Online House Hunting

Why doesnt Obama stop pretending to be listening to other ideas on health care?

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/11/ostracized-by-obama/ As part of his drive to overhaul the nation's health-care system, President Obama has presented himself as a pragmatist who is more interested in creating the best possible plan than in rigidly adhering to a given ideology. "It's conceivable that there are other ideas out there that we have not thought of," he acknowledged at last Thursday's White House Health Care Summit. "If there is a way of getting this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way. If there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I'm happy to do it that way as well. I just want to figure out what works." President Obama has used events such as community discussion groups and last week's summit to foster the impression that he is soliciting opinions from all angles of the health care debate, but the reality is a lot different. Obscured by the Administration's theatrics is the fact that it has kept at bay those who advocate free-market solutions rather than government-run health care. The guest list to the summit was a telling sign. Despite having representatives from 169 different labor, industry, and policy organizations, the White House did not invite any organizations that advocate a consumer-based free-market approach to health care. Progressive organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Health Care for America NOW!, and Campaign for America's Future were represented, but pro-market groups such as the Cato Institute, Consumers for Health Care Choices, the Galen Institute, or the Council for Affordable Health Insurance were not. "They brought in the health care establishment to basically divvy up the pie, and consumers were left out of it entirely," lamented Greg Scandlen, president of Consumers for Health Care Choices. "This is all predetermined and orchestrated to get the result they want." While the Republican Congressional leadership was on hand, many of the foremost proponents of a patient-focused approach to health care were not. "I suspect that that can't be an accident," Rep. John Shadegg, a Republican who has proposed a number of market-oriented reforms to the U.S. health care system and did not receive an invitation to the summit, said. "I suspect that they don't want those views expressed." Shadegg noted that other lawmakers who weren't invited included free marketers such as Rep. Paul Ryan, Rep. Tom Price, Sen. Richard Burr, Sen. Jim DeMint, and Obama's personal friend, Sen. Tom Coburn. By contrast, Sen. Bernard Sanders and Rep. John Conyers were on hand -- both of them advocate a socialized, or single-payer, system. The Obama administration's unwillingness to consider free-market views wasn't limited to the summit. TAS spoke to several professionals who took the Obama transition team up on its call to hold community meetings last December aimed at generating ideas on how to reform the health-care system. But those who came up with ideas focused on a consumer-based approach rather than a government-run one felt that their ideas were ignored. "They called out for everyone to have all of these town meetings, but if your town meeting didn't have a conclusion that agreed with theirs, they said 'thank you very much' and never came back to you," said Dr. Marcy Zwelling-Aamot, who participated in a meeting in Long Beach, California, along with a coalition of local lawmakers, hospitals, providers, and concerned residents. More here: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/11/ostracized-by-obama/ "The spectator is right wing propaganda at is finest." You liberals are quite predictable. I KNEW the article was going to get that reaction. Attack the messenger, not the message. You got anything that proves the info in the article completely wrong? I didnt think so. "First of all, Republican leaders and Republican Congressmen and Senators were invited." Well duh. The article mentions that. "While the Republican Congressional leadership was on hand, many of the foremost proponents of a patient-focused approach to health care were not. " "Insurance company executives, HMO's, doctors and hospitals were all heavily represented." Yes, the ESTABLISHMENT. Whats more, none of whom disagreed with the socialist plans. "The article complains about 'free-marketers' not being invited," Lie. It says many were not invited. It didnt say ALL were not invited "then near the end of the article (which you did not quote)" I didnt quote it because I cant fit the entire article. I had to excerpt. "it quotes a free-marketer that was invited. What a joke. " Again, the article says that MANY were not invited. It didnt say ALL. "What a joke. The American Spectator is a biased source. Nice try, but their game is easy to spot and see through." Nice try, but it was YOU that had to twist and lie about what the article did and didnt say in order to reach your biased conclusion. in other words, you set up a strawman so that you can knock it down. Waiting on you, Colleen, to explain how you manged to read things into the article that just isnt there. "That is a spurious claim in and of itself because it is readily apparent that a wide array of differing viewpoints were in fact represented" Yeah, but by how many. 50-5, 100-3? Whats more, their complaint is while they were invited, they werent listened to. They were invited just for show, not because Obama was interested in listening to their view. "Obviously there is a finite number of guests that can be invited. Duh" Duh. Obviously. But when youve got say, 400 limited seating, and invite lets say only 10 or 25 people of opposing views, the rest going to people you agree with,,. "'Many' free markerters weren't invited, but does it tell you that many single payer proponents were likewise not invited? Of course not because that is not the way propaganda is put together. For example: It goes out if its way to say John Conyers and Bernie Sanders were there and then tries to minimize the fact that many members of Congress with exactly opposite views were likewise present by not mentioning their names" It doesnt mention the single payer proponents because they WERE invited. The claim that they were likewise not invited is BS: http://prorev.com/2009/03/inside-obamas-healthcare-show-summit.html "Regular folks were also represented--I suppose you think that someone from the Cato Institute isn't the establishment" Not the Health Care establishment, which is what I was refering to. "Some single payer proponents were invited and some free-marketers were invited." You mean alot of single payer advocates were invited and very few free market advocates were invited. "Many single payer advocates were NOT invited just like many free-marketers were not invited---that was my point. The propagandist attempted to make it appear that free marketers were largely not invited and that single payers were largely invited. That is simply not the case." Wrong. That IS the case. Many single payer advocates were indeed invited as I pointed out. Many more than free market advocates. The article is dead on accurate about the lack of free market advocates being invited while many single payer advocates were clearly invited. "Please, this is just whining and it is bogus." Right. You give your opinions. People who disagree are "whining" "Certainly he had more people leaning toward his own perspective, but those with differing views were well represented too. The criticism is just more sore loser rhetoric." This has zilch to do with being a "sore loser". This is about the future well being of this country. "You guys lost, get over it." As long as Obama does things we disapprove of, you will continue to hear our voices in opposition. I dont recall your side "getting over it" when any Republican won office. "Pat Robertson's Regents University grads are no longer going to be staffing the government " And you and I and the whole country will be all the sadder for it, mark my words.

Public Comments

1. The spectator is right wing propaganda at is finest. Actually, I have come to expect the same drivel from the spectator over and over. They hate facts. They love to assume what people believe and think, they love to predict what will happen in the future and get people riled up about it. Rush, Hannity and rags like the Spectator thrive on controversy and dividing the nation into "liberals" (people who disagree with what they have to say) and "non-liberals" (their audience). I don't see any reason to listen/read/watch these people, since that's all they're after. They could care less about what the truth is, they're after ratings, nothing more.
2. I think it would be much wiser for idiotic people to stop assuming what other people think.
3. Obama got himself in this huge mess. He basically has NO IDEA about what to do with health care. So why is he now in this predicament about overhauling health care? Because none other than Hillary made it a campaign issue during the primaries, which Obama copied to be able to keep up. The problem for BO is that now that Hillary is SOS and traveling a lot, he has no one to ask what to do, plus he's too arrogant to ask anyway.
4. the HE that is his Obamaness is saying these things so that we can understand that we should be saying them of the One that is the Obama. He that is, is ready to grant us his forgiveness if we agree to see the divine beauty in all that the Obama says and does.
5. That's the most encouraging news I've heard yet. Maybe he'll turn his back on the insurance racket and their practice of quack medicine after all.
6. What an exceptionally dishonest article. First of all, Republican leaders and Republican Congressmen and Senators were invited. Insurance company executives, HMO's, doctors and hospitals were all heavily represented. The article complains about 'free-marketers' not being invited, then near the end of the article (which you did not quote) it quotes a free-marketer that was invited. What a joke. The American Spectator is a biased source. Nice try, but their game is easy to spot and see through. Edited to add: It is a puff propaganda piece because it attempts to create the impression that because SOME people were not invited that the meeting was not representative.. That is a spurious claim in and of itself because it is readily apparent that a wide array of differing viewpoints were in fact represented. Obviously there is a finite number of guests that can be invited. Duh. 'Many' free markerters weren't invited, but does it tell you that many single payer proponents were likewise not invited? Of course not, because that is not the way propaganda is put together. For example: It goes out if its way to say John Conyers and Bernie Sanders were there and then tries to minimize the fact that many members of Congress with exactly opposite views were likewise present by not mentioning their names. Regular folks were also represented--I suppose you think that someone from the Cato Institute isn't the establishment, yet the article laments their not being present. I think that the article would have far, far more credibility if it posted the entire guest list and referenced where each person attending was from. But, that just wouldn't work as well as a propaganda device now would it? :) Edited one last time: About 30 Democratic members of Congress, compared to about 20 Republicans (roughly their percentage in Congress) and also representatives from Pfizer, The American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association, The National Association of Manufacturers, U.S Chamber of Congress, Small Business Majority, USW, General Mills, Insurance Companies, etc. Some single payer proponents were invited and some free-marketers were invited. Many single payer advocates were NOT invited just like many free-marketers were not invited---that was my point. The propagandist attempted to make it appear that free marketers were largely not invited and that single payers were largely invited. That is simply not the case. Please, this is just whining and it is bogus. Maybe he should have done a Cheney and closed the doors (also a la Hillary) and refused to even divulge those that attended based on a twisted claim of Executive Privilege like Cheney? Certainly he had more people leaning toward his own perspective, but those with differing views were well represented too. The criticism is just more sore loser rhetoric. You guys lost, get over it. Pat Robertson's Regents University grads are no longer going to be staffing the government :)
7. Give him a break! Pretending is what he does best. (btw..DeMint, Price and Chambliss are all from the South..[and people say we're the dumb ones] Where are Kennedy and Schumer and the gang from?
8. Basically Obama is going to do ONLY what he wants to do!
9. Another lie among the hundreds being perpetrated on the American people by the Marxist/Socialist regime now occupying the White House.