Krauthammer Projects His Dishonesty Onto Obama

But Obama does mislead the public on health care reform. He has been misleading them time and again, starting from out on the campaign trail.

12/07:

But one thing I have to say, we are not going to make some of these changes unless we change how business is done in Washington. The reason that we can't negotiate prescription drugs under the Medicare prescription drug plan is because the drug companies specifically sought and obtained a provision in that bill that prevented us from doing it.

12/08:

The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what the chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making 2 million dollars a year.

Imagine that.

That's an example of the same old game playing in Washington. You know I don't want to learn how to play the game better, I want to put an end to the game playing.

10/08:

"We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.... It's become clear that some of these companies are dramatically overcharging Americans for what they offer...."

3/08:

....but here's the thing. We're going to do all these negotiations on C-SPAN.

The American people will be able to watch these negotiations so if they start seeing a member of Congress who is carrying the water for the drug companies instead of for their constituents and says, 'Oh, you no. we can't negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs because the drug companies need these profits to invest in research and development', I'll say, 'OK, let me bring my health care expert in here'. And on TV, we'll ask my health care expert, 'What do you think about what the drug companies are saying?'

george:

Anyone who chooses Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff [and liaison to Congress] knows full well how the money game is played in Washington.

Krauthammer's attacks on Obama and waste in Medicare is what one would expect from a right wing ideologue intent on stuffing whatever "facts" work to further his own narrow ideological agenda. But what is Obama's excuse? Yes, he can play the pragmatist card, the need for all sides to compromise ["I'm going to listen to everybody. We'll have the doctors and the nurses and the members of Congress and patient advocates. I'll have the insurance and drug companies at the table. They just won't be able to buy every chair. And we will... And I'll be at the table"]. But is this what we are seeing now from Max Baucus, a member of Congress who has received $1,196,463 from the insurance industry, $1,039,276 from health professionals and $756,205 from the pharmaceutical and health product industry?

This is the sort of "compromise" Obama and the Democratic Congress are aiming for with Obama owning all the chairs, sitting at the head of the table?

george walton
d/a

George -

Can we just assume that you're going to post this exact same comment as a "standing comment" in every single healthcare thread? If so - can you dispense with actually posting it? Thanks.

When a public option passes I'll enjoy rubbing it in to liberal bed wetters like you even more than the Republicans.

Let me remind you of where Obama's "cuts" truly are "painless" ... the burdens he would impose on the trial lawyers. I understand that the Baucus draft is exactly like all the other bills in congress to date; nary a murmur about tort reform. After many months of silence on the issue, Obama mentioned a "pilot project" to be run by his HHS secretary, the former lobbyist for the Kansas trial lawyers. If legislation reaches his desk with no mention of tort reform, do you think he will veto it?

I understand why Democratic politicians bow in obeisance to the plaintiffs' bar; they are major contributors to the politicians' campaigns. You aren't supposed to s___ where you eat. But what prompts liberal journalists and academics to toady to the shysters. Are they on the payroll too? Do they think anyone wants to bar compensatory damages in a malpractice suit? Do they think any limit on punitive damages is incompatible with justice in America? Do they think "defensive medicine" is a figment of Republican imagination? If cost concerns are the principal barrier to their dream of universal coverage, you'd think they'd want to address an obvious source of costs borne by the health care system. Think again.

To those that yammer about "tort refrom": if tort reform is coupled with

1) open, and I mean OPEN records on a doctor's record of being sued
2) medical board inquiries are kept OPEN like court room trial
3) lousy doctors are thrown out of the profession quickly and not allowed to practice anywhere in the US when a single state
strips him/her of a license
4) more and more robust action is taken against lousy docs

then let's "get it on" with tort reform. I contend that not enough doctors are sued as there are a lot of useless docs out there that get away with plain malpractice but never get called on it. I and my family have been the victims of some and were smart enough to dump their useless practices before any harm could be done. My mother-in-law wasn't as fortunate.

I never ever hear the "other side" say a damned word about getting rid of lousy docs and quickly, which is why docs get sued most of the time (and often don't get nailed when they should). Until they use this canard of "tort reform" along with swift action removing dangerous docs, then their yowling is just noise. No state that has capped awards and did any kind of reform saw reduction in payouts nor reduced lawsuits. The crummy docs stayed which is why nothing changed.

I tend to agree with tnmats. Isernoff, you seem to simply assume as indisputed fact that medical malpractice suits are generally frivolous and that malpractice suits do not have the effect of purging incompetent practitioners or of incentivizing practitioners to perform responsibly. If that is what you believe, you need to support that belief with some factual analysis.

dhurtado and tnmats: I have no illusion that the medical profession is free of incompetents, fools or worse. Nor would I suggest we return to the world as it existed when I attended torts class in 1962. Then we spent virtually no time on medical malpractice because it was virtually unheard of for a doctor to testify that another doctor had violated the standard of care in his community. No problem finding credentialed plaintiffs' experts today to testify against genuine malpractitioners. Also, if the price of relief from lawsuit abuse requires the medical societies to get a lot tougher on policing their own, I'm OK with that.

My point is simply this: We cannot expand coverage and contain costs without including reform of malpractice litigation. Pretending that the topic doesn't merit discussion, much less action, in order to pacify major political contributors doesn't cut the mustard. As I noted previously, nobody suggests interfering with compensatory damages and if a $250,000 cap on punitives seems too low lets hear some rational alternatives.

vc:

When a public option passes I'll enjoy rubbing it in to liberal bed wetters like you even more than the Republicans.

george:

Does a public option contradict any of the points I've made about how legislation involving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars reaches the president's desk? Does it contradict the flagrant relationship between Baucus [and untold other Demcoratic Congressmen] and K Street? Does it contradict that gaping gap between Obama the candidate and Obama the president?

Yes, please do keep us informed about how the bill Obama signs reflects to a remarkable degree what the president and the Democrats in Congress promised us after their great victories in 2006 and 2008.

By the way, how many liberal noses did you rub in when you pointed out to them how the Democrats really meant what they said about cracking down on the culture of corruption that Delay, Gingrich and BushWorld ushered in from the vicinity of K Street.

Pelosi and Reid sure did a number on them, didn't they? Snort. Snort.

So, it's agreed. You and I will follow the path of health care reform and keep all The Planksters informed about the new relationship between Wall Street and Washington in the Baucus Era.

george

As I noted previously, nobody suggests interfering with compensatory damages and if a $250,000 cap on punitives seems too low lets hear some rational alternatives.

I agree completely on the punitive angle, I would agree it should be unlimited if it went to a health care fund (with the lawyers fees capped) but right now it is too much a lottery. Punishment should be meted by the state and whatever funds can be recovered should go to the state.

Is it my imagination, or did Krautheimer once upon a time write article for TNR? What was that all about?

Also, having a dirty mind, I have been trying to read the article about smut. I have a print subscription and I am logged in. TNR tells me I don';t have permission and I have to log in. What is that all about? Are you trying to protect me from myself?