Just what the doctor ordered?
The AMA's shrewd endorsement of health care reform
Just what the doctor ordered?
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In TGIF spirit, let's keep it short:
I was startled to learn yesterday that the American Medical Association - the establishment group that heretofore opposed every attempt at health care reform, most notably Medicare circa 1965 - has now tendered its endorsement of the House Democrats' sweeping health reform bill.
This is the same AMA that worked in cahoots with the Republicans to oppose government health insurance for seniors four decades ago. At the time, back when Lyndon Johnson was pushing the Medicare concept as part of his Great Society, the AMA put out statements condemning the idea as "a dangerous adventure in government medicine," and they were seconded by conservative allies such as the fledgling politician Ronald Reagan, who warned that Medicare would compel seniors to spend their "sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free." (Today, I wonder how many seniors partaking of Medicare consider themselves to be enslaved as a result.)
But I digress. Top Democrats, as well as President Obama, were thrilled yesterday - perhaps prematurely, as we shall soon see - that the AMA had decided to endorse the House Democratic bill; after all, it contains all kinds of liberal provisions, such as a government-backed health insurance option, and a surtax on the richest Americans in order to help pay for it all. The AMA said, in its letter, that it wished to voice its "appreciation and support" for this Democratic measure, which is designed to extend private and public coverage to virtually all Americans.
Shortly after the AMA spoke, Obama crowed that "these doctors are now joining the chorus of Americans who know that the time to reform what is broken about the health care system is now." John Dingell, the prime House Democratic sponsor, marveled how "quite honestly, it's has been difficult to win the support of this organization going all the way back to the 1930s." Indeed, Republicans can hardly be pleased that its traditional ally has decided to step on the GOP message of No.
But Democrats might be wise to view the AMA move with just a smidgen of cynicism.
For starters, the AMA has a direct stake in the House Democratic bill, which would fix a Medicare proviso that annually calls for cuts in doctor fees. And even assuming the House Democratic bill emerges intact (it hasn't yet passed a committee, much less gone to the floor), that doctor fee proviso might vanish altogether once the House and Senate get together to hash out common ground.
And who knows what's next anyway. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office zapped the Democrats yesterday by warning that the health care reforms now under consideration will be darn costly. Said the CBO chief, "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Granted, the CBO didn't look at any of the current congressional efforts to save money via proposed trims in Medicare and Medicaid; indeed, the CBO chief wrote several days ago that his warning "does not take into account other parts of the proposal that would raise taxes or reduce other spending (particularly in Medicare) in an effort to offset the federal costs of the coverage provisions." Nevertheless, the CBO's core warning is grist for the Republican opposition, and threatens to complicate the Obama/Democratic efforts to produce a sweeping but cost-effective reform bill before their desired August deadline.
All of which means that the AMA is being politically shrewd. By endorsing a liberal reform bill, the group can promote itself as enlightened and broad-minded - while knowing full well that nearly 20 state medical societies have already vowed to fight creation of the public insurance option. And if the health reform effort ultimately falls apart or suffers significant diminishment, the AMA can always say, "Hey, we took the high road, we were with you guys all the way, so you can't blame us for this thing going down. Better luck next time. Take two aspirins and call us in the morning."
-------
From the last day of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings...
Sen. Arlen Specter, addressing white firefighter Frank Ricci: "Do you have any reason to think that Judge Sotomayor acted in anything other than good faith in trying to reach a fair decision in the case?"
(Translation: "Ms. Sotomayor, as an appeals judge, ruled against you, Mr. Ricci. The Republicans who invited you here consider you to be their poster boy in the fight to keep her off the Supreme Court. Do you think she acted in bad faith and therefore should not be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court?")
Ricci: "That's beyond my legal expertise. I simply welcome an invitation by the United States Senate to come here today."
(Translation: "No.")
Game over.
