| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama's Stunning Admission on Obamacare |
| 2010-01-30 |
| Slamdunk by Realclearpolitics! There's been a remarkable amount of coverage of President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat today, but I haven't seen anyone focus on the President's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation (Video): 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. [emphasis added] If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were "snuck in" - presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists - that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want. This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats' legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn't. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care - the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today. So it's a bit of shock to find out now - from the President himself, no less - that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year (the House passed its version in late November, the Senate on Christmas Eve Day) contained language that would have violated this pledge. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #9 I am left wondering if we saw the same video. You saw the same video, but not through the same filter. Your filter is based on reality, their filter is variable and always returns what they want to see or believe. To paraphrase an old saying: "You can't fix Liberal!". |
| Posted by: Herman Slusoter6686 2010-01-30 21:41 |
| #8 Judging by the slobbering reaction from my friends way out on the far left wing Not to mention practically the entire news-monger class. Skimming the related stories on GglNws, I am left wondering if we saw the same video. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2010-01-30 17:59 |
| #7 Judging by the slobbering reaction from my friends way out on the far left wing I'd say he was more arrogant than normal and that it had the intended effect on the intended audience. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2010-01-30 17:02 |
| #6 Oh, the things you learn when TOTUS isn't around to control the agenda. Is it me, or didn't he seem to be more arrogant than usual during the questioning and answering by the 'Pubs, yesterday?? |
| Posted by: Tom- Pa 2010-01-30 16:40 |
| #5 True Bobby, but, it's dishonest in either case. That's one of the biggest things driving the Tea Party movement and Scott Brown's election. People are fed up with the lies and corruption. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-01-30 15:28 |
| #4 My insurance goes so kids can get pregnant, while their insurance premiums pay for my old-age meds. That's insurance, and it's both good news and bad news, now that i think of it... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-01-30 15:21 |
| #3 "got snuck in" Blaming others as usual. That got old a loooong time ago, Bambi. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't?" Or pregnancy coverage for those of us who definitely can't get pregnant (and can prove it). |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-01-30 15:06 |
| #2 And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added] But this would likely involve only the last 2400 pages. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-01-30 14:11 |
| #1 Note that the inverse of this has never been well discussed and is just as important. 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 i But what about some one (gov't) getting between my insurance company and me? IE right now I have a certain coverage for a certain price, my understanding of this was that gov't would gain many powers over what the insurance company would be able to offer me and at what price. That's as big a problem as telling me what I have to have and from whom I have to get it. We need to a) get malpractice reform b) get cross state lines insurance and c) allow virtually any coverage combination in a policy. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't? e.g. latest requirements for mental health coverage. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-01-30 14:07 |