the central weakness in his candidacy: health care.
It’s a weakness because, as just about everyone knows by now, Romney as governor of Massachusetts pushed for and signed into law a health reform that’s similar in many ways to the one President Obama pushed for and signed into law. ObamaCare has been such an animating concern on the right that RomneyCare is a huge, maybe insurmountable, obstacle for Romney.
Unless, of course, Romney can explain satisfactorily why his plan for Massachusetts was not only substantively but philosophically different from Obama’s plan for the whole country (or, I suppose, unless the rest of the GOP field is so weak as to not be able to take advantage of this weakness in Romney’s candidacy). Which brings us to that two-pronged effort.
First is an op-ed in USA Today in which Romney pledges, if elected, to “issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”
In its place, Romney offers five steps which he describes as “based on the same philosophical tenets as the reforms I offered during my last presidential campaign in 2008, [namely to] return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today’s economy.”
Read the whole thing for a fuller explanation of those five steps. But — spoiler alert! — the closest he comes to drawing a distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare comes under Step 1, which relates to empowering states to find their own ways to take care of “citizens who are poor, uninsured or chronically ill”:
This reform speaks to the central advantage of our federalist system — that different states will experiment with and settle on the solutions that suit their residents best. Some states might pass a plan like the one we did in Massachusetts, while others will choose an altogether different route.
The federalism argument is a potentially powerful one, although it does leave open questions about why Gov. Romney favored an Obama-like approach for Massachusetts; the early returns, as represented by today’s hard-hitting, critical editorial in The Wall Street Journal, suggest he hasn’t answered those questions very well to date. And even if Romney had answered those questions, his federalism argument, at least as it’s made in Romney’s op-ed, is not made very powerfully.
For that, look to Romney’s 2 p.m. speech at the University of Michigan. But this preview of the speech, by a Romney aide quoted at National Review Online, doesn’t inspire much confidence in me that the speech will differ appreciably from the op-ed as far as making RomneyCare more palatable to GOP voters.
An old political saw holds that if you’re explaining, you’re losing. A corollary might be that if you’re doing your best to avoid explaining, you’re losing even worse.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
maude
May 12th, 2011
9:57 am
like he’s lancing a furuncle boil.
Moderate Line
May 12th, 2011
9:59 am
There are times who the parties pick there is no affect on the outcome of the election. In 2008 the Democrats were going to win no matter what. In 2012 I don’t expect a similiar situation. Obama is beatable but not a pushover. The Republicans chances will increase or decrease based on the canidate appeal to moderate. The Republicans may make the same mistake the Dems made in 2004 when they were over confident and believe they Bush was weak. Unless the economy starts tanking I don’t think the Rep will defeat Obama easily.
From the polls it is obvious who the Rep pick will matter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Don't Tread
May 12th, 2011
10:07 am
I suppose government mandated anything is great as long as the state government is the one doing it.
This tends to validate my reasons why I didn’t vote for lim the last time.
Don't Tread
May 12th, 2011
10:08 am
er that should be “him”
Metro Coach
May 12th, 2011
10:33 am
His assertion that “its the states’ job to experiment” is correct. Not sure if he said that in the article you quoted, but it was in another piece last week. However, the general idea of his healthcare experiment does not compute with conservative ideals. Not excited about any candidate as of yet. I like Herman Cain, and would be very interested to see how the African American community would react to the Cain/Obama match up, but I don’t believe Cain can win the primary. Weak field so far.
jt
May 12th, 2011
10:35 am
The R versus D charade grows tiresome.
For the benefit of all “special educated”(government schooled) Americans,
the parties should be OFFICIALLY merged.
This will facilitate more efficient division of the nation’s wealth amongst the gang of 525.
And everyone should just get over their silly aversion to slavery…………….it is for the collective good.
Tall
May 12th, 2011
10:37 am
“An old political saw holds that if you’re explaining, you’re losing. A corollary might be that if you’re doing your best to avoid explaining, you’re losing even worse.”
Mr. Wingfield:
Good commentary. Your last passage sums up your column very well. Romney won’t last long in the primaries.
Jack
May 12th, 2011
10:52 am
Romney’s providing grist for all the local columnists today. Newt gets a day off.
JP
May 12th, 2011
11:05 am
Kyle – is there any even-handed analysis of RomneyCare out there? Was it a complete disaster? What are the metrics around it?
Ayn Rant
May 12th, 2011
11:14 am
Romney is a millionaire and a crafty politician by inheritance, and a Republican and a hypocrite by instinct. He’ll tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to know. Don’t trust him!
He raises the “states rights” bull as a defense against his faux pas of supporting universal health care for Massachusetts even before the federal government got around to doing it for the whole country.
Health care is a basic human need. Why do poor people in prosperous, enlightened states like Massachusetts deserve health care, but poor people in poor, ignorant southern states don’t?
What’s the sense of different laws for different states? Americans move around from state-to-state, and many American families span several states. Why would an Iowan behave differently if he were in Kansas or Nebraska, or an Alabaman if he were in Mississippi or South Carolina.
States are anachronisms. State boundaries are inappropriate for administrative purposes: what the sense of having one state the size of Rhode Island and another the size of Alaska? What’s the sense of having one state with a population of 35 million (California) and another with less than ¾ million (Alaska)? What’s the sense of 50 comical state legislatures when we have a more powerful, slightly less corrupt, Federal Congress to watch?
brad
May 12th, 2011
11:20 am
JP, we can’t let facts get in the way of emotional talking points.
Mitt Romney Tries to Move Beyond Health Reform Past – ABC News (blog) | Health Insurance News
May 12th, 2011
11:22 am
[...] GlobeThe Caucus: Romney Confronts Health CareNew York Times (blog)Christian Science Monitor -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -The Associated Pressall 645 news articles [...]
Birdz of a Feather
May 12th, 2011
11:29 am
Jump off a bridge, Romney!
You and Barack Osama deserve one another.
RON PAUL 2012 !
carlosgvv
May 12th, 2011
11:54 am
Ayn Rant – “healthcare is a basic human need”
Actually, the big healthcare insurers see it somewhat differently. Healthcare is only for those who can pay hefty premiums for shoddy coverage and watch those premiums go up 10 to 12% every year. And, doing their part to keep the politicians covered in cash insures this will not ever change.
Bart Abel
May 12th, 2011
11:57 am
Romney isn’t the only one who was for federal health insurance mandates and subsidies for the poor before he was against them. Among others, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and the Heritage Foundation advocated on behalf of this approach to health care reform.
In fact, health insurance mandates were a Republican idea. Republicans supported them until the day Obama embraced them. Then, they suddenly became “unconstitutional”, “socialism”, an assault on freedom, and all the rest.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
12:01 pm
Health insurance does not equal health care. The health care bill did not mandate doctors work 24/7.
