Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Well, We Missed This?



February 02, 2010 – Comments (11)

Having read a relentless barrage of posts on this website attacking our elected President about "death panels", "socialism", "unconstitional", "refusing to negotiate", "stealing our freedoms", "godless", "criminal", a person would think that when our skulking President fianlly is called before his accusers and forced to confront these accustations, someone would mention it here.

Especially when his comeuppance was broadcast live and in full on MSNBC, and CNBC, although FOX found something more interesting to do with the time and cut away (suicide hotline?).

So here, three days later, I offer a link to the full one and one half hour video, of our Leftwing, Socialist, Freedom Stealing, Grandma Killing, President Obama facing questions from his accusers, the Republicans.


Here's a short taste from the Comedy Channel

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Intro - Austan Fierce
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis


The Austan Goolsbee clip discussing Obama's budget is ok too. Yes. That  Austen Goolsbee, frequent FOX guest and sometime radio personality.

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 02, 2010 at 10:48 AM, 4everlost (28.71) wrote:

Devo - Have you ever written a post that outlines or summarizes your thoughts and opinions on the most effective economic policies the US Federal Gub'ment should take?  I ask because your posts seem to defend and celebrate more gub'ment involvement in a large part of the economy of the USA.  Your comments on other blogs seem to promote the same attitude.  Based on your writings it seems as if you are for additional entitlement programs, more gub'ment spending, increased regulation, etc.  I would enjoy reading the premises and foundational beliefs that you use in reaching your conclusions.  Rec # 7 - Fool on! 

Report this comment
#2) On February 02, 2010 at 11:10 AM, kirkydu (90.63) wrote:

Good work Devo, maybe the people who glom on to all the non-sense will have the courage to watch this and wake up a bit. 

IMHO President Obama has done a fine job, Congress is what stinks, the Repubs a little more stinky than the Dems, but both stinky nonetheless.

As for government "involvement" with the markets, banks and economy, I would just say this, the cult of deregulation buried the economy.  We need effective regulation.  The Volker bank approach is right and I hope that a dozen big banks can't derail it, as it is those big banks that are the most guilty of facilitating the collapse of the nation. 

This collapse can only (ONLY) be climbed out of with effective appoaches in education (direct to student loans cutting out banks is a great idea), finance (Volker), energy (requiring external costs be paid by those causing the cost in coal burning, and pushing alternative energy approaches to free us from middle eastern oil) and healthcare (recent bill was ok, next one should be better).  Government has a role in directing and regulating, though outright running any of these would defeat the market efficiencies.  There is a balance.

Report this comment
#3) On February 02, 2010 at 12:52 PM, blake303 (28.65) wrote:

Thank you for posting this. I had the pleasure of watching the Q&A in its entirety a couple of days ago. I'm not sure why the GOP would invite the president to own them nearly all of their hypocritical talking points, but I'm glad they did. 

Obama's "Bolshevik plot" quote and his statement about appearing at ribbon cuttings for projects you voted against were priceless. Fox's reaction says it all. 

Report this comment
#4) On February 02, 2010 at 7:10 PM, ChrisGraley (28.64) wrote:

While he didn't out-right lie, he inferred that tort reform wouldn't have an impact on health insurance premiums. In just about every state, tort reform alone would cut insurance premiums in half. While not specifically in health insurance, I work in the insurance industry and understand the fraud involved. Unfortunately, his party happens to be supported by the trial lawyers.

Allowing competition across state lines and tort reform would do wonders to cut health care costs and not cost a penny. It would have huge support with a majority of the population and have an immediate impact on health care costs.

There is only one reason to delay passing these 2 items alone and it's not a good reason.



Report this comment
#5) On February 02, 2010 at 7:27 PM, blake303 (28.65) wrote:

In just about every state, tort reform alone would cut insurance premiums in half.

Nonsense. The only thing that will cut insurance premiums in half is cutting insurance benefits in half. Obama was correct. Liability insurance premiums and settlements comprise approximately 2% of health care expenditures. My source is the CBO. What is yours?

Report this comment
#6) On February 02, 2010 at 7:35 PM, devoish (82.96) wrote:


In just about every state, tort reform alone would cut insurance premiums in half.

Whose insurance premiums?


Report this comment
#7) On February 02, 2010 at 11:27 PM, fmahnke (69.06) wrote:

I talked to three doctors about tort reform and their opinions were all over the map.  I could see how anyone would have a difficult time estimating the real impact as doctors will never admit (or maybe even understand) the true extent of CYA testing.

My question on this issue has always been, why not?.  2% is still alot of money.  Unfortunately, it is just politics trumping sound policy (again) 

I thought BHO was masterful in this meeting as he should have shut  the "needs a teleprompter crowd" up forever.  Still most of  his opponents acknowlege his exceptional  speaking skills.

It is ironic that he has become such a divise president,  I voted for him but detest his domestic and fiscal policy.  He has made fake gestures across the isle only to score political points.