Comments (68)
Sotomayor will be confirmed, by all Democrats, and about half the Republicans, despite recent polls showing more Americans oppose her confirmation than support it. Bringing Ricci into the hearings served the purpose of making tangible the damage done by, and the illogic of leftist activism. The American people will overcome this temporary wave of HopenChange, and wake up to see their country damaged, but not destroyed. Then it will be left to the productive and rational among us to rebuild.— Mr. Smith
The bill will not pass. It's becoming apparent to those who for some reason couldn't see it coming, that this plan is a money abyss (not just a pit). Obama will fail here, he will not get cap and trade either. The stimulus is already labeled a failure, and his approval ratings are dropping like a stone. No one wants liberalism in reality. It's just too bad many couldn't see through the sugar-coated campaign rhetoric before they went to the polls.— jmc
Nice partisan spin and cherry picking, Dick. Way to defend the indefenseable. You left out the more troubling parts of the CBO testimony yesterday. The CBO did not leave anything out; to the contrary, it used established accounting rules. Pelosi and Reid went nuts yesterday and wanted the CBO to change the goalposts. The "savings" do not exist when rule accounting is used. The democrats plan is just pie in the sky.— CD75- "save money via proposed trims in Medicare and Medicaid". This means cuts in doctor and hospital compensation and less covered services. That is not reform or "savings". It is called not paying the bill and less coverage.— CD75
- Picking on Ricci? How low can you go Polman? So anyone who disagrees with your agenda is fair game for you? You are pathetic.— CD75
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- The articles I read contained nothing of the statement that quote that the CBO did not take into account the other parts of the proposal. That is why I get frustrated about the media. I think the media has lacked so much in the reporting department and has gone over to the sensational and inflammatory writing that it is hard to get straight facts. And you know your crazy when you think Hope and Change are a destructive force.— HandNik
- Right now, I am ready for some Change. I sure Hope it comes in 2010.— Mr. Smith
- The Dem health care plan is somewhere between boondoggle and Madoff II.— Joe Funk
- Comment removed.
- You epitomize the partisan lackey. By comparison, you make Olberman and Limbaugh seem balanced.— A Friend
- Medicine will change for the better and cost less once someone decides to take on the trial lawyers. Billions and billions of dollars a year are spent on "defensive medicine". Doctors are afraid that if they miss something and don't work up every possible scenario for every symptom, they will get sued for "malpractice". It is the elephant in the room that just keeps getting ignored, most likely because the vast majority of politicians are lawyers and we know which party the trial lawyers support. True physician malpractice should be punished. A bad outcome is not always malpractice.— 23
- tr88: in the last post, you offered a blog entry as "proof" for swmike's claims about Goldman Sachs' contributions. Sorry, but someone else's OPINION does not constitute a fact. Now maybe something from a site like opensecrets.org, that actually has the data on campaign contributions, could be considered a fact. Secondly, swmike asserted that Goldman Sachs EXECUTIVES gave over $1M Obama. That is what I was questioning. Finally, yes, I know how to use google. I'm just not thoughtless enough to assume that if I read it on the internet that it MUST be true.— still_independent
- Truman and Clinton had votes, thus they were closer. first lie— Fisher
- What children, he will have them all aborted and everyone pay for it.— Fisher
- Dick Polman gives a very poor "translation" of Specter's question and of Ricci's reply. Ricci is not a lawyer. He has no basis on which to decide whether Sotomayor acted in good faith or in bad. And in fact whether she acted in good faith or in bad is not the issue. The issues are, 1). Did Sotomayor's three judge panel on the Second Circuit correctly review the evidentiary record and apply the correct law to that record?; and 2). Did New Haven have a strong basis in the evidence to believe that it would be subject to disparate impact liability if it accepted the results of the promotion test it administered? All that Ricci knew -- all that any potential litigant/client, plaintiff or defendant, knows -- is that something happened to him that didn't seem right or fair. When one feels that way, one seeks legal advice. A competent lawyer gives competent legal advice. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the Ricci case, asking Ricci if he had any reason to believe that Sotomayor acted in bad faith is a despicable question -- on a par with Specter's questions of Anita Hill. Ricci's answer (so much for the claim of a poster on another blog that in reading his prepared testimony Ricci showed that he could not think on his feet) was exactly correct, cannot "in good faith" be translated as "No", and quite frankly utterly bested Specter and left Specter looking quite silly. I have a good deal of respect for Dick Polman, but he -- and all others, of all persuasions -- should read legal opinions (in this instance, the District Court, two Second Circuit panel opinions, all of the opinions filed in the Second Circuit response to Ricci's petition for rehearing en banc, and all of the Supreme Court opinions before piously pontificating on the case.— Hector
- When Sotomayor was asked if she supported the right of a person to defend themselves in their own home (translation...own a gun), she stated that to her knowledge, no Supreme Court case ever decided if a person had such a right. I guess she never heard of D.C v Heller.— tom - wilmington, de
- Guess Polman missed Biden saying we had to spend money to avoid bankruptcy, and that all you needed to do for proof the stimulus is working is look around...all the factories being re-opened and people going back to work. Yeah, we got the smart one as VP all right.— tom - wilmington, de
- The insurance industry is spending 1.4 million dollars every day to turn our country's health care legislation to their advantage. If a health care bill comes out of Congress without a strong, public option available to every American on day one, and accountable to Congress and voters--at the very least--Obama will have failed and there will be no true reform. Universal health care would have been the best solution, but lobbyists and conservatives suffocated that in the cradle. If conservative Democrats, corrupt politicians, and insurance companies get there way, we will have nothing but a bailout for the insurance industry, just as the energy bill looks more and more like a bailout for dirty coal and oil.— WhitRobinson
You guys at PNI don't even TRY to balananced. Talk about in the tank.— georgel- Comment removed.
- If you guys (CD75 and A Friend) think Polman is "pathetic" and a "lackey," respectively, why do you continue to read this blog?— Eric_in_CA
- Abort all the children! Bwahahaaha! Our plan is finally coming to fruition. Oh yeah, pass a law making homosexuality mandatory too! Government healthcare for everybody! A government camera in every American home. If you don't have anything to hide, why do you care? The Republicans lost, now we'll put the master plan into effect. Bwahaahahahahahah!— p-diddy
- What a dump site for rightwing nut jobs.No solutions just the death throes of a failed ideology. Nothing but a bunch of paid right wing flacks posting here.— No Ids
- No Ids-What dazzling brillance! Are you a mensa member? What a memezmering use of DNC cliches and talking points. You might even qualify for the amazing Bambam's administration. If you don't pay your taxes you automatically qualify you moron.— georgel
- Obama's put himself in a rather tight situation. He set a timetable of August for passage of this HC bill, which (to me) looks like he's not going to make. Certainly, he will get SOMETHING passed & then hold a big signing ceremony claiming it's the HC bill. But, how long will he wait after Congress comes back in Sept. to do this? My bet is the end of Sept. is his drop-dead date to do a sham signing or produce a solid bill. You have to wonder that the longer he goes past the August recess, would it be because the bill's losing support or because he's trying to make Congress produce a bill more to his liking?— yobill626
- Hey, did I just miss all the Polman Blog Cons admitting that Obama has selected in Sotomayor a moderate, mainstream choice for Supreme Court?— yobill626
- Walter Cronkite, RIP. A great American, for sure. Anybody want to guess how many fewer days the media reviews his life than Micheal Jackson's?— yobill626
- yobill...I guess it depends on which Sotomayor you are asking about, the one who made all those statements over the past 20+ years, or the one who while testifying debunked and ran away from all those statements of the past 20+ years. Funny how Obama wanted someone with empathy, and Sotomayor said she has been and always will be guided by what is stated in the law. Guess Obama got it wrong, huh?— tom - wilmington, de