The changes to health care in Massachusetts since state-wide health care was passed include:
*many doctors don’t accept Mass Health (Medicaid), Commonwealth Care nor Commonwealth Choice,
*there is a serious primary care physician shortage,
*doctors are strained,
*over half of primary care physicians aren’t taking new patients, especially those with low reimbursement plans,
*the average wait time has increased to 7 weeks for non-emergency internal medical appts.
*the average wait time has increased to 24 days for pediatricians,
*ER visits have remained high.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-usa-massachusetts-healthcare-idUSTRE74808920110509
John
May 12th, 2011
12:15 pm
“the closest he comes to drawing a distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare comes under Step 1, which relates to empowering states to find their own ways to take care of “citizens who are poor, uninsured or chronically ill”:”
Kyle, this whole argument is false. If you recall, in late February or early March, President Obama challenged governors who oppose his health care reforms to come up with a better alternative. He has agreed to move up the date at which states can offer their own solutions and thus opt out of requirements that they oppose, like the mandate that everyone buy health insurance and that most employers provide it. As long as a state’s plan covers as many people as the federal law does, provide insurance that is as comprehensive and affordable, and not increase the deficit.
How many states have you heard taking him up on his challenge? If the states have better ideas, where are their plans?
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 12th, 2011
12:43 pm
Your Idiot Messiah won’t be able to do what he challenged the states to do, either–give parasites free healthcare while at the same time lowering costs and increasing coverage requirements, so it is a bogus challenge. If you believe Obozocare will work as promised, then you are a complete moron and a chump.
jose
May 12th, 2011
12:47 pm
idiot messiah? Why must you blasphemy the son of God? Praise Jesus. Amen.
jconservative
May 12th, 2011
12:49 pm
“…improve access by slowing health care cost increases…”
The smell of more “big government” is in the air.
Since his 2003 election as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney has beem identified in the national press as “the Liberal Republican Governor of Massachusetts”.
You are who you are.
Sick of it
May 12th, 2011
12:52 pm
So we can subsidies oil companies making tens of billions in profits, we can let the richest of the rich pay as little in taxes as they can, yet we cannot figure out how to help the middle class and the poor afford health care. Greatest nation on earth?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
1:01 pm
Sick@12:52, Who in this country does not have health care?
Lt Dan
May 12th, 2011
1:08 pm
The top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay 40% of the Federal tax revenues, further, the top 10% of the wage earners pay about 75% of the Federal tax, and finally, the top 50% of wage earners pay for close to 97.5% of the Federal taxes.
How much more should the “rich” pay?
How about we cut government spending to what is actually needed (I’m okay with the Departments of Defense, Justice, and the Interior) and scrap the rest?
And finally, to really p.o. some people: there is no right to health care. Health care is a product, and our system of law gives no party a right to another person’s property without their consent (ie, an exchange of consideration between parties).
I agree with Clark Howard: government should stay out of health care and the free market given the opportunity to work.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
1:11 pm
If health care insurance worked the same way as auto insurance & hazard insurance, all problems would be solved.
CobbGOPer
May 12th, 2011
1:16 pm
I don’t vote for Mormons. It’s bad enough when all I have to vote for are half (or full)-fundie conservatives.
CobbGOPer
May 12th, 2011
1:17 pm
And can we please get a more effective “Draft Mitch Daniels” campaign going? He needs to [expletive deleted] or get off the pot.
/I’d vote for him
John
May 12th, 2011
1:23 pm
Linda@12:01, did you read the article you posted in it’s entirety? Especially what Alice Coombs, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society and an emergency room physician had to say.
“Coombs said that despite its problems, Massachusetts has done “an incredible job” with healthcare. Issues such as a shortage of doctors in poorer communities are not unique to the state, she noted.”
While you tried to make the argument with bullet points saying “The changes to health care in Massachusetts since state-wide health care was passed include:” if you read the article, you will find this is happening all across mcuh country, not as a result of RomneyCare. As the article states…
‘”It’s a success in terms of the number of patients who have seen a doctor in the past few years, but the physician workforce has been strained,” Coombs said.
Massachusetts, like much of the nation, has a severe shortage of doctors in primary care — internists and family physicians — because those fields are less lucrative.
“We need more doctors in primary care. There’s no getting around that fact,” said Coombs.’
dred
May 12th, 2011
1:24 pm
If all true-believin’, gawd fearing christians would put their healthcare in the good hands of the lord and stop sucking on the govt. teet there wouldn’t be a need for medicare/medicaid.
John
May 12th, 2011
1:36 pm
Lt Dan,
“The top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay 40% of the Federal tax revenues, further, the top 10% of the wage earners pay about 75% of the Federal tax, and finally, the top 50% of wage earners pay for close to 97.5% of the Federal taxes.
How much more should the “rich” pay?”
In 2007 (which we know the divide between the wealthy and poor has increased since then) the top 1% owned 42.7% of all the wealth in this country, the next 19% owned 50.3% putting the top 20% owning 93% of all the wealth in this country. The bottom 80% owned only 7% of the wealth.
Do you think it’s fair that the top 20% who own 93% of all the wealth only pay 75% of the taxes leaving the bottom 80% who owns only 7% of the wealth to pay 25% of all taxes?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
1:38 pm
John@1:23, I cited a site & gave a summary. If you disagree with any points in the article, I suggest you contact Reuters, the author of the article or any of the experts quoted. I would not have been able to make the last point had I not read the entire article. I encourage anyone to read the article or any of the other ones that cover the most recent annual Physician Workforce survey of MMS members.
yuzeyurbrane
May 12th, 2011
1:50 pm
I agree with Kyle that this is an albatross on his back as far as getting Republication nomination. His 50 state waiver proposal is unworkable if the goal is providing quality affordable healthcare for all Americans and is contradictory to his portability proposal. The biggest trick of all, if he still gets the nomination, would be to switch gears and point to his Mass. plan as a substantial success which, despite a few flaws that are being corrected, it has been.
FairTax is a Scam
May 12th, 2011
1:53 pm
The idle rich don’t need Medicare or health care reform, they are already rich. The system is not broken; a few simple changes would end all the funding problems.
Means testing would stop millionaires and billionaires from getting a check every month.
Lifting the cap so the rich could start paying their fair share would end funding problems.
From the IRS Annual Report last week:
1% of millionaires pay no federal income tax.
18,000 households making more than $500,000 – pay no federal income tax.
4,000 made more than $1 million but pay no federal income tax.
But some numbskulls want to add 20-30% sales tax to everything we buy???
amy
May 12th, 2011
1:54 pm
Yes Dred,
Because the lord can stop a heart attack. I hope you are making fun of the crazies.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
May 12th, 2011
1:55 pm
Since laughter is the best medicine, the GOP healthcare proposal foresees every citizen receiving a George Carlin or Bill Cosby CD.
