Obama Is In Panic Mode

How else would you explain it?

Hey folks,

Happy Thursday to you. Glad you stopped by. That's right. Obama and the rest of the Loons in Congress are in panic mode. Yesterday was an interesting day. I just posted the Transcript of Obama's BS Healthcare speech last night. {Laughing} Man, did I tick some of you off. Lets check.

"Pete, thanks for posting PRESIDENT Obama's Healthcare speech. Why did you have to ruin it by calling it, and I quote 'Obama's BS Healthcare Speech?' Why could you not just post it as it was and then say what you thought of it after?"

That IS what I thought of it. That IS what it was. Oh and I will. {Smile}

"Peter. You are a Moron. The President, by the way, he is your President too, did not wear a Doctor's coat."

No. But the White House DID hand them out to those in attendance. He wanted the people, YOU, to think that the majority of Doctors are on board,. They're not. I don't even know if everyone you saw there was even a REAL Doctor. This is not the first time Obama handed out Doctor's Coats.

That's just two. {Smile} I'm sure some of you out there are ticked yet didn't let me know. If you care to, you can leave a comment here, or of course, the Email is opntalk@gmail.com.

It WAS a BS Speech. Obama, yes I understand that he is President. But HE doesn't think of himself as President. He wants to be King of the new USSA. Obama just flat out lied throughout the whole thing.

First, it is completely Unconstitutional to use Reconciliation to pass this. A tactic that he rallied AGAINST for YEARS. More on that in a second.

Second, it WILL cover Illegals.

Third, there ARE death panels in it.

Fourth, it WILL use YOUR money to fund Abortions.

Fifth, it WILL raise the deficit.

Six,,,Never mind. The WHOLE thing was a lie.

Now lets look at the reality. If they use Reconciliation, that means this. The House will have to Pass the Senate Bill. Something that some are against.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.), sponsor of the successful amendment to the House version of the health care bill that prohibits federal funds from going to any health care plan that covers abortions, rejected the assertion made Tuesday by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) that the health care bill that passed the Senate prohibits federal funding of abortion.

Here is how CNS News reported this.

Michelle Begnoche, press secretary for Rep. Stupak, told CNSNews.com in an e-mail: “The congressman does not agree with Mr. Hoyer's statement that the Senate bill language and the House bill language achieve the same end with regard to federal funding of abortion.

“On the issue of abortion language, there have been general discussions but no concrete proposals made at this time,” said Begnoche.

Stupak earlier told CNSNews.com that the Senate bill would “go down in flames” in the House if members were forced to vote for the bill as it is. Stupak also said the Senate’s abortion language was unacceptable.

“Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing,” Stupak said on Dec. 23

So they would have to get the votes to pass the Senate Bill abandoning their own. Then, they would have to TRUST the Senate Loons to use Reconciliation to pass a set of fixes to the Bill, to satisfy the demands of House Members that object to this or that. That is a huge leap of faith. There may not be enough of them to get it done.

Then Obama kept saying "my proposals." "My Bill." Problem is, the only one that could pass IS the Senate Bill if they use Reconciliation. Not Obama's, the House, nor any other. It HAS to be the Senate version.

So what about Reconciliation?

Obama just said this.

"Reform has already passed the House with a Majority. It has already passed the Senate with a Supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple Majority."

Problem is, he also said this.

2004: "My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"

And this.

2005: "A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. [snip] Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two Chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply Majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

And this.

2006: "Those big-ticket items, fixing our Healthcare system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with, uhh, my fellow Progressives {Socalistic Loobns}and, and some of these have, have flashed up in the Blog Communities on occasion -- is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we, we identify our core Base, we throw 'em red meat, we get a 50-plus-one, uhhh, victory. See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in Government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a, a sizeable Majority."

Oh and THIS.

2007: "The bottom line is is that our health care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a Bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-one Majority.

You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of Presidential Politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as President but you can't -- you can't deliver on health -- we're not going to pass Universal Healthcare with a -- with a 50-plus-one strategy."

So now, just Yesterday, he said this?