- Ah yes, the House Health Care Bill. The one that, at the same time the Bush tax cuts expire, adds more taxes on to the "wealthy", many of whom are small businesses who report as individuals. The same one that, in 2012 if savings are not realized, doubles that very surtax (which is on Adjusted Gross Income, not taxable income). The same bill that cuts medicare and medicaid for the elderly (I remember when Conservatives wanted to slow the growth of medicare and were blasted by the Dems for not protecting the elderly). I can just see all those doctors rushing to accept Medicare patients, sending them for more treatments, while making a lot less money. Wait, like Obama said, maybe they should just take a painkiller (like oxycontin) instead of having that surgery. The same bill that, once the public option comes into fruition in 2013, bars anyone from being newly enrolled in any private insurance, thereby pushing them into the public option. Yep, if you have no insurance in 2014, you cannot get anything but the public option. The same bill that the CBO says will not reduce costs and just expand government. I know, they have all these "wellness" things in there...like new sidewalks, expanding wellness centers, etc. But it still will not reduce costs. Yeah, that bill is a real winner. The bill also does away with HSA's. Better to have health co-ops, HSA's, and a host of other conservative ideas out there that liberals either do not read or do not care to find out about....better to just say we have no ideas.— tom - wilmington, de
- I just love how the conservative media is all over the story about Biden is conducting secret meetings at the White House with people the White House will not disclose, and about how Carol Browner (one of the czars) told staff at a meeting not to take any notes, not to write down anything whatsoever. Yep, the Conservative media is all over that story.— tom - wilmington, de
- 1.04 TRILLION in costs over ten years, not to include inflation. That's all you need to know about his bloated boondoggle the White House is rushing through Congress.— camtheman
- Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's WSJ from a disillusioned liberal who once worked for Hubert Humphrey...check it out...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779697143755743.html— tom - wilmington, de
- Gee,tom, why don't you read the news stories (not posts) this week about Republican reps who believe bush was wrong? You can find malcontents in either party. No big deal. You just seem to find the ones from the lib side and ignore the cons. Poor cons, the first judge in the Ricci case followed the rule of law in ruling against the firefighters. So did the 3-judge panel of why Sotomayor was one part. Only the judicial activist Roberts' court created a new spin on the law. Wasn't Roberts the one who said stare decisis, settled law precedent should be considered? So far, he has yet to practice what he testified in order to get appointed. And why shouldn't Specter ask Ricci that question. The whole case was not about discrimination, which the repubs tried to make it out to be, but whether New Haven had the right to protect itself by withholding promotions based on a test. Even though the full appeals panel had reservations in the ruling, but said they would not have overturned it. I guess it's only activism when "libs" change settled law.— mike l
- Tom, I am just glad we don't have another FRAUDULENT administration like the failed Bush administration who BORROWED money to pay the rich a tax rebate. Truely a both piggish and asinine idea ! And I listened to soon to be Associate Justice Sotomayor - and have concluded that our president has made an inspiring choice for his 1st Supreme Court vacancy !!! Listening to her is inspiring !— ModerateMarge
- For *real* coverage of health care "reform", try the WSJ: "A Reckless Congress: Health-care bill to impose new taxes, welfare state" http://tinyurl.com/mf9p9p— MaggieL
- The Democrats are taking politics and stupidty to new lows. Chuck Schumer called the CBO "wacky". Tha liberal attacks on the CBO are scary; the dems are trying everying they can to assert undue influence and stack the deck.— Comrade Noodlehead
- mike1....since Bush is no longer president, it matters little to me who thought he was either right or wrong. History will be the judge of the Bush admin just as it was every other admin. However, since Obama is now president, and it is now his decisions that affect this country, it does matter to me what those who endorsed, voted for and supported think of him and his ideas.— tom - wilmington, de