John
May 12th, 2011
1:56 pm
Linda@1:36, I didn’t disagree with the points in the article…so there is no need for me to contact Reuters, the author of any of the experts quoted. You would realize that if you read my comments. What I said is the article does not say all these things are a result of RomneyCare, which you did. As the article points out, shortage of primary care physicians are all across the nation. The article does not make the connection that you tried to make. It does say; however (which you conveniently left out), that RomneyCare is “a success in terms of the number of patients who have seen a doctor in the past few years”.
reebok
May 12th, 2011
2:15 pm
Romney needs to find an excuse to drop out. Getting crushed by Prez Obama next year will taint him badly for 2016. Step aside now, let Pawlenty or Newt take the 2012 butt-kicking, and Romney can cruise to the nomination in ‘16. And the Dems have no one on deck after Obama…Romney would likely roll to the Presidency.
ragnar danneskjold
May 12th, 2011
2:16 pm
Good afternoon all. The WSJ editorial is phrased entirely in the past tense. I perceive the conservative thinkers have now written-off Mr. Romney, due to RomneyCare. As the Journal suggested, a clean apology six months ago could have wiped the slate clean. The failure to acknowledge the core defect in RomneyCare suggests a limitation of his capacity, and worse his fidelity to all things-Romney. Such a harsh allegation suggests Romney is no different from Chauncey. Why would the voters vote for “same direction, less speed?”
John
May 12th, 2011
2:17 pm
Linda, case in point. Your claim…”The changes to health care in Massachusetts since state-wide health care was passed include: *the average wait time has increased to 7 weeks for non-emergency internal medical appts.” What has it increased from?
What the article says is “Long wait times are common — almost seven weeks, on average, for a non-emergency appointment for internal medicine. ” It doesn’t say anything about the average wait time increasing.
Actually, that’s a better wait time than what I have. I have insurance, have had the same primary care physician for several years and called 2 weeks ago to schedule a routine physical. Initially I was told it would probably be fall before I could be seen. After checking the schedule, she was able to make the appointment in July…a 12 week wait time. I think 7 week wait time it better than 12, don’t you?
Dr. Kildare
May 12th, 2011
2:26 pm
The shortage of Primary Care physicians is caused by the restrictions imposed on the doctors by Managed Care. This also includes slow reimbursement patterns. Add to that the fact that Primary Care physicians only average $150 – $200 K a year.
So, put the blame where it’s due.
Lt Dan
May 12th, 2011
2:42 pm
RE: Do you think it’s fair that the top 20% who own 93% of all the wealth only pay 75% of the taxes leaving the bottom 80% who owns only 7% of the wealth to pay 25% of all taxes?
Answer: Yes.
But then, what is “fair” and who decides that?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
2:43 pm
John@1:56, No, I did not even mention RomneyCare. I cited what the article covered.
The only personal opinion I made was in the first sentence, “Health insurance does not equal health care.” You agree that there is a shortage of primary care physicians across the country. Having health insurance does not guarantee that patients will be able to see a doctor when they are sick. They end up in the ER.
daisy fuentes
May 12th, 2011
2:50 pm
jesus is my co-pilot and my gate-keeper (primary care physician).
David Granger
May 12th, 2011
2:53 pm
The very BEST thing that Mitt Romney can say is to point out that…yes, under his governorship, Massachusetts TRIED a state version of Obamacare. It has been a failure, and the state is going broke.
John
May 12th, 2011
2:59 pm
Linda@2:43, “No, I did not even mention RomneyCare. ” What were you referring to when you stated “The changes to health care in Massachusetts since state-wide health care was passed include”? Massachusetts’ state-wide health care is RomneyCare.
John
May 12th, 2011
3:11 pm
Linda@2:43, The only personal opinion I made was in the first sentence, “Health insurance does not equal health care.”
I agree with that statement about “personal opinion” but you tried to make up facts when you stated (misstated from the article) ”The changes to health care in Massachusetts since state-wide health care was passed include: *the average wait time has increased to 7 weeks for non-emergency internal medical appts.”. If I’m incorrect, which paragraph in the article does it state wait times have increased to 7 weeks for non-emergency internal medical appts SINCE the state-wide health care law was passed?
Cobbian
May 12th, 2011
3:19 pm
Well. It is for sure that what the Republicans have proposed will do nothing to reduce health care costs. Their proposals are based on the assumption that it is too expensive so people just need to go ahead and die.
We have played around with health insurance as the health care gate keeper for 50 years. It doesn’t work – costs are not rationalized, costs don’t go down, access is limited. Health care costs are one of the factors that have driven jobs overseas. All we do in promoting health insurance is guarantee the choke hold insurance has on the entire system. There is no economic relationship between users and providers of health care. The economic relationship of each is with the health insurer. The health insurer’s primary concern is not with the costs, it is concerned with the margin, the difference between what it receives in premiums and what it pays out to health care providers. The efficiency of health care delivery or services is not their concern – all they need is the margin between how much comes in and how much goes out.
We consider the provision of clean drinking water a governmental issue. So is a good sewage system. So is clean air. I remember when Atlanta had a low cloud of smog that used to rest on the city before the EPA started cleaning up the air. I think health care is another basic service, like clean water and clean air.
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
3:23 pm
@John,
“RE: Do you think it’s fair that the top 20% who own 93% of all the wealth only pay 75% of the taxes leaving the bottom 80% who owns only 7% of the wealth to pay 25% of all taxes?”
Taxes are primarily on income, not wealth, so your argument has no meaning. You and those like you have become entirely too comfortable with asking the government to seize other people’s property simply because they have more than you. The richer you are, the more you should pay, and the higher percentage you should pay. That is exactly what happens.
John
May 12th, 2011
3:35 pm
@Gordon
“Taxes are primarily on income, not wealth, so your argument has no meaning.”
And what do they do with their wealth…they invest it and produce move income. I’m sure you mean payroll income though. So how do some, such as Richard Fairbank CEO of Capital One Financial get around it…by earning no salary. In 2009, Mr. Fairbank earned a total compensation of $6,076,805, which included no base salary, no cash bonus, $2,000,019 in stock awards, $4,000,001 in option awards, and $76,785 in other compensation.
Road Scholar
May 12th, 2011
3:45 pm
CobbGOPer:”I don’t vote for Mormons. ‘
Yeah, do you vote for morons!
Lil Barry:” If you believe Obozocare will work as promised, then you are a complete moron and a chump.”
Does your health insurance pay for all the preparation H you must use? If not, you must be a perfect a$$hole!
Jim
May 12th, 2011
3:46 pm
As a businessman with little interest in social issues or other nonsense like birth certificates, Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels are the type of republican presidential candidates I would vote for.
I voted for President Obama against my better judgement because I really thought he could be a transformational leader this country so desperately needs. Instead, I got a traditional “tax and spend” democrat.
Oh well, shame on me. The republican base will never accept a presidential candidate such as Romney, Daniels or Gingrich (like the ideas, am certain he cares about as much about social issues as I do, don’t care about his infidelity but can’t stand his smug arrogance).
Probably a moot issue anyway as the President will probably easily beat any of the republicans who can win the nomination but will do so only by tilting so far to the right that it will scare away the swing votes in November.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
4:03 pm
John@3:11, Someone had asked if there was an “even-handed analysis of RomneyCare,” which was a great question. I was just trying to be helpful & add to the conversation. I made one personal comment. Otherwise, I simply summarized the article as written. If I meant to misquote the article, I would have never referenced it. I do not appreciate your accusing me of being misleading.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles on the internet about Mass. health care. The MMA survey is annual & statistics are compared each year. Why don’t you do your own research & decide for yourself? If you don’t like the article I highlighted, come up with one you like.
In Georgia, we don’t have to wait an average of 7 wks. for a non-emergency internal medicine appt. or 24 days for a pediatrician. Massachusetts evidently has major problems with its new health care program.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
4:18 pm
The health care bill had nothing to do with health, care or insurance. It had nothing to do with bringing down the costs. I said this before it was passed & am even more convinced of it now.
Even some of the Democrats were against it. Had some of them not been bribed or threatened, they would not have voted for it. Now, many of them who did are gone.
They were wrong that approval of it would grow over time. I don’t know of a time that 26 states were simultaneously suing the fed. govt. over a bill. It will destroy the best health care system in the world.
We can afford about HALF of the fed. govt. we are saddled with today, before Obamacare goes into effect. If we don’t CUT IT IN HALF, the US will not survive.
bill
May 12th, 2011
4:21 pm
why did you folks not “means test” when I was paying both sides (employer/employee) of SS? Now that I am retired y’all don’t want to pay me because I worked hard all my life and saved! Refund all I paid in less amount I have received and we will call it even! How ’bout that slick??
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:27 pm
Linda, I Just called me Doctor to see when is the soonest I could get in for a Physical…Mind you, I have had the same PCP for nearly 10 years, and pay upwards of 400.00 a month in healthcare premiums to United Healthcare…. Thursday June 16, 20011 is a soon as I can get in… Please don’t try to downplay the wait time and other issues under the current system…
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:30 pm
called My doctor not me Dr….( sorry about that)
MrLiberty
May 12th, 2011
4:33 pm
Ron Paul is a doctor, and he has ALWAYS supported a FREE MARKET solution to our health care problems. He is the only one clearly pointing out that it is the PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT IS DRIVING UP COSTS and destroying healthcare.
He also correctly points out that since government produces nothing, creates nothing, but must take from someone else everything it has, in order for it to support healthcare as a supposed RIGHT, government must violate someone else’s rights to pay for it, etc.
The free market delivers quality food at affordable prices (even with enormous government intrusion), as does every other resonably free market for goods and services. Technology is driving down prices everywhere except where government is intruding and destroying the marketplace and with 50% of all dollars being handed out by govenrment, it is clear where the real source of the problems lie with healthcare.
Only Ron Paul has the courage and principles to point that out and to keep fighting for a free market.
Romney is a clown and has always been one.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
4:36 pm
only average $150 – $200 K a year.
Not too shabby for day work.
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
4:37 pm
@John,
“And what do they do with their wealth…they invest it and produce move income. I’m sure you mean payroll income though. So how do some, such as Richard Fairbank CEO of Capital One Financial get around it…by earning no salary. In 2009, Mr. Fairbank earned a total compensation of $6,076,805, which included no base salary, no cash bonus, $2,000,019 in stock awards, $4,000,001 in option awards, and $76,785 in other compensation.”
One of the things being proposed, even by Republicans, is lowering the rates and removing loopholes like the one you describe. Raising tax rates won’t cause Mr. Fairbanks to pay more taxes (which we both agree he should), it is simplifying the rules which determine what his income actually is.
By the way, I don’t blame Mr. Fairbanks for LEGALLY avoiding taxes as much as possible, and I don’t resent him for making more money than I do.
Dr. Kildare
May 12th, 2011
4:43 pm
@Jefferson: It’s not for a day’s work and is acheived only after eight to ten years of education and huge college expenses. Compared to other professionals it’s not anything to write home about.
John
May 12th, 2011
4:51 pm
Linda@4:03, “Why don’t you do your own research & decide for yourself?”
I wasn’t the one trying to put out facts…you did. And you got it wrong. You put some bullet points that you said were the result of the state’s health care law and you referenced the article. As I stated, while the article stated some problems with healthcare, it was clear that the problems were not a result of the health care law. The article clearly stated some of these same problems are found throughout the nation, not just in Mass., which the law covers.
“In Georgia, we don’t have to wait an average of 7 wks. for a non-emergency internal medicine appt. or 24 days for a pediatrician. ”
Where did you get your statistics on this from? Or did you make this up as well? While I will admit, I don’t know the average wait time is, as I pointed out to you my physician has a longer wait time than 7 weeks.
Churchill's MOM.....Rand Paul for President
May 12th, 2011
4:51 pm
Other than the Pauls, I will not vote for this bunch of fools.
Gman
May 12th, 2011
4:52 pm
I’m a Republican and I wouldn’t vote for any of the pitiful GOP hopefuls that have declared so far. Not a single one of them can win because each one has a fundamental weakness in their appeal to the Christian-Right.
JP
May 12th, 2011
4:54 pm
For you history buffs, what version of the individual mandate were Repubs for back in the early 90’s? Was it a lof different than what is out today?
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:55 pm
“Compared to other professionals it’s not anything to write home about.”
I am sorry….But 150k to 200k a year put a person in the top 5% of earners in this country…When the median income in this country is slightly more than 25k.
Dr. Kildare…at least be honest in this forum….
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:02 pm
Pinful@4:21, I used to wait over 1 1/2 mts. to see my dermatologist since he was the best in the SE US (before he retired). Let’s compare apples. We know when it’s time to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that our prescriptions are not refillable. We are able to see him within a few days for these routine, non-emergency, not-even-sick appts. Complete physicals would probably take longer. I’m not trying to spin.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
5:03 pm
No its good money, that dog don’t hunt.
John
May 12th, 2011
5:04 pm
@Gordon,
“One of the things being proposed, even by Republicans, is lowering the rates and removing loopholes like the one you describe. Raising tax rates won’t cause Mr. Fairbanks to pay more taxes (which we both agree he should), it is simplifying the rules which determine what his income actually is.”
Why not just get rid of the loopholes? Why do Republicans feel they have to offset getting rid of the loopholes with lowering the rates?
John
May 12th, 2011
5:09 pm
Linda@5:02, “Let’s compare apples. We know when it’s time to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that our prescriptions are not refillable. We are able to see him within a few days for these routine, non-emergency, not-even-sick appts. ”
There you go again…this time wanting to compare apples. Where in the article you cited does it say the average wait time does not include appointments for physicals but only includes appointments to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that prescriptions are not refillable?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:24 pm
John@4:51, There was only ONE problem, not problemS (plural) that was mentioned that was consistent throughout the nation, & that was a shortage of doctors. With the additional 30,000,000 more insured patients & with no additional doctors, the wait time to see doctors will increase all across the country & the number of visits to the ER will continue.