I think most Americans see through these gestures and the fancy words,  His promise of CSPAN  became secret meetings and payoffs with Dems and union buddies only.

I thought the most telling exchange of the meeting was his answer to Paul Ryan's question about discretionary spending,  At first he tried to attribute the increase to "automatic stabilizers". but when Ryan called him out " he said he had to look at it later"  Yeah. right.

I'm tired of all the BS from both sides, BHO is the worst president in my lifetime (and I remember Nixon)

Ron Paul in 2012

Report this comment
#8) On February 03, 2010 at 12:08 AM, devoish (82.96) wrote:


I think you missed most of the video. But here's the reason why bother, as opposed to why not. Since 2003 malpractice premiums have dropped in States with strong tort laws. They have also dropped in States without strong tort laws. This is because insurers raise premiums, not in response to malpractice claims, but in response to investment losses.


 In Texas they enacted tort reform in 2003. Just as in States that did not enact tort reforms, malpractice premiums dropped. Texas health insurance premium increases outpaced most of  the rest of the Nation, and doubled.

The Doctors gained about a 20% break on their insurance premiums, which would have been 15% anyway. The malpractice insurers cut their payout ratios in half.

Winner - the insurer. Distant second - Doctors.  last place and still paying more - everyone else. And Texas now has the highest rate of uninsured in the Country.

Report this comment
#9) On February 03, 2010 at 12:52 AM, fmahnke (69.06) wrote:

Come on Devo,

We both know

Cost of Insurance = Claims (all treatment, malpractice insurance, etc) +admin exp + profits - investment income (net of losses)

Your'e right, I didnt watch the tape, but did watch the event live on MSNBC (of all places)

The 2% (which, I think is probably low) was BHO's number. Its alot of money, anyway you look at it, but not addressed in the bill due to the same partisan politics BHO accuses the republicans of playing.

Come on, we both know it ! and these exchanges should reflect more honesty and intergrity than what is on that tape. Cheers

Report this comment
#10) On February 04, 2010 at 12:26 AM, 292972826 wrote:

Great POST, 

It is sad to see that Republican American believe that their president is doing

"death panels", "socialism", "unconstitional", "refusing to negotiate", "stealing our freedoms", "godless", "criminal" and you forgot "Racist"....

I remember the day of the Irak war where it was UNPATRIOTIC to criticize the president.

The point is all those guys must not really LOVE their COUNTRY... 

Report this comment
#11) On February 04, 2010 at 12:54 AM, devoish (82.96) wrote:

The 2% figure came from the GAO, in 2003/4 I believe. The highest available estimate is 3%, but I believe that was extrapolating cardiac medicine across all specialities. So 2% still qualifies as the most accurate number even if it is hard to estimate.

Both attempt to estimate "defensive medicine". Actual malpractice payouts are less than .25% of all healthcare costs.

One pretty major assumption ALL of you who espouse the benefits of tort reform make is that any payout cap savings experienced by insurers will actually be passed on to Doctors, and then passed on to healthcare costs and premiums. The largest share of any money will land in the insurers laps.

Another interesting statistics is that only 2-3% of all malpractice incidents get an award, jury or otherwise.

This is a pretty balanced article that gives tort reform a proper position in the big picture of things based upon its highest estimated costs of 3%. 

Another thing to consider is that not all defensive medicine is wasteful;

Baker is skeptical, and makes the point that “defensive medicine” is not the same thing as wasteful medicine. “Like defensive driving, some defensive medicine is good,” he said. “To change behavior. When you drill down those studies, you see that what it means is, doctors are more careful with patient records. They spend more time with the patient. They’re more careful to say hello and goodbye to the patient. That’s good.”

More substantial solutions to solving waste in healthcare lies in these paragraphs from the NYtimes article.

The problem is that just about every incentive in our medical system is to do more. Most patients have no idea how much their care costs. Doctors are generally paid more when they do more. And, indeed, extra tests and procedures can help protect them from lawsuits.

So the most promising fixes are the ones that don’t treat the malpractice system as an isolated issue.

Imagine if the government paid for more research into which treatments really do make people healthier — a step many doctors don’t like. Such evidence-based medicine could then get the benefit of the doubt in court. The research would also make it easier to set up “health courts,” with expedited case schedules and expert judges, which many doctors advocate.

I have no idea why they say Doctors don't like the research step, but try explaining that idea to Grandma after a year of "death panels" from the from the Republican congressmen. Knowing which procedures get the best results does not mean a Doctor cannot prescribe the second best if he believes it is better for the Grandma in his care. Rational discussion has not been a media strong suit this last year. Political posturing and rabble rousing has been the order of the day especially for FOX and CNBC.

I also know most of you conservatives latch on to this issue as if it is a bad thing;

Most patients have no idea how much their care costs.

When you visit your Doctor do you want him thinking "how am I best going to get fmahnke better" or "whats the cheapest thing I can do." I don't want my Doctor worrying about anything but how to best get me better, and he's making the decision not me. So it doesn't even matter at all if I know what something costs or not.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners