D-Day for Health Care Reform?

Congress is back in session after its hot and grueling August recess. More than a few of its members were drilled incessantly by citizens upset about the pending passage of HR 3200 and/or its progeny. Tomorrow, President Obama will address the nation on health care reform. It will be his final pitch to the country in hopes that he can regain his splendor with the American public which has been fairly tarnished over the whole issue.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Obama is Fast Losing White Voters’ Support.” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-politics7-2009sep07,0,7305762.story In that article, the Times states that “Strategists in both parties blame Obama’s decline on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly after a month of often-rowdy debate over his proposed healthcare overhaul, in which some conservatives accused him of socialism.” What else can this plan be called? In this column, we have torn apart HR 3200 in many ways. And, above all else, when the plan is carefully reviewed it is socialist.

In his speech tomorrow, Obama will make a plea to the people of America that the plan is necessary and should be supported by all. It should not be a Republican and/or Democratic issue. It is an American problem that needs to be addressed. As I have said in this column before, we all agree on that. However, we cannot agree to the President and Congress’ current plan.

In the last few days, a couple of new proposals have been introduced. One of these is that the President is willing to take the public option off of the table. This is a good start. But, to have some sort of trigger in the bill which would initiate a public option if some level of events happen or do not happen is ridiculous. Who is going to judge whether the trigger has occurred? Which Presidential Czar will be in charge of that? (I am just assuming there will be another Czar since that seems to be Obama’s answer to everything despite recent problems caused by them addressed below.)

Another option being put on the table is to tax so called “Cadillac” plans which are the crème of the crop in medical plans. These are usually plans held by top executives at major corporations. Taxing these may make a lot of sense if we must tax something to pay for this onslaught on taxpayer money. However, will that include taxing Congress’ plan as well? I do not know how else to describe Congress’ plan other than to say it is a true Cadillac plan. If Congress agrees to such a tax, I am sure top executives would agree as well. Are not the Democrats the ones wanting to make the playing field level all the time?

The Senate Finance Committee is working on what would be the first true bipartisan plan right now. As reported by Fox.com, the plan would include penalties for those who do not get insurance depending on income level and family size. It would also be the first mandatory plan in the same vein that Auto Insurance is mandatory in many states. However, it would not include a public option at all. In its place, the plan would include non-profit cooperatives (whatever the hell they are).

If this plan addresses all of the issues I addressed in my prior article I can see it being something that that Republican Party can get behind. Let’s just hope so.

Van Jones! Now, there’s a name I am sure President Obama would like to soon forget. Talk about a major screw up on the Administration’s part. Here is a man that is a self-avowed Communist; signed a petition which alleged that that Bush Administration was behind 9/11; referred to Republican’s as “assholes” within the last six months; and stated that “Black Students would never do a Columbine.” I wonder what vetting process the Obama Administration did on Mr. Jones. It took all of about ten days for Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to out this guy.

The result of Beck and Hannity’s research was obvious. Van Jones had to go. But, he resigned and was not fired. Why? The Obama Administration is still standing behind him even though all the evidence showed this man should have never even been appointed. His resignation letter cited a “vicious smear campaign against me” as his major reason for resigning. Come on. Who is he kidding?

Did the Obama Administration vet him at all? Did they know about his past? Did they agree with his past? Or, was it just extreme ineptitude on the Administration’s part? All of these choices have scary consequences? I guess admitting they screwed up was the least damaging.

But, what about Obama’s other Czars? Have they all been properly vetted? Or, are there other potential problems lurking in the background to haunt the Administration? Are the potential problems with John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein enough to have them resign as well? Holdrum seems to advocate certain population control policies that would be opposed to a majority of the American populace. And, Sunstein believes that animals should be permitted to sue humans. (I admit this is a bit ridiculous, but do we want this guy that close to the President of the United States).

This all brings to mind major problems with the whole process of appointing Presidential Advisors. Should these advisors who obviously have the President’s ear be required to be approved by the Senate? Thus far, the answer has been no as only Cabinet Posts and other higher government positions require the “advise and consent” of the Senate. Maybe, that should be changed. Maybe, all of the Czars should be approved by the Senate. I am sure the Senate’s vetting process would have discovered the problems with Van Jones and possibly John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein as well. The Senate process did put an end to a few of Obama’s earlier nominees, including those nominated for a few Cabinet posts.

In closing, let us see how the President’s performance tomorrow is viewed by the American public. Is this the D-Day for Healthcare or just the beginning of what will be a long, hard debate?

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

Share This Post

10 Responses to "D-Day for Health Care Reform?"

  1. Frank another well thought out submission. While I disagree with most of it excluding the discussion related to health care, I applaud your tenacity towards walking that thin line of partisan politics. In my objectiveness I do not view the issues aside from health care the same as you. Additionally I think this whole concept of losing white votes is not only false but ridiculous in nature. As soon as we bring in the color issue the whole thing loses credibility. I might quote a recent poll that found 77% of the people think a public option is a necessary mandate towards health care reform. Polls are polls, much like the ones that said the Amercian populace would never elect an African American to the office of President. We all see how that turned out, don't we?
    I appreciate your articles and are equally thankful for the opportunity to engage in the dialogue in a civil and respectful atmosphere. The opportunities for such these days is all not all that prevalent on the net or anywhere else, sadly.

    Reply
  2. Frank, another article welldone. I do think though nobody in their right mind should believe anything that comes from Obamas mouth. It it very clear that he only says what he thinks will keep people off his back, then does as he pleases. That type of action is called Passive Agressive behavior and Obama could be the poster boy for it. That said, I have more hope now than in a long time as more voters are becoming aware of the dangerous administration that has our collective future in their hands. 2010 can't come soon enough.

    Reply
  3. If I may add a follow up to my comment, as to the Van Jones issue I wish to interject the following; show me a man/woman who can't be associated with some level of controversy and I'll show you a person who hasn't done anything.

    In response to KK's post, if you think it appropriate to label the current President as dangerous I'd be most interested to know how you would refer to George Bush. I could highlight the long list of atrocities but unless you've lived in a cave all those years you know them as well as I do. Dangerous might be a kind way to refer to him.

    Reply
  4. Deborah, I agree with you. Bush was not a good leader by any measure. Obama however is a Marxist socialist who wants to change everything about our country not just the things that need improvement. Obama said it himself during the campaign,judge me by the company I keep. I have, and most of his friends and Czars are self spoken communists,socialists etc….none of whom should be allowed in the West Wing of the Whitehouse. This is NOT politics as usual. It reminds me of the movie "The Wiazrd or Oz" where the wizard tells Dorothy,"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." We all need to look beyond what people say and pay attention to their actions.

    Reply
  5. Frank –

    Good article. What'd you think of the President's speech last night. I thought it was AWESOME!

    KK –

    You are an idiot….please go hang out with Joe Wilson.

    Thanks!

    Reply
  6. KK; as I noted in my first comment I appreciate the opportunity for civil dialogue. Therefore I respect your reply to me. However I still have to say I don't agree with it. According to the last administration, (sorry to keep going back there but they raised the bar so high on most things during their tenure), we were told that ANYONE who speaks in opposition of the country's leader they are exhibiting unpatriotic behavior. Apparently the Dixie Chicks deserved black listing for opposing our people risking their lives in a war, but anyone can spew any venomous name at this President and it's perfectly all right. In fact, it's not even required the attacks contain a level of truth, lie if you must, but attack at all costs.

    Reply
  7. George-You're the most common kind of liberal. No ability to tolorate any other opinion except that which is given to you by the current administration,Acorn,SEIU etc…. So sad.

    Deborah-We'll have to agree to disagree. We clearly do not agree on the current administration. I look at the facts and they speak for themselves. Unlike the above mentioned George though, I do not begrudge you your opinions.

    Interesting group you have here Frank. Gotta love LA.

    Reply

Post Comment