As far as wait time, you question my statement without any facts of your own, admitting you have no idea if I’m right or wrong.
You are still accusing me of getting “it wrong.” I don’t appreciate your accusations when I was just trying to be helpful. You can take one tiny point, blow it out of proportion, argue about it all day, over & over & over, hammer it up one side & down the other, try to fit a size 10 into a size 5, give out low blows & never stop.
Well, it’s stopped. I don’t mind responding to you, but you MUST change the subject. Talk about something that is IMPORTANT. That’s it. As Kyle said once before, that’s enough! Pick on someone else.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:26 pm
John@5:09, Go join OBL & leave me alone.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 12th, 2011
5:37 pm
liberals are wholesale murdering an entire generation of black children by giving their “mothers” abortions paid for with your tax money, and, they call us “monsters.”
I thank the Lord everyday that I am not a liberal.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
5:40 pm
Modern health care don’t need doctors to treat cuts, colds, infections many of these items can(will) be handled by nurse practicioners and PA. Doctors and surgeons can do the heavy lifting. There is a lot of money wasted just getting a shot…
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
5:54 pm
@John
“Why not just get rid of the loopholes? Why do Republicans feel they have to offset getting rid of the loopholes with lowering the rates?”
Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem. As I said in my first post, you and others are just too comfortable taking money from people who make more than you. You will never be satisfied.
If we do have tax increases, it should only be AFTER major spending cuts. The government has proven it can raise taxes, lower taxes, and increase spending (many times over), but it hasn’t shown it can significantly cut spending. Close at least 75 or 80 percent of this huge deficit with spending cuts, and then we can raise taxes. By the way, when 45% of income earners pay no federal income tax, something is wrong. They shouldn’t pay much, but everyone should have some skin in the game.
John
May 12th, 2011
5:59 pm
Linda@5:24, “With the additional 30,000,000 more insured patients & with no additional doctors, the wait time to see doctors will increase all across the country & the number of visits to the ER will continue.”
As the article pointed out…”"It’s a success in terms of the number of patients who have seen a doctor in the past few years, but the physician workforce has been strained,” Coombs said.” Of course, what you said could happen to wait time. But are you saying, you’re so selfish that you’d rather be able to make a non-emergency appointment with your doctor and get in within a few days and deny doctors appointments to 30,000,000 patients? Or would you be willing to sacrifice a little time in waiting for a non-emergency appointment and allow those 30,000,000 the same?
This may also be temporary…don’t Republicans shout free market and supply and demand? If there is a large demand for doctors, don’t you think more people would go into medicine supplying us with more doctors?
John
May 12th, 2011
6:11 pm
@Gordon,
“Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.”
Once again, spouting the Republican mantra. Economist, even Wall Street is saying we have to look at both spending and revenue. A bi-partisan commission has said the same thing. That’s the solution Democrats want but of course, Republicans only want to talk about cutting spending.
From CCN money…”But practically, can the country live with a regimen of spending cuts alone? It’s unlikely, since the changes could end up being too severe to be palatable, fiscal experts say.
Just to keep the country’s total debt where it is now — around 60% of GDP — without tax increases, lawmakers would need to cut spending today by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.
That’s almost as much as what the country spends on defense and other discretionary spending — i.e., nearly everything Americans expect their federal government to do outside of providing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.”
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
Kyle, the federalist argument Romney is making, and which you call “potentially powerful,” makes no sense at all. Give me one good reason why health care issues might be different from state to state and should require different approaches.
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 12th, 2011
6:33 pm
Good job, John. Linda loves to dodge questions, and point out B.S. Continue to call her out on her B.S.
Our healthcare system is good, but not the best. I know of more than one person that lost their insurance when they really needed it. And when you have a pre-existing condition, forget about it.
Healthcare is a for-profit business. When more people realize that, then real changes will be made.
bob
May 12th, 2011
6:36 pm
“Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.” Clinton balanced the budget. The tax code and expenditures should mimic his successful reign.
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
6:40 pm
I report…Report this…
“Thirty percent of abortions occur to non-Hispanic black women, 36% to non-Hispanic white women, 25% to Hispanic women and 9% to women of other races. [6]
Now as a percentage what you sais is true..But in raw numbers it’s not even close..More abotions are given to white women….Now don’t let the facts get in your way the next time you wanna toss that gem out there…
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
6:41 pm
Gordon…You say we have a spending problem….
Our Military budget is larger than the rest of the industrailized world combined…are you prepared to reduce spending there as well????
Linda
May 12th, 2011
6:47 pm
John@5:59, So now you are saying I’m selfish & that I’m deciding WHEN my doctor sees me? You have no credibility.
I could answer all you questions, but you are a complete waste of my time. It’s not productive to argue with a tree stump, someone who did not even know when the economic stimulus bill was passed by the Democrats & Obama.
I would suggest that you enroll in a class in economics at your local college ASAP. I’m not your professor.
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:48 pm
“Our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.”
This is one of the pieces of political mantra that seems to sounds reasonable to some people while being essentially stupid. When you explore it further it only shows that whoever uses it has his/her ideas of what the taxes are to be used for, and demands that everybody agrees.
Kyle Wingfield
May 12th, 2011
6:52 pm
bob: “Clinton balanced the budget. The tax code and expenditures should mimic his successful reign.”
Sounds good: Expenditures in FY 2000 were $1.79 trillion. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, that would be about $2.46 trillion, or less than two-thirds of current actual spending.
Given revenue projections, the budget would be balanced next year even at current tax rates.
Who else wants that deal?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
6:57 pm
Miss or Ms. MMTH@6:33, So what IS the best hc system in the world?
What hc insurance companies & hospitals are for-profit & which ones aren’t? What is the percentage of those for profit?
What is the average profit of the for-profit hc insurance companies, compared to the beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s &, other industries related to the hc industry, the top profit maker companies in the US?
Don’t dodge my questions & don’t use BS. You hate that, right?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:06 pm
Bob@6:36, If Clinton “balanced the budget,” why did his adm. add to the natl. debt every single year?
John
May 12th, 2011
7:15 pm
I report, “liberals are wholesale murdering an entire generation of black children by giving their “mothers” abortions paid for with your tax money, and, they call us “monsters.””
Have you heard of the Hyde amendment? In case you haven’t, it’s a law that forbids any federal tax money paying for abortions. So, you’re wrong in your statement.
John
May 12th, 2011
7:21 pm
Linda@6:47, “So now you are saying I’m selfish & that I’m deciding WHEN my doctor sees me? ”
You’re the one who brought up how bad it would be it wait time increases due to insuring 30,000,000 more people. I just asked a question. I’m just asking you to back up your comments with fact.
