Bloodthirsty Liberal

Some are portraying this transparent ploy (hey, finally, some transparency!) as something other than an obvious attempt to pass a political hot potato—but I say mash that bad boy up (the potato, not the president), stir in some crow, and serve it back to him (the president, not the crow):

President Obama made a dramatic attempt to jump-start the stalled health care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit on the subject to be televised live later this month.

The president made the offer in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric just hours before the Superbowl. Obama challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system.

“I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues,” Obama told Couric. “What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.”

The invitation to join him later this month follows comments he made on Thursday during a speech at a Democratic fundraiser in which he said he wanted to sit with Republicans and “walk through the [health care plans] in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense.”

Oh, so he’s going to talk to us like you’re four year olds. That oughta help. ‘Cause we can’t be trusted to make decisions for ourselves. And we know he’ll only tell us the truth.

But nice of him to finally extend the Republicans an invitation. They’ve been about as welcome as a case of ebola in the negotiations so far.

Rush has always said that the Republicans should include themselves out of health care reform, at least on the terms proposed by the Democrats. I would agree, but why not take the opportunity to teach the president a thing or two about people running their own lives?

Or, in words he would understand: the Constitution doesn’t say what “government must do on your behalf” for a damn good reason! After life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we’re done (words from the Declaration, but they best define the governing philosophy of the Republic). I have yet to find any mention of free prescription drug or cheap dental in the document.

Republicans have plenty to say on health care, and on everything else, if they talk conservative values. Let us live our lives, keep as much money as we fairly can from our hard work, leave our children in the best position to succeed. That’s not a bad message, and it makes everything else sound irrelevant.

PS: Sounds like the Republicans have the same thing in mind:

The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.

PS: Hugh Hewitt has three talking points for the Republicans: tort reform; interstate competition; and the effing economy, stupid.

PPS: Okay, so maybe President Obama isn’t even remotely serious:

In his rallying cry to a crowd of cheering supporters on Thursday, Mr. Obama described, in the clearest terms yet, his vision of how to enact comprehensive health legislation: House and Senate Democrats would resolve their differences and decide on a “final bill.” They would then invite “our Republican friends to present their ideas.”

…

In conversations today, the White House was quick to emphasize a couple of points. First, they’re not starting over. Legislation has already passed the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. That’s not to be taken lightly, and the White House isn’t taking it lightly. “The President has made it clear that he’s adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate,” one official said.

Having the GOP in for a debate after Democrats draft a “final bill,” similar to that virtually universally rejected by Republicans is absurd, which ought to be among the main points Republicans make if — as appears to be the case — they choose to attend.

We want to hear what you have to say, we just don’t want to listen to it—what a horse’s patootie.

An incredible achievement

The impossible dream of being able to walk is coming true for some wheelchair-bound paraplegics who thought they would never again take another step.

ReWalk, a cutting-edge robotic device that lets a partially paralyzed person stand, walk and even climb stairs is being tested at a Philadelphia rehab hospital.

It consists of a backpack, an upper body harness and leg supports that are fitted with motorized knees and hips.

The wearer, who must have the use of his upper body, controls the movement of the leg supports with crutches, while motion sensors that are connected to a backpack computer let the device know when a step should be taken.

At MossRehab in Elkins Park, Pa., the upright device, the first of its kind, will be tested on 14 people who are enrolled in a clinical trial.

ReWalk was designed by Argo Medical Technologies in Haifa, Israel. Though it’s not yet known how much ReWalk will cost if approved, researchers are hopeful that it will be available by the end of this year. It can help those with spinal cord injury-related conditions that result in severe impairments.

Dr. Alberto Esquenazi, chair of MossRehab’s Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who was instrumental in ReWalk’s development, said he’s hopeful that the device will soon be widely sold.

“ReWalk should become available in the near future and will be able to be applied widely to people with spinal cord injuries that have preserved the use of the arms,” he says.

“You need to have your arms, both for balance control and sensory feedback. The tip of the crutches provides sensory feedback about where your body is in space.”

ReWalk has what Esquenazi calls “smart software” in that it “understands what the patient is intending to do, and translates that into taking a step or climbing a stair,” he says.

So far, six people have been enrolled in the trial, and they range from 22 to 64, Esquenazi says.

“So far we have had no problems,” he says. “The system has worked appropriately and patients have been thrilled at being able to use the device. Many years after the injury, they had forgotten how to stand and take steps.”

The device is easy to get into, says Esquenazi, and is worn over clothing. The battery lasts for three hours and the backup lasts for another 20 minutes. “The system alerts you that the battery is running low,” Esquenazi says. “It tells you that you either need to get to a chair or to a plug.”

