Go Home

mandate

6 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (131)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1083)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Before the election, Rep. Kevin McCarthy said that electing Mitt Romney would mean that Republicans have a mandate to overhaul Medicare: House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy: Election is ‘Mandate’ to Overhaul Medicare:

House Republican Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) says electing Mitt Romney this fall means Republicans have a ‘mandate’ to overhaul Medicare. As McCarthy put it, “If there’s a mandate going through this election, it’s to save Medicare.” As I put it: When Republicans say “save Medicare” they mean end Medicare as we know it. They would keep a government program called Medicare but it would not be the Medicare that has existed for almost half a century. The Republican plan for Medicare is to turn it into a program designed to shortchange seniors while increasing profits for private insurance companies.

We have a single payer health care insurance program that works very well for senior citizens. We don’t need to hand Medicare over to private insurance. Republicans can continue to blame Democrats for doing nothing to “save Medicare” but Republicans are the “kill Medicare” party and they have been for decades.

If what he said on this Sunday's Meet the Press is any indication, McCarthy hasn't seemed to figure out that they lost. And we've already explained here why this trial balloon put out there by the administration, where it seems they've forgotten who won as well, is a really bad idea that needs to be pushed back against forcefully. As everyone explained, even partially privatizing Medicare is not going to "save" the program. It just makes the cost of health care coverage more expensive for seniors.

I was glad to see Sen. Dick Durbin say raising the age is off the table during this interview, but I wasn't thrilled about him offering up means testing. Digby has more on that here: Hot Air Trial Ballooning:

I have a sneaking feeling that Durbin is throwing up a smokescreen there (or he's been smoking some of that special Alan Simpson sensimilla.) He must know that the argument is that Obamacare will pick up the slack if they decide to raise the Medicare age. If he doesn't then he needs to find another line of work.

Even Mitt Romney's health care advisor, Avik Roy from the Manhattan Institute, knows that. Here's what he said on Up with Chris Hayes this morning (with Steve Kornacki subbing for Chris)

"I have to respond to this interesting hyperbole about Medicare death sentence. If you raise the retirement age for Medicare, we have the Affordable Care Act as the backstop. Everybody under 400% poverty level is still covered with the affordable care act in place. So what we are really talking about is means testing Medicare by raising the retirement age. People who are upper income, above 400% of the poverty level won't be subsidized if they're younger retirees. It's where entitlement reform should go, to expand it into the retiree population."

(Kornacki pointed out that ACA is being challenged so it's not exactly a backstop at this point, but he let the topic drop in favor of more masturbation over tax rates.)

It sounds as if Roy and Jonathan Chait may have found the bipartisan sweet spot for Obamacare. Privatize Medicare! Now that really is a Grand Bargain.

Before everyone gets into another tizzy about how shrill and unreasonable I'm being for taking this rumor seriously, let's have a little discussion of what a "trial balloon" is. It is, simply, a rumor that's purposefully spread during a negotiation in order to gauge the reaction. Therefore, it is important to react, not act all glib and self-assured that it could never happen. They want to know if you think this is a good idea, so if you don't you should say so. And you should say it in a shrill enough fashion that they know it's a very big deal, if you think it's a very big deal.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (179)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1181)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

David Brooks is not happy about the way the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff" have been going so far and expressed some of that discontent on this Friday's PBS Newshour. Brooks apparently has President Obama mixed up with House Speaker John Boehner when it comes to who has been "thumping" their chest during these negotiations.

He also accused President Obama of over-reading his mandate and attempted to link what's going on now to George W. Bush going out there and pushing his extremely unpopular views on privatizing Social Security, which Brooks called "reform" (a.k.a. privatizing) during this segment on PBS. Brooks now claims that it was a mistake for Bush to have done that back in 2004.

I looked around for any columns by Brooks after Bush made his statement that he had a mandate and didn't have any luck finding any. If any of our readers happen to come across commenting on the "mandate" remarks by Bush, I'd love to see what he was saying back then compared to now and if he's done a 180 on whether he thought actually thought Bush was wrong at the time, as he's saying he believes now.

I hate to bread it do David Brooks, but raising taxes on the wealthy is very popular with Americans. President Obama does actually have a mandate to do something about the income disparity in America, unlike Bush, where the more he talked about his plans for Social Security, and how wrong Al Gore was about the "lock box," and how the trust fund was nothing but a bunch of worthless I.O.U.s that those like him that borrowed against for wars and tax cuts should never have to pay back, the less popular his ideas became.

And I don't recall Bush campaigning on privatizing Social Security. So Brooks' analogy here is completely ridiculous, but that's about what I'd expect from someone who has spent his entire career trying to make Republican policies palatable to those they can con into voting against their own economic interests.

Here's more from Driftglass, who also flagged this segment and who thought as little of Brooks' remarks as I did:

Only in the precious, punch-drunk imagination of the Apostate Conservative is actually learning from your previous confrontations with vicious, reckless assholes considered an insulting affront to magnanimity.

Only measured by the dissolute sensibilities of the Apostate Conservative is opening negotiations by saying that you intend to do what you were just re-elected a stick in the eye.

Go read the rest for more on David Brooks' fellow Republican turd polisher, Andrew Sullivan's similar remarks.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (301)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3802)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

After taking his turn going after Joe Scarborough and his juvenile sneering at Nate Silver and that damned liberal math of his, predicting a big win for President Obama and being exactly right again, The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur reminded us of how the media treated George W. Bush and his "mandate" after the slimmest of wins back in 2004.

As Cenk rightfully pointed out, if Bush supposedly had a mandate back then, President Obama has a giant mandate now, and he discussed the fact, as John Amato did here, that America also elected a progressive agenda this Tuesday.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (175)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (301)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican candidate Sharron Angle squared off for their first debate tonight in Las Vegas, and one of the questions was on the issue of healthcare. Sharron Angle was asked by the moderator "Is there anything you think health insurance companies should be forced to cover?"

Angle hedged and said that "Forcing someone to buy something that they don't need is not the way to solve the problem" which of course didn't answer the moderator's question. When pressed again on whether there is anything at all the insurance companies should be forced to cover Angle replied.

I think that what we have here is a choice between the free market and Americanism. America is about choices and we need to allow people to have those choices. The free market will weed out those companies that don't offer as many choices and don't have a cost effective system. Let the people decide where they want to buy their insurance. You don't have to force them to buy anything and you don't have to force anyone to offer a product that no one wants.

Moderator: Okay, so no insurance mandates?

From reading some other accounts of the debate, I believe he got a nod in the affirmative.

Harry Reid rightfully pointed out that insurance companies don't "do anything out of the goodness of their hearts" and noted how horribly the premiums for most Americans were going through the roof if the government continued to sit by and do nothing.

This debate was painful to watch. Angle was terrible and Reid was so bad as well he didn't take advantage of it. This portion alone should have been like shooting fish in a barrel and would have been for someone with some better debating skills than Reid has. I'm sure most of the readers of this blog could come up with about a hundred better and more sharp and concise responses that would resonate with the public to Angle's nonsense than Reid did.

Sharron Angle's "free market solutions" boil down to people being "free" to have the insurance companies let them die because they'd rather line their CEO's pockets and pay their stock holders than cover the policies of the saps who paid into them when they actually get sick.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (654)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (282)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Oh lookie... Dick Armey has a book to sell. So needless to say he's been all over the airways pushing it. He appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal and right after telling everyone that part of the Tea Party's agenda would be to "ask the government to... relieve yourselves of the unnecessary burdens" he pretends that they really don't want to privatize or phase out Social Security and calls Tim Kaine "funny" for calling them on it. He can't defend his views so he has to attack Kaine personally instead.

Orgel: Dick Armey a viewer here wants some detail on what will be cut. Via Twitter they ask “What specifically is the Tea Party plan once their candidates take over. What are they going to cut?” Can you tell us?

Armey: Yeah. One of the things we would ask the government to do is relieve yourselves of the unnecessary burdens. For example, just make… make so many of your now mandated benefits voluntary. If Social Security is such a blessing, make it voluntary. Anybody who wants Social Security as you know it today, guarantee it to them and keep your word and then let anybody who wants to be free to choose to do something else, let them be free to do that.

Healthcare… let me be free to choose and take care of my own healthcare needs if I can do that and I don’t need government assistance, leave me alone. Let me be free to choose. And in doing that the government relieves itself of financial obligations they didn’t need to have taken on in the first place.

Why in the world would it be good public policy to compel people like myself who can easily afford their own health insurance to participate in a government provided health insurance and put the burden of that taxation on my grandchildren? Just leave me alone and leave me be free to take care of my own health.

So if you let these programs be voluntary the costs can be enormously reduced. Then be careful with how you spend money. Establish priorities. Make trade-off decisions. Lower and simplify taxes to make it a civilized tax system. There are so many things this government can do to be a blessing and a service to the lives of the American citizenry at large rather than a burden, but for Lord’s sake don’t take on unnecessary, costly burdens, imposing the cost on our grandchildren for something you didn’t need to do, but wanted instead to only do to enhance your power for that moment.

It’s not about you Mr. Senator, Mr. Congressman. You’ve got a privilege from your neighbors. Don’t make it about yourself and your power. Make it about a service in the lives of the citizens who trust in you and gave you this great privilege.

Host Paul Orgel then plays a video of Tim Kaine explaining what the Tea Party’s agenda is. The Republican Tea Party Contract on America:

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (668)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1769)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

A new Arizona immigration allow will allow police to demand proof of residency if they have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is not in the country legally. Fox News' Brit Hume supports the bill but predicts it will lead to civil rights violations.

"I think it's going to be quite a trick to train the police officers in that state so that they can carry out this mandate to check anybody who they have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegal without engaging in profiling or violating their civil rights. I think that's going to be very difficult to do. There probably and inevitably will be civil rights violations," Hume told Chris Wallace Sunday.

Hume called the bill "emergency policy" but said it was unclear if it would stand up to a court challenge.

"The question really though is, that seems to me, did Arizona act reasonably here under the circumstances by passing this somewhat draconian law? And the answer may well be yes, because they are facing a serious crisis down there induced by the presence in their midst of a lot of illegals, some of whom are causing terrible problems," said Hume.

Arizona law enforcement got a head start on harassing Latinos even before Gov. Jan Brewer could sign the bill into law Friday. AZFamily.com reports that a truck driver in Phoenix was arrested because he could not immediately produce a birth certificate.