- Marge...you are like a broken record. Sotomayor said little during her confirmation hearing, as was predicted and expected. None of the SCOTUS nominees ever say anything during the hearings. However, it was inspiring to see her run away from her prior statements and say empathy would not play any part in her decision making process. It was truly inspiring to hear her make light or her prior speeches and rulings as if it was someone else making those past statements. She could not even say if she thought the second amendment applied to the states, even though she previously ruled it does not. That was really inspiring. And if you think Bush's borrowing to give tax cuts to the middle class (like the $1,000 child tax credit, expanded Earned Income Credit, Energy Credit, 10% tax bracket, etc) and get the rich to pay an even larger share of the total income tax burden than pre-Bush tax cuts, than you must be livid at Obama borrowing money to pay for.....what, exactly, besides czars that have no Congressional oversight and are appointed outside the Senate's "advise and consent" duty, medicaid enrollment that will burden the states in two years, and more expanded government control. Where are all those jobs he was going to create with the stimulus? What about his vow that, according to DNC News (MSNBC), "600,000 jobs will be created or saved." Are we there yet?— tom - wilmington, de
- By the way, that was 600,000 jobs created or saved by the end of the summer. And can anybody yet determine what makes up a "saved job"? ModerateMarge...since you are so inspired by Obama, can you elaborate on exactly what represents a "saved job"?— tom - wilmington, de
- tom...please! Big deal that Sotomayor has made a half dozen or so throwaway statements over a @30 year period. Compare that to the sheer volume of case work she has produced, & it dwarfs Alito's puny record when he was hoisted to the SC just a couple of years ago. The fact that I note that she has ACTED as a reasoned moderate isn't because Dems have said it, but rather your own Repubs that have stated such.— yobill626
- I saw this quote and thought it appropriate as Obama/Pelosi plans to tax the daylights out of the dwindling numbers of "wealthy" in order to pay for the health care fiasco they're planning: "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Adrian Rogers, 1931— Vandy
- Tom, It is about time we look back at W's 8 years for what they were. It made no sense to me to borrow money to pay the rich a tax rebate. That is what W did. There were no program cuts to go with the tax cut. My state and local taxes went up to the extent that my benefit from W was not very much at the end of the game. I am rired of you and Mike regurgitating Half Story Hannity or Druggie Limbaugh with no eye towards accuracy. The Sotomayor nomination was yet another case in point. Honestly look back to what you wrote and repeated - and you cannot believe you were being accurate - about her rate of Supreme Court reversals et al. Point to her cases - just how can anyone with integrity call her anything but a mainstream jurist ???— ModerateMarge
- Is polman a partisan lackey by choice or is he on the DNC payroll? Or both?— tr88
- Marge- There were lots of spending snafus in the Bush Administration. Such as the Ted Kennedy Education Bill, Prescription Drug and billions to Africa. All of which if he avoided would have helped balance the Budget. The Bush's were always big government liberals and W was no exception. But the tax cuts lead to millions of jobs created and unemployment that averaged around 5%. At this point it is all water under he bridge. At some point this person that you elected has to step up to the plate. Right now it would appear as though his policies to help stimulate the economy has been a failure on a massive scale. The only thing that Obama can hope for is that the blue dogs and the conservative Republicans save him from his horrific policies. Otherwise it will be a painful 3 and a half years but at least we can vote him out of office.
- Mike - You missed the biggest spending debacle of all time - IRAQ !!! This war was poorly planned out and poorly executed due to Ex President Bush's tendancy to not listen to opposing points of view about Iraq. As far as Obama's deficits - they are far too large but not nearly so much greater than Bush's when all the off budget spending of W's era is figured in.— ModerateMarge
- "As far as Obama's deficits - they are far too large but not nearly so much greater than Bush's when all the off budget spending of W's era is figured in." So what you're saying is that Obama = Bush. What happened to that Change we were promised?— legatus
- Marge- I don't think we would have avoided Iraq regardless of who was President. Mistakes are made in every war. In Iraq's case the initial mission to topple Sadamm went very well. There won't be any hindsite on Iraq for at least a decade. And we'll never know what catastrophe's we were spared by toppling Husein. You want to try to continue to make political hay out of Iraq but I think that hand has been played. Most of the positioning on Iraq is pure political nonsense. Such as the Senators who voted for the authorization of force for political purposes but now try to tell us they were against the war. But he broader point is that in the aftermath of 9-11 we were no longer going to play the cat and mouse game with Hussein regardless of who was President.