Alysse Einbender, now 50, suffered a spinal stroke in 2004. She’s now enrolled in the trial, and she received about 24 hours of training in the suit.

Einbender told “Good Morning America” that being able to take steps again has changed her life.

“Looking into somebody’s eyes for the first time at that height was … really incredible,” she said.

Alysse Einbender, 50, of Wyncote, Pa., has been paralyzed since 2004. She was the first patient in the ReWalk trial

Can you even imagine what it would feel like to be able to walk again, after confinement to a wheel chair for a number of years?

- Aggie

A very thoughtful and impressive woman

I recommend going to the link and listening to this interview with Snowe about the health care bill. There is no ranting or contemptuous rhetoric at all. She describes the process and what, in her opinion, went wrong. Fascinating and impressive.

- Aggie

Turns out you don’t get to keep your doctor

Fearless Leader:

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Uh, so everything they said on talk radio was true, wasn’t it Mr. President? And about the 30+ speeches you gave on health care, in which you swore up and down that people could keep their own docs… you lied, didn’t you? Not the Previous Administration, but you, President Obama. And here it is, Friday night again, and you’re owning up. Because we all know that if one of those bills had made it to your desk, you would have signed it.

I used to date guys like you.

- Aggie

I don’t know myself, because Animal Planet had a special on the mating habits of the tortoise (forget Sting, those guys can go forever!), but didn’t President Obama just tell Congress and the nation (with the exception of Janet Napolitano and Harry Reid, who were asleep) that the Democrats had numbers enough to do whatever the [bleep] they wanted (or words to that effect)?

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.

Well, he’s right about that. Or he was, until Scott Brown won (you’re welcom, you’re welcome).

So then, what’s he doing wagging his finger in the faces of the Republicans?

Obama, attending the House Republicans’ retreat in Baltimore, began with conciliatory remarks but soon became more pointed. He said a GOP-driven “politics of no” was blocking action on bills that could help Americans obtain jobs and health care.

…

“The notion that this was a radical package is just not true,” Obama said. “I am not an ideologue.”

There was then a brief recess for Jim DeMint to wipe up the coffee that had spewed through his nose.

The President also said:

President Barack Obama Friday chided Republicans for portraying his health reform plan as a “Bolshevik plot” and for saying he wanted to do “crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.”

And as he also said in the SoTU:

If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

So if he was open to good ideas and didn’t want Republicans to tar the plan as a “Bolshevik plot”, why have he and Harry and Nancy been locked in the broom closet for the past month with flashlights and red pencils, not letting anyone get a look at the thing?

As for not being an ideologue or a Bolshevik, let the Communist Party USA take a swing at that:

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

…

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

…

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

(Rush had a great list of CPUSA endorsements of Obama and his agenda, but I’ll have to wait until he posts it to share it with you.)

PS: Re: namecalling: “It’s not just on your side, by the way.”

Diane Sawyer always cracks me up, too:

DIANE SAWYER: Health care — going forward, should all the conversations, all the meetings be on C-SPAN?

OBAMA: [Chuckle] You know, I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right. But I had campaigned on process. Part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up transparency and I think it is — I think the health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don’t know what’s going on. And it’s an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.

Now I think it’s my responsibility and I’ll be speaking to this at the State of the Union, to own up to the fact that the process didn’t run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more.

Is that a yes or a no?

Heh-heh. That’s a good one, Diane. Diane, let me be clear. For the past eight years, the problems we’ve inherited… Bush… Cheney…

Whatever-r-r-r

Do you expect to see C-SPAN cameras setting up inside the stale conference room where Nancy, Harry, and Barack have been writing health care legislation in their own image? No? Cynic. Do you think they’ve stopped? No? Doomsayer.

All I can say is, if they do, buy stock in Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and any other manufacturers of gauze and petroleum jelly that will be needed to make that circus freak show look presentable.

And all we’re left with is “-cracy”, which is close enough for government work to “crazy”:

Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

…

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.

To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.

Now, I’ll say what you’re thinking: Dick Morris can’t be the sole source of a story if we are to give it complete credence.

Fine.

But tell me you have complete confidence that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to this horror story of legislation run amok. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Maestro, a little music to pass the time?

There is a rub to all of this.

This secret plan being hatched by Pelosi and Reid requires not only a pledge by 52 Democratic senators to vote later for the House modifications. House liberals must actually believe these Senators will live up to their pledge and pass the fixes at some future date.

A Senate source cautions: “Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie.”

I’m feeling real good about the legislative process right now, how about you?

He’s no populist, he’s our President

President Obama admitted Friday that he has run into a “buzz saw” in the yearlong health care debate.

The president, in remarks delivered at a community college, accentuated his recent populist tone, promising to continue fighting for health care legislation and other domestic priorities.

“Here’s the good news: We’ve gotten pretty far down the road. But I’ve got to admit we’ve had a little bit of a buzz saw this week,” Obama said at Lorain County Community College near Cleveland, Ohio.

“You are running headlong into special interests and armies of lobbyists and partisan politics that’s aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done,” he said. “And then you’ve got ads that are scaring the bejeezus out of everybody. And the longer it takes, the uglier it looks.

“So I understand why people would say, ‘Boy, this is — I’m not so sure about this.’ Even though they know that what they’ve got isn’t working.”

Mr. President, the scare tactics used by the Democrats are not working. After the campaign that we lived through here in Massachusetts, and the ridiculous Democrat campaign ads trying to “scare the beejezus out of us”, we rejected your rhetoric of fear and confusion. Why don’t you keep your promises? The most open administration ev-ah? Broadcasting the nitty gritty on CNN? Do you remember that Mr. President? We don’t want any more midnight votes and we are tired of your lies. Stop scapegoating people who disagree with you. Start listening to other points of view.

Get over yourself.

- Aggie

All I can say is, what took ‘em so long?

[NOW President Terry O’Neill] said the “male-dominated Democratic Party” is not doing women any favors by bringing in anti-abortion zealots,” slamming Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the House health bill passed minutes before the final vote.

“Women are clearly harmed” by these lawmakers, O’Neill said. “Shame on the male-dominated Democratic Party for supporting them. They hold themselves out as the party that is women-friendly; well they’re not acting like it.”

“And that has a lot to do with why Martha Coakley lost this election,” O’Neill alleged, explaining the Democrats’ loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat with an argument that few others have made.

…

The National Organization for Women (NOW) harbors deep concerns with the Senate health legislation, and exclaims that “women will be better off with no bill whatsoever.”

“The Senate bill contains such fierce anti-abortion language, and there are other problems from the point of view of women,” NOW’s President Terry O’Neill told Raw Story in an interview.

O’Neill said NOW “will not support candidates in 2010 if they vote for it.”

So, NOW loves Scott, in other words, because he won’t vote for the bill. Who doesn’t love him? Especially among the frisky fillies at NOW?

Here’s some catnip for you, gals!

Only a few hours ago, I asked when NOW would condemn Arlen Specter’s outrageous Archie-Bunker-stifle-yourself-Edith moment with Michele Bachmann.

I knew better than to hold my breath. I should have known they’d waste theirs.

Scott Brown was shielded somewhat on the issue of health care reform by pointing out that he supported our state plan, MassHealth, passed under and signed by a Republican governor (and Brown mentor), Mitt Romney.

But he’ll have to pay for that vote, that stance, at some point, because we all are:

The state plan has become a millstone for Mr. Romney, yet he has refused to disavow it. Had he campaigned with Mr. Brown he’d have undoubtedly been asked about it, and undoubtedly given an answer as unsatisfying as those to date.

Mr. Romney has at times put forward selective data suggesting the program’s costs aren’t exploding. At other times he has complained his state hasn’t done enough to control costs. By October of last year he was arguing on CNN that “We . . . didn’t have any pretense we would somehow be able to change health-care costs in Massachusetts.” This, despite promising in 2006 that under his plan “the costs of health care will be reduced.”

Through it all, Mr. Romney has never backed away from his individual mandate, which requires people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Yet Republicans and independents despise the mandate, with many believing it is downright unconstitutional.

Mr. Romney’s subsidized coverage is meanwhile doing what entitlements do: crowding out private insurers, compounding the cost explosion, walking the state toward rationing. So long as the former governor clings to these central points of his health plan, he’s on the wrong side of free-market policy and public opinion.

I think Brown knows this. He used the MassHealth plan as a shield, not as something he embraced. He even allowed that it had flaws that need fixing (as any one of these articles from the Boston Gob archives attests to).

I’m beginning to think (actually long past beginning) that Rush is correct (again) that Republicans should want nothing to do with health care reform—at least not on anything like these terms. It is the proverbial lipsticked pig.

We have bloated a relatively small problem (those uninsured not out of choice) into a 2,000+ page bill rewriting all aspects of how medicine is practiced and insurance is operated—and fundamentally altered (for the far, far worse) the role of the citizen and his or her government. To say nothing of the profoundly Venezuelan manner in which the bill was “written” in Congress (with apologies to Venezuelans).

The Massachusetts state budget is hobbled—nay, crippled—by this infernal law, which has made many hospitals, doctors, and patients miserable. Other than that, it’s been a huge success.