Posted by Pat Cunningham on Feb 16, 2010 in Uncategorized | 4 comments
Hypocrisy, thy name is John Boehner — as we see HERE.
And these people expect us to take them seriously.
UPDATE: There’s more GOP hypocrisy on health care HERE.
I’m starting to get fed up with Boehner’s stalling tactics. It really sounds like he’s not at all prepared for this meeting. Boehner wanted bipartisan discussions, so the Democrats finally called him on it, and now it appears he doesn’t want to go though with it.
His strategy, if he really has one, is all discombobulated. The Democrats appear to like some of the GOP ideas, so lets just start off with passing those in a smaller bill. Who cares if the Democrats are the ones who will get the credit? The best ideas are the best ideas. Period. Yet Boehner wants to play these partisan games. Sometimes I wonder if the Democrats sponsored their exact same bill as the Republicans, if the Republicans would then vote against it.
Republicans need to replace Boehner with either Paul Ryan or Tom Price. Anybody who really wants to see health care reform, but doesn’t want to play these parliamentary tricks.
Karl Rove (aka the evil one) agrees;
Some congressional Republicans want to turn down President Barack Obama’s invitation for a nationally televised, Feb. 25 White House pow-wow on health care. They fear that if GOP leaders show up for the event, they will end up agreeing to a bad health-care bill in the name of bipartisanship.
Republican leaders should accept the invitation. The country rightly expects them to, even though it’s a made-for-TV kabuki drama written, staged and directed by Mr. Obama.
It is also in the GOP’s best interests. This is the party’s best opportunity yet to contrast its good ideas with Democratic legislation.
Those ideas are far-reaching and significant. They include allowing small businesses to band together to get the same insurance discounts big companies get, passing tort reform to eliminate junk lawsuits that drive up the price of health care, and enacting reforms that would make health insurance portable for workers. They also include allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines, giving families the same health insurance tax breaks companies get, and empowering patients by making health prices more transparent.
By contrasting those ideas with ObamaCare, Republicans can give the lie to the White House charge that the GOP is the “party of no.” For example, Republicans want Americans to be able to save more money tax free for health-care expenses. Democrats would reduce the existing amount that can be saved tax free, which this year is $3,050 for individuals, and tax people for using their savings to pay for over-the-counter drugs
Mr. Obama’s Feb. 25 meeting is not about hammering out a bipartisan consensus. It is part theater and part Chicago-style pressure politics.
It is also bluff and desperation. Mr. Obama knows the biggest obstacle before him is deep division within his party. That division is preventing the Democratic House from passing the Democratic Senate’s health-care bill.
Republicans should remember they are near the end of the process rather than its beginning, when Mr. Obama’s leverage was considerable. A year of his missteps have squandered a historically strong Democratic advantage on health care.
Americans don’t like the health-care bills that have passed the House and Senate by a 58% to 38% margin in a new CNN/Opinion Research Poll and Gallup reports that 60% of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the issue.
The public has made up its mind about ObamaCare. If Republicans prepare well, the pow-wow will be a chance to show Americans that the GOP has better ideas.
This is nothing more then high stakes poker. Mr spraytan bluffed, and the muslim fella called. Now Mr. spraytan doesn’t want to show his cards. You don’t have to play much poker to know who is going to win this hand.
This took awhile to look at:
First, what they leave out is that Boehner said in his initial letter he wanted to start from a blank sheet and that any proposals that the President had he wanted posted online 72 hrs in advanced.
“Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.”
“If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. ”
Next Rahmbo sends a letter sort of agreeing but it looks like they are just going to post what the Democrats in the house and senate have already cooked up, not new legislation from the President. They also called it a “proposed health insurance reform package” which would indicate that it is already done.
“Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package. This legislation would put a stop to insurance company abuses, extend coverage to millions of Americans, get control of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reduce the deficit.”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.