- Marge- So Obamas projected deficit of 1.8 Trillion is only because Iraq is included? What nonsense. At least do some fact checks before you post.
- No rightie has yet commented on my point that if Reagan was justified in running a deficit to finance a military buildup, during a period of economic growth (I'm not talking about Volker's 81-82 recession period, but the of growth that followed that righties attribute to Reagan's economic genius), then why is it wrong for Obama to run a deficit during a period of economic recession, as almost all economists agree is appropriate? I'd love to see a discussion here where both sides stuck to some kind of consistent set of basic principles.— liberal
- liberal- I don't think it is right to run deficits at all. In fact we should be talking about running surpluses and a complete faze out of entitlment programs. But for some reason the discussed is about more entitlments. I think a gradual faze out of 95% of our government is what needs to happen. Obviously defense is necessary but very little else. Then we can get back to the self reliancy that this country was built on.
- liberal- how can you compare Reagan's deficits with the Obama deficit. It's like comparing a mouse to an Elephant. Liberals used to hyperventilate over 100 billion dollar deficits but if the President is a Democrat than no worries whatsoever. 1.8 trillion! Who cares he's a democrat so it is ok.
- What counts about the federal government debt is its percentage of GDP. From 120% of GDP at the end of WWII it declined steadily to 30% of GDP at the end of the Carter adminstration. Bush I and Reagan raised it to about 60%, Clinton reduced this to 55%, and Bush II raised it again to 72%. This is indeed somewhat alarming, but note that it is primarily Republican presidencies since Nixon during which the percentage goes up rather than down. Obama's need to borrow money to get the economy going during a recession--which all presidents have done--has to be looked at in this context.— liberal
- liberal- here is the link to the debt as a percentage of GDP. I think you were a little fast and free with the facts. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
- "Obama's need to borrow money to get the economy going during a recession--which all presidents have done--has to be looked at in this context." The latest figures suggest that the Obama debt will rise to 100% of GDP (and who knows if that's using the Obama super-rosy GDP forecast). The question I'd pose to you, liberal, is what are the tangible results of this spending? The pork-filled "stimulus" bill is targeted at everything OTHER than job creation, while the CBO just stated that his healthcare plan will expand, not curtail, total spending. With Reagan, many felt the defense buildup was necessary in the Cold-War era, and however possible, the war came down. What are the American people getting for this massive expansion in the Obama federal beaurocracy?— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- lib, you know I think Reagan was justified in spending the enemy into submission during the cold war! Also, who knows how much money it saved by not having the 'cold war' turn 'hot' in Eastern Europe:) As for Pres. Obama's spending, he chose as his 1st priority a $787 Bil stimulus bill, that had to be passed late on a Friday because time was of the essence and now it lays 95% unspent behind layers of beauracracy, stimulating nothing! I saw where the President said it was working as planned, and my question is why did it need to get rushed through if the plan wasn't to spend it right away? I know the real plan was to spend it closer to midterm and re-election time not to help hurting Americans right now!— NEPhilly
- Obama said the stimulus was always an 18 to 24 month program...but that was never mentioned during the stimulus debate. Lawrence Summers stated we would see the effects of the stimulus bill almost immediately, but nothing has yet happened. Christina Romer stated for every dollar of federal stimulus spending we would get 1.5 dollars of private spending, yet that has not happened. All of these people are now saying we need to act now for health care and it will reduce costs....where is their credibility?— tom - wilmington, de