Are you employed by Fox News? If not, perhaps you should apply there. You have the philosophy down…create stuff and report it as fact, keep repeating it enough and hopefully people will believe it to be fact without checking the true facts.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
I Report@5:37, …& every time I even think of a family reunion, I thank the Lord I’m not kin to Chuck Schumer.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:36 pm
MarkV@6:48, During the last 63 years, regardless of the parties in power in the White House & in congress, regardless of the marginal tax brackets which were as high as 90%, when was the last time that NO debt was added to the national debt in any given year?
The answer is 63 years ago, in 1948.
Regardless of the parties in power, regardless of the marginal tax brackets, regardless of the revenues collected by the fed. govt., it is NEVER enough. DC has always consistently spent every dime it has collected & then some, every year for 63 years. What congress could not tax, it borrowed. That’s where we are today. We have a SPENDING problem.
John
May 12th, 2011
7:38 pm
Linda@6:57, “What hc insurance companies & hospitals are for-profit & which ones aren’t? What is the percentage of those for profit?”
The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009, while the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression sent millions of Americans onto the unemployment line and into poverty.
The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008. At the same time, 2.7 million Americans who had been enrolled in private health plans the year before lost their coverage.
I would say that’s a healthy profit, wouldn’t you?
John
May 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
Linda@6:57, “What is the average profit of the for-profit hc insurance companies, compared to the beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s &, other industries related to the hc industry, the top profit maker companies in the US?”
Not sure I follow your question here…are you saying beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s are related to the hc industry?
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
@John
“Once again, spouting the Republican mantra. Economist, even Wall Street is saying we have to look at both spending and revenue. A bi-partisan commission has said the same thing. That’s the solution Democrats want but of course, Republicans only want to talk about cutting spending.”
Did you even read my 5:54 post, or just stop after 2 sentences? Go back and try again.
You gave your “shocking” statement about how much spending would have to be cut if we don’t raise taxes, now consider this: taxing all income over $250,000 at 100% would not come close to eliminating the deficit. Or consider Kyle’s 6:52 post: cutting spending to 2000 levels (the last time we were close to balance) and TAKING INTO ACCOUNT inflation and population growth, we could balance the budget with taxes where they are now. The major part of our problem is spending, not income. You can call that Republican mantra all you want, but its true.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
If I do, will you promise to drop off the face of the earth? Okay, maybe that’s demanding a little too much but get this… Kyle made a good point, though, YOU will never admit to it. As recently published the Southern States are infamous for fried fatty foods and different by degrees from state to state even within the south where for instants… people in Mississippi consumes more fatty foods than people in Georgia.
People who consume less saturated fat in their diets are less likely to have circulatory and heart related problems – e.g. lower risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes to mention a few health problems, which should translate into lower healthcare cost and insurance premiums.
And to another stab: Economist don’t always get it right, in fact, they are known for getting alot things wrong.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
8:01 pm
John
May 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
About 5% to 6% for HC insurers. The big money is made by the drug companies. Their profit margin was cited as around 16%. Even medical device makers have higher profit margins the HC insurers.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:06 pm
John@7:21, You have the diplomacy skills of a two-year-old, the intelligence of a dishwasher, the manners of Hollywood & the credibility of Al Gore.
In addition of taking a course in Econ 101, I would suggest you read that book about how to gain friends & influence people.
Are you happily married?
For the upteenth time, change the subject,
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:16 pm
John@7:38, I couldn’t notice that you did not answer one single solitary question I asked.
John
May 12th, 2011
8:17 pm
Linda@8:16, I answered all your questions. Problem is you can’t back up your statements so you resort to name calling an ignore my request to back up your position.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:27 pm
John@7:48, The question is why you & the liberals would single out the health care insurance companies & not the upteen companies who make a much greater profit off our citizens, especially all the other industries related to health care. Why make the health care insurance companies the enemies when there are dozens of other health care related companies who are making a much larger profit?
Why would you & the liberals demonize health care industries when there are other industries making tons more profit?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
John@8:17, You answered all my questions? I missed it. Did you submit your answers on the wrong blog?
I don’t know what you do for a living, but let me suggest that you get into sales (after you take that Econ 101 course I recommended). You are relentless & would do well & make a lot of money selling sets of encyclopedias & intensive care insurance by hitting up little old ladies with your charm & charisma.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
8:49 pm
So Kyle, ObumerCare or RomenyCare admittedly leave a tremendous amount to be desired. Meanwhile, we and most conservatives on this blog agree that healthcare should rightly be done at the State level pursuant to, and in keeping with, the federalism of the Constitution, as a State’s Right.
However, not much seems to be going on in this state to make what most of us know are greatly needed healthcare reforms, preferable reforming the entire system.
Here’s a challenge for you Kyle, however you want to go about it is fine, on finding the best suggestions or solutions to reform healthcare in Georgia and if they are good enough, why not petition our elected legislators to implement the finding?
You know I’m game and I would hope other Tea Party members are up to the task as well. It is far too easy just to stop bad idea’s and offer nothing better to replace them than poor-mouth condemnations that really do nothing.
John
May 12th, 2011
8:57 pm
From Forbes…7/20/04…Postwar Presidencies Ranked By Six Measures Of Economic Performance, in order of best to worst total performance…
Bill Clinton – Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat
John F. Kennedy – Democrat
Ronald Reagan – Republican
Gerald R. Ford – Republican
Jimmy Carter – Democrat
Harry S. Truman – Democrat
Richard M. Nixon – Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower – Republican
George H.W. Bush - Republican
“To create our rankings we looked at six measures of economic performance–GDP growth, per capita income growth, employment gains, unemployment rate reduction, inflation reduction and federal deficit reduction–for each of the ten postwar presidencies. For each measure we looked at whether the situation improved or got worse, and we ranked the presidents from 1 to 10. We then averaged the ranks to come up with a final score. ”
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
John
May 12th, 2011
9:03 pm
Linda@8:27, “Why would you & the liberals demonize health care industries when there are other industries making tons more profit?”
Read all my post…I didn’t demonize the health care industries. You asked a question about profits and I answered it. If you notice, both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, we’ll still get our insurance from the private market. But since you claim I demonized the health care industries, point out which post I did that in.
bob
May 12th, 2011
9:04 pm
kyle,
Mi apologies for the delayed response. Went out for some mexican food served by my favorite illegals this side of Dalton. I concur with your analysis. Whatever higher tax/lower expenditure % worked under Clinton should be implemented.
P.S.: Amigo, stay away from the huevos rancheros…
Linda
May 12th, 2011
9:07 pm
John@8:57, Are you nuts? What does a site from 2004 have to do with 2011? Can’t you do better than that?
bob
May 12th, 2011
9:08 pm
john,
Your link is suspect. Steve Forbes is a RINO. (Joke)
Linda
May 12th, 2011
9:15 pm
John@9:03, Your brain works differently than mine. I’m not saying that one is right & one is wrong. What I’m saying is that some people have common sense & some people don[’t. People that don’t have common sense, like you, aren’t necessarily wrong or stupid, just warped. Good luck to you.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
9:15 pm
Kind of interesting…
The key to Clinton’s success, says Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar who served as his director of management and budget, was adhering to the “pay/go” agreement first forged by President George H. W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, whereby tax cuts or entitlement increases had to be funded on a current basis.
Alice Rivlin just so happens to be party to the Rivlin/Ryan Medicare voucher and Medicaid block grant proposals. Wonder why the socialists Democrats are running a Mediscare propaganda campaign when one of their best is the co-author of what they are attacking. Someone that was directly, if not chiefly, involved with creating the top performing economy on record?
buck@gon
May 12th, 2011
9:25 pm
“An old political saw holds that if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
An old saw that still cuts true, unfortunately.
The left’s solution to this is to surround Obama with sycophantic Washington reporters who refuse to ask him hard questions. Only if Donald Trump is around will they hesitate to beg to bring up something before spraying the good ship Trump with armor piercing bullets.
Even in the so-called “debate” about the healthcare bill, Obama hardly ever took questions. When he did meet with Congress, his petulant answer was basically to tell John McCain to shut up.
sallie
May 12th, 2011
9:28 pm
mike,
I guess the key to a successful presidency (Clinton&Obama) is to follow a Bush.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
9:31 pm
To be re-elected, all Obama has to do is to execute OBL 2 more times.
buck@gon
May 12th, 2011
9:31 pm
Someone that was directly, if not chiefly, involved with creating the top performing economy on record?
…the director of management and budget from the White House?
I have a hard time giving credit to anyone in Washington for creating wealth. They just don’t do it. What they can do is foster the good environment.
It might be more appropriate to say “…involved in not destroying the top performing economy….” as the O-administration can’t seem to help itself fast enough to accomplish.
John
May 12th, 2011
9:32 pm
Linda @9:07, “Are you nuts? What does a site from 2004 have to do with 2011? Can’t you do better than that?”
It has every relevance…it shows which Presidents (as well as party affiliation) has been better on handling the economy.
I guess you think history is not important? Do you keep making the same mistakes over and over and never learning from history?
John
May 12th, 2011
9:34 pm
Linda@9:15, “Your brain works differently than mine. I’m not saying that one is right & one is wrong. What I’m saying is that some people have common sense & some people don[’t. People that don’t have common sense, like you, aren’t necessarily wrong or stupid, just warped. Good luck to you.”
What’s the matter, you can’t defend your position so you resort to personal attacks and name calling? I’m just asking you to defend your position, which you don’t seem to be able to do.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
9:40 pm
Abongo Obama, is he “Billy Beer” on steroids? Looks like Jimmy isn’t the only one with a brother best kept locked away in the attic.
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-s-brother-capture-nation-s-attention
John
May 12th, 2011
9:46 pm
Michael H. Smith@9:15, “Alice Rivlin just so happens to be party to the Rivlin/Ryan Medicare voucher and Medicaid block grant proposals. Wonder why the socialists Democrats are running a Mediscare propaganda campaign when one of their best is the co-author of what they are attacking. Someone that was directly, if not chiefly, involved with creating the top performing economy on record?”
Nice try but Alice Rivlin herself has said this is not the plan she co-authored and she does not support it.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
9:48 pm
IRS Asked to Investigate Charity Run by Obama’s Brother
NLPC is asking the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which is soliciting tax-deductible contributions from the public although it is not tax exempt. The Foundation is named for Obama’s father and is apparently based in Kenya. Its founder and chairman is Abon’go Malik Obama (in photo), whose father is also the father of President Obama.
The Foundation has addresses in Kenya and in Arlington, Virginia to which it asks that donations be sent. Two members of the NLPC staff went to the Arlington address on May 6. It is a commercial mail drop facility where the clerk touted the fact that the address “looked like a real office address” and the facility could arrange to forward mail to any location in the world.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/05/08/irs-asked-investigate-charity-run-obamas-brother
John
May 12th, 2011
9:50 pm
Michael H. Smith@9:15…talking about the Ryan Plan, have you noticed the beating Republicans have taken at town hall meetings and how quickly they’re now running from the plan. I’m waiting for Harry Reed to bring it up for a vote in the Senate. Will be curious to see how Senate Republicans will vote on it for the record.
John
May 12th, 2011
9:52 pm
Linda @9:31, at least he was able to kill OBL once in only 2 years…Bush couldn’t do it in 8.
sallie
May 12th, 2011
9:55 pm
BREAKING NEWS:
Senator Coburn supports the Defense of Marriage Payoff Act.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
9:57 pm
John@9:32, If you want to know what’s happening with the economy, check with the dozen or so economic indicators. If you are primitive, just go to the grocery store or fill up your gas tank. We ain’t seen nothing yet. There’s no end in sight with the bailouts of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac that are coming down the pipeline. You & most of the American people are in for a rude awakening.
History is repeating itself. Govt. stimulus spending has never worked in the US or abroad.
@9:34, You are unfair in your accusations. Again, just go to where OBL is & rest in peace.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
9:59 pm
John@9:46 pm
She sure seemed to approve the approach in the interview clip of her that I seen. And….
Alice Rivlin, who served as White House budget director under former President Clinton, said that some version of a premium support system, such as Ryan proposed, could extend Medicare’s solvency.
“I still think premium support could be the basis for a bipartisan reform of Medicare, but it would have to be in a different form than Ryan proposed it,” she told The Hill.
“I’m not ready to declare premium support dead. But in the form in which Ryan put it out, he turned everybody off,” she said.
This puts your statement in great doubt: “I’m not ready to declare premium support dead.
Perhaps you should give it another try. A valid one hopefully.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/160125-republican-rift-widens-on-medicare
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
10:04 pm
John @ 9:50 pm – I’ve noticed the Senate Democrats have no plan to offer in a counter proposal.
John
May 12th, 2011
10:05 pm
Michael H. Smith @9:40, “Abongo Obama, is he “Billy Beer” on steroids? Looks like Jimmy isn’t the only one with a brother best kept locked away in the attic. ”
Nice try…did you read other areas of the site? From their site…”NowPublic is a multimedia online news magazine where you can make, break, shape, and share international news as it happens.” “Unlike traditional news organizations, NowPublic enables you to participate in the news-making process. Whether you’re interested in being an on-the-scene reporter, a newshound, photographer, or videographer, we’re happy to hear from you and show you the ropes.”
Linda
May 12th, 2011
10:07 pm
John@9:52, So you are disagreeing with 6 national security advisers, including Obama’s chief CIA head, Panetta, who claim that enhanced interrogation techniques led to the location of OBL?
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
10:12 pm
John @ 10:05 pm – No trying here, just making some casual observations on Abongo but you can struggle with the other comment posted on Obongo’s questionable charity activities.
sallie
May 12th, 2011
10:15 pm
LInda,
So you disagree with John McCain who stated torture played no part in finally(took a real leader) getting OBL?
John
May 12th, 2011
10:16 pm
Michael H. Smith@10:04 pm…they did one better, they passed it. It’s called the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to ObamaCare.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
10:19 pm
John, I can’t believe that you didn’t address my post at 4:18 today. Did you miss it or elect to ignore it?
John
May 12th, 2011
10:23 pm
Linda@10:07, Panetta did not say that. And according to John McCain, as reported by AP…”He said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information for Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
“Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information,” McCain said. He called on Mukasey and others to correct their misstatements.
A call to Mukasey at his New York law firm was not immediately returned Thursday. Mukasey was President George W. Bush’s last attorney general.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_torture_3
sallie
May 12th, 2011
10:29 pm
McCain:
“I had to speak out because I do feel strongly … it really is about the moral standing of the United States of America in the world.” “I think those allegations are not substantiated by the facts,” he said. “The first information concerning this courier Abu Ahmed was obtained through another source. An individual who, as far as we know, was not subjected to these coercive techniques – in other words, torture.”
“This is one of the problems in torturing people,” he continued. “You get good information and you get bad information also…it’s pretty clear you could have gotten the same good information through using standard techniques which don’t entail waterboarding and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.”
The
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
10:30 pm
John @ 10:16 pm – Nice try as you say, the Ryan plan is tied to budget – deficit- spending reform as well as Medicare and Medicaid reforms. Oh that’s right, the Democrats never even had a budget for 2010 now did they? As for 2011, doesn’t look as though they are doing any better this time around with nothing put on the budget deficit reduction table? So really, other than digging the ditch deeper, they ain’t done squat!
John
May 12th, 2011
10:32 pm
As McCain reported, which is in the video, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and it led to false and misleading information.
John
May 12th, 2011
10:49 pm
Michael H. Smith@10:30, Yes, the Ryan bill is tied to the budget and where do budget bills originate? According to the US Constitution, it originates in the House. And who is the majority party in the House? Republicans. So the Senate where the Democrats are in the majority can’t bring it up for a vote until it passes the House, which the Ryan bill did so as I stated earlier, I would like to see Harry Reed bring it up in the Senate and put the Senate Republicans on record.
As far as the budget deficit reduction table, both Democrats and Republicans are saying we need spending cuts. Democrats also want to add some increase in taxes on the higher income bracket as well as end oil subsidies (the most profitable companies in the history of the planet) to help reduce the deficit…it’s the Republicans that have said that’s off the table.
John
May 12th, 2011
10:52 pm
Michael H. Smith@10:30…the difference between the Democrats and Republicans with respect to the deficit reduction table…the Democrats feel everyone should share in the pain of getting the deficit reduced, whereas the Republicans feel only the working class and poor should shoulder all the pain.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
11:00 pm
sallie@10:15, Google “Obama rendition” & you will receive a rude awakening on what this president is up to. What is worse: rendition or EITs on our own soil?
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
11:05 pm
John @ 10:52 pm – Really, strange how the unions don’t seem to be sharing that pain you speak of and that would include a few other groups like the poor and working class of which I’d qualify as a member of both that has felt the increasing pain at the gas pump, grocery counter and in the pocket every week, with healthcare cost up twice, benefits cut twice and co-pays raised twice. Yeah, you and your Democrats really feel my pain, John. But not like your Democrats are going to feel my PAIN leading up to November 2012 and thereafter.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
11:17 pm
John @ 10:49 pm The Democrats have not cut spending a dime. They have increased spending and the growth in government. Speaker John Boehner went after ending oil company subsidies way ahead of the Democrat’s talking points. Republicans haven’t gone after the cuts and reduction like they should have but your Democrats are worse than a pathetic joke when confronted with making real cuts and reductions to the size, scope and spending of the federal government.
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
11:24 pm
I asked Kyle for a reason why different states should use different approaches to health care to justify the “federalist argument” of Romney. Not surprisingly, he did not come up with one. As for pointing out different health conditions in different states, it only demonstrates that some people fail to understand the point of the question, also not surprisingly, because that has nothing to do with the system of health care.
John
May 13th, 2011
12:02 am
Michael H. Smith @11:05, “has felt the increasing pain at the gas pump, grocery counter and in the pocket every week, with healthcare cost up twice, benefits cut twice and co-pays raised twice. ”
The things you mentioned are all sold by private industry, not the government. Gas prices rising while the oil companies are making record profits (most profitable in the planets history), rising healthcare cost, benefits being cut and co-pays raised has been happening for years.
John
May 13th, 2011
12:24 am
Michael H. Smith @11:17, “Speaker John Boehner went after ending oil company subsidies way ahead of the Democrat’s talking points.”
Democrats have been trying to get rid of the oil subsidies for years. Boehner said a mentioned a couple weeks ago he may consider taking away the tax breaks for oil companies but did you notice how quickly he reversed that. As reported on Fox News…
“Boehner also recently indicated support for the idea of reconsidering tax breaks for oil companies, estimated by the Obama administration to be worth $4 billion annually.
But Boehner, digging in his heels, this week reiterated a demand to leave tax hikes out of the budget equation and said Congress should take up spending cuts in the “trillions” — a goal that would virtually require lawmakers to make changes to entitlements like Medicare. ”
It was the Democrats today, that had CEOs of the large oil companies testifying in Congress…not the Republicans. ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva, in 2005, testified that he agreed with President Bush’s assessment that with “$55 oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.” Mulva testified, “With respect to oil and gas exploration and production, we do not need incentives.” But now, with oil prices now hovering around $100 per barrel, Mulva has inexplicably changed his tune. But maybe we’ll see who will walk the walk…Democrats plan on bringing it up for a vote in the Senate.
robertchest
May 13th, 2011
3:45 am
You may want to consider that Newt’s Presidential candidacy is sort of like you or I getting drunk and molesting your secretary on the first week of an entry level job, being forced to tender your resignation, submit to alcohol rehab and serving time in a federal penententiary and then a few weeks or months later upon release, submitting your resume for the CEO spot of that same company. http://bit.ly/kLS1Lj
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 13th, 2011
11:13 am
Linda, it is Mrs. Do you not see the hyphenated name? I addressed you before with your condescending homeless guy story, and told you that I was married. But comprehension isn’t your strong point.
The United States is number 37 according to the World Health Organization for healthcare system.
I love being American, and love this country. But I also realize that some things in this country do need to change.
I do demonize the healthcare insurers because they are quick to drop you when you need them. Healthcare is not something that should be played around with. Maybe you have no value for human life, but I do.
People choose to drink and smoke. They know of the risks, and continue to do that. That is a choice. The company makes money off of these poor choices.
If i get in a car accident or run, exercise, and eat right and yet have a heart attack due to something genetic, why should I be penalized by the healthcare system after paying years into a policy?
Or a child is born with a heart defect and is denied coverage because it is a “pre-existing condition”.