"Reform has already passed the House with a Majority. It has already passed the Senate with a Supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple Majority."

Panic. Pure Panic folks.

This is an EXCELLENT piece by The Morning Bell - No Votes Until the People Speak

On March 5th of last year, firefighter Travis Ulerick, of Dublin, Indiana, introduced President Barack Obama at a White House summit on health care. Upon hearing the first rumblings of dissent about the President’s plan, Ulerick tells USA Today he thought at the time: “I definitely think it’s going to have to be a huge consensus.” It’s now 12 months later, and the only consensus that exists among the American people is strong opposition to the President’s health care plan.The White House, however, is now completely uninterested in establishing a consensus for their health care plan before they jam it through Congress. Today, in a speech from the White House, President Barack Obama will urge Congress to move swiftly to pass his health care plan by implementing a legislative tactic that can be used to pass legislation that has failed to gain broad support among the American people. It’s known as reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support. So, for example, the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton was passed through reconciliation, but it also ended up getting 78 votes in the Senate (28 of them from Democrats). President Ronald Reagan also passed seven bills through reconciliation, but every single one of those bills passed through a Democratically-controlled House and won Senate votes from both parties. Never has reconciliation been used to pass any bill on purely partisan lines.

In an attempt to provide some political cover for his nakedly-partisan health care push, President Obama released a letter yesterday identifying “four policy priorities” that “I am exploring.” Specifically he is “open” to: 1) random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid; 2) $50 million in cash for states that reform medical malpractice laws in ways the White House approves of; 3) increased spending on Medicaid; and 4) language that clearly allows Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to qualify as health insurance.

The White House has not yet released any legislative language for any of these “policy priorities.” In fact, his letter does not even promise that whatever legislation the White House does eventually offer will contain language on each of these issues. He only says he is “exploring” the issues. This is beyond a sham of bipartisanship. Details matter. The American people must be allowed to see real legislative language and they must be allowed the time to read and comment on it before any votes are taken.

Most importantly, simply adding so-called conservative ideas to the bill does not change the fundamental direction of the proposal. The bills before Congress, including the President’s new additions, would still result in a massive shift of power over health care financing and delivery of care to Washington politicians and bureaucrats. The public has spoken, and it does not want a federal take over of health care.

Julia Denton of Yorktown, Virginia, another of the Obama administration’s hand-picked March 5 health summit attendees, tells USA Today: “The legislation as proposed is so long and tough to read that people are afraid of it. Health care is such a highly personal issue. I cannot see how anyone will win if unpopular reforms are forced through over vigorous opposition.” Denton is 100% correct. The American people should not have unpopular health care reform forced down their throats in the face of strong bipartisan opposition. At a bare minimum they should have the opportunity to see actual legislation from the White House and be allowed to speak to their members about it while they are home in their districts over Easter break.

Conservatives should continue to press the Administration and leaders in Congress for bipartisan solutions that are based on elements of common ground, including letting states take the lead on health reform, tackling the tax treatment of health insurance, sensible insurance market reforms, and an honest commitment to fixing existing health care programs that the government already controls.

For real bipartisanship to work, the President must set aside the current proposals that are based on consolidating power over health care in Washington and instead embrace solutions that would give individuals and families more control over health care dollars and decisions. Simply adjusting the magnitude of the existing proposals or adding so-called conservative provisions does not change this fundamental direction.

Yeah, he also said this.

"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

He said he does not want to give either the Insurance Companies, nor Government, more power over YOUR Healthcare. These are just complete and utter LIES. He WANTS Single Payer. He has preached about that in the past. He WANTS Government run Healthcare. He WANTS to take over one-sixth of our Economy. {Sigh}

He and the rest of the Socialists are in Panic Mode. 2010 is HERE. YOU will have your say on him and the rest of the Kooks in just a few months. They know, it is NOW or never. I Vote NEVER! No. Not like this. Not this time.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Obama's BS Healthcare Speech.
The Morning Bell - No Votes Until the People Speak
CNS News - Stupak Rejects Hoyer’s New Claim that Senate Health Bill Bars Funding of Abortion