- Marge....total spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was far less than $1 Tillion over 6 years under Bush, so how does that equate to the Obama administration planned trillion dollar deficits EVERY year for the next 9 years? Like I said...you are like a broken record. As for Sotomayor, she ran away from her stated beliefs so fast it made her heaad spin. She also debunked Obama's reasons for choosing her...empathy and what was in her heart (which is why he voted against Alito...for what he believed was in Alito's heart). Sotomayor stated she would be guided by the law and solely by the law. Far from what she stated before and what Obama wanted in his justice.— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal...one thing about Reagan's spending...it created jobs. It is a fact that defense spending creates economic stimulus, opposed to government entitlement spending creating stimulus. But Obama, true to form, wants to cut defense spending and increase entitlement spending. He is backing out of providing missile to Poland and Czech (the same ones he sent to Hawaii), the South Korea FTA sits unratified in the Senate while South Korea negotiates other trade agreements with the EU and other countries. Same with Colombia FTA, while Colombia signs one with Canada. Obama has no interest in creating jobs....his interest is in, as he stated during his inaugural, "remaking America". Not rebuilding, but remaking. Big difference.— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal...one thing about Reagan's spending...it created jobs. It is a fact that defense spending creates economic stimulus, opposed to government entitlement spending creating stimulus. But Obama, true to form, wants to cut defense spending and increase entitlement spending. He is backing out of providing missile to Poland and Czech (the same ones he sent to Hawaii), the South Korea FTA sits unratified in the Senate while South Korea negotiates other trade agreements with the EU and other countries. Same with Colombia FTA, while Colombia signs one with Canada. Obama has no interest in creating jobs....his interest is in, as he stated during his inaugural, "remaking America". Not rebuilding, but remaking. Big difference.— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal...one thing about Reagan's spending...it created jobs. It is a fact that defense spending creates economic stimulus, opposed to government entitlement spending creating stimulus. But Obama, true to form, wants to cut defense spending and increase entitlement spending. He is backing out of providing missile to Poland and Czech (the same ones he sent to Hawaii), the South Korea FTA sits unratified in the Senate while South Korea negotiates other trade agreements with the EU and other countries. Same with Colombia FTA, while Colombia signs one with Canada. Obama has no interest in creating jobs....his interest is in, as he stated during his inaugural, "remaking America". Not rebuilding, but remaking. Big difference.— tom - wilmington, de
- This House health care bill is atrocious. If you are not enrolled in a private insurance plan before the government option comes into being in 2013, then you will not be allowed to enroll into a private health plan...you must go into the government option. If the health care plan does not provide for abortion coverage, then it can be subject to a fine. If the cost savings do not materialize by 2012, then the proposed surtax on AGI can be doubled. And like Obama said, if you have pain and are a senior citizen, maybe you just take a painkiller instead of having that surgery.— tom - wilmington, de
- And like Obama said, if you have pain and are a senior citizen, maybe you just take a painkiller instead of having that surgery....lolz, I'm sure Obama will be writing scripts in his spare time.— chasing history
- chasing history...it is what the man said at a town hall meeting on health care....just a sign of the soon to come government rationing system. And this from the AP..."WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape. The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress. The release of the update - usually scheduled for mid-July - has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess." No wonder he wants health care done before the recess....so it will be a done deal when he announces higher deficits and unemployment...get his agenda passed before his popularity falls even further.— tom - wilmington, de
- Polman seems to like mentioning polls...wonder if he will tag the latest from ABC/WaPo..."Intensity is running against the president on these issues as well. For the first time more people "strongly" disapprove of his work on the economy than strongly approve, 35 percent vs. 29 percent. Ditto on health care, 33 percent vs. 25 percent. And on the deficit, strong disapprovers now outnumber strong approvers by 2-1, 38 percent vs. 19 percent." So how's that "hope and change" working for all of you?— tom - wilmington, de
- it is what the man said at a town hall meeting on health care....just a sign of the soon to come government rationing system.....lol, you have all of the GOP talking/scare points out today. It's interesting that Republicans are so concerend about Medicare. Isn't it "socialized healthcare?" Again, I never saw one Republican rail against Bush and the GOP when they expanded Medicare with Part D.— chasing history
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: