Face the Nation

[WuDrWu]

Why anyone with a brain thinks Nancy Pelosi should be the leader of the left in the House is beyond me.

Bob Schieffer, who is certainly a friend of the left, obliterated her today. She was a wandering, stuttering fool with no ideas and only half a functional memory trying to spin her spoon fed talking points. In all seriousness, late in the interview, I thought she had a stroke.

I used to think she was stupid, but wow, the bar has officially dropped below ground. It's time to go home Nancy....you've done enough damage for one lifetime I think.

[BOBB]

Re: Face the Nation

Why anyone with a brain thinks Nancy Pelosi should be the leader of the left in the House is beyond me.

Bob Schieffer, who is certainly a friend of the left, obliterated her today. She was a wandering, stuttering fool with no ideas and only half a functional memory trying to spin her spoon fed talking points. In all seriousness, late in the interview, I thought she had a stroke.

I used to think she was stupid, but wow, the bar has officially dropped below ground. It's time to go home Nancy....you've done enough damage for one lifetime I think.

I am a liberal, but our leadership sucks! Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin all only know one gameplan which is the Clinton talking points style. It was effective in message control at the advent of the 24 hour newschannel, but now with guys like Stewart and Colbert playing talking points in a loop everyone sees it coming. There are no ideas coming from the left right now. The right is at least putting out bad ideas. Depending on perspective, it's a good thing the republican field of presidential candidates is laughable. The President is only slightly more effective than Carter right now.

[WuDrWu]

Re: Face the Nation

...... but our leadership sucks!

Come on in, take off your skin and rattle around in your bones. Welcome to the club.

[Maggie]

Just for fun lets, briefly, unpack a few of Pelosi’s statements:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know Mitt Romney launched his presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And he said basically the President has made the economy worse. Here’s-- let’s just listen to what he said.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: This is now his economy. And what he has done has failed the American people. And the borrowing and the spending and the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, these--these numbers are his, they’re on his back and it’s why he’s going to lose.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So are you and the Democrats going to have to come up to an answer to that?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well first of all, I don’t stipulate to that set of facts that Governor Romney just said. Mitt Romney has said because the fact is that this deficit came to us largely from President Bush. But it’s no use going there. We have to go forward. It’s a question of what-- what is the President and what are those who aspire to be President going to do about the future to create jobs, good paying jobs. What are they going to do about the education of our children, the security of our seniors, the strengthening of the middle class, reducing the deficit-- reducing the deficit?

While President Bush is responsible for quite a bit of deficit spending, the fact is the Obama Administration together with the Congress Pelosi lead out did him by a huge margin in just two years.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were talking in a kind of a different way when unemployment went to five percent under George Bush. What you said then that Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices, gas is only three dollars a gallon then. And you said this morning, this is January 4, 2008, “This morning’s jobs report confirms what most Americans already knew--President Bush’s economic policies have failed our country’s middle class.” I mean, aren’t Republicans entitled to say, you know, if then gas was three dollars and unemployment was five percent and-- and-- and the President has failed the American people, don’t they have a right to say that this President has failed the American people?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, if you want to go into the past, we can talk about the past all you want. The public wants to know about the future. What are you going to do to create jobs, good-paying jobs in our country?

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well, what are you going to do?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, as I said what the President has done has improved the situation from where it may have been.

The fact is Mrs. Pelosi can’t prove this and much empirical evidence suggests the opposite.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: It’s about the country that we will live in. And that—what you’ll see in the election as we-- we go forward is one vision of America that’s encompasses the Republican budget plan that-- that abolishes Medicare, that-- that makes college almost unaffordable for nearly ten million chil-- people, and the young people in our country. That takes us deeper into debt and does not create jobs, or you can talk about an agenda that is about making it America, investing in education, innovation and the rest. And that’s what campaigns are about. But I-- I-- I completely agree with you. Five months of this new Congress we haven’t seen a jobs agenda come forth from the Republicans.

The House GOP Budget which is the “Ryan Plan” doesn’t abolish Medicare – this is a flat out lie. If she would have stuck with a standard talking point: “It ends Medicare, as we know it” – there would have at least been some truth to that assertion. As far as a college education becoming unaffordable – frankly the skyrocketing tuition rates are largely due to the student loan programs, and their expansion. It has created a classic “bubble” and saddled college graduates with enormous debt.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Don’t you-- let me just interrupt you. Don’t you have to though give some plan or some idea of how you’re going to reform Medicare because we all know it can’t sustain as it is.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, we in our health care bill as you probably know saved half a trillion dollars in Medicare. We had a half a trillion dollars in savings there which we plowed back into improved benefits for seniors in terms of prescription drugs but even more important than that, we made it stable for about ten years into the-- added ten years of solvency into the future.

So what you are saying Nancy is you believe taking $500M from X and spending on Y equals savings? Okey-Dokey

BOB SCHIEFFER: Is what you’re telling me you’ve already done what needs to be done in Medicare.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that we can-- I give the secretary of HHS the power to renegotiate for lower prices. That would save billions and billions and billions of dollars. I think that any fraud that is associated with Medicare has to be addressed. But that’s already a given. We didn’t prevail in the bill on negotiating for lower prices. But that’s a very important place to go to do that. So if you’re talking about lowering the cost, what ideas do people have? We have some. If you’re talking about reducing the benefits, that’s a non-starter.

The short answer, Bob, is yes that is exactly what she saying. As for the esteemed former Governor of Kansas “negotiating” lower prices – I wouldn’t call what she is doing “negotiating” rather it will be dictating. You can arbitrarily attempt to lower the cost of X procedure but did you ever consider the affect of doing so? Or are you talking about the so-called “Doc-Fix”? As for fraud – sure there is fraud and plenty of incentive to commit fraud under the current system. Regardless, that won’t come close to solving the problem.

[RoyalShock]

Aren't some doctors already refusing Medicare patients because they are unable to recover their costs? How is Sebelius going to "negotiate" lower prices when they are already losing doctors? How many doctors will continue to accept Medicare patients if reimbursements are lowered even more?

Maybe there's a Democrat plan to claim millions in savings in there somewhere.

[SubGod22]

Aren't some doctors already refusing Medicare patients because they are unable to recover their costs? How is Sebelius going to "negotiate" lower prices when they are already losing doctors? How many doctors will continue to accept Medicare patients if reimbursements are lowered even more?

Maybe there's a Democrat plan to claim millions in savings in there somewhere.

Many, many doctors have chosen to stop accepting Medicare because it's too much red tape and not worth what they get in the end.

[Maggie]

Aren't some doctors already refusing Medicare patients because they are unable to recover their costs? How is Sebelius going to "negotiate" lower prices when they are already losing doctors? How many doctors will continue to accept Medicare patients if reimbursements are lowered even more?

Maybe there's a Democrat plan to claim millions in savings in there somewhere.

"Doctors" don't matter.

[wufan]

Several doctor's don't accept medicare or medicaid. The one's that do usually only accept a certain percentage of patients that they are willing to write off. It's one type of voluntary charity that is often overlooked in the medical field. With changes coming in the medical industry, some fear this may stop being voluntary and start being mandated.

[Maggie]

Several doctor's don't accept medicare or medicaid. The one's that do usually only accept a certain percentage of patients that they are willing to write off. It's one type of voluntary charity that is often overlooked in the medical field. With changes coming in the medical industry, some fear this may stop being voluntary and start being mandated.

Keep writing……

[Kung Wu]

May?

You folks understand that under Obamacare, that if you are denied coverage on a service that it will be illegal for you to pursue that service and pay for it privately out-of-pocket? It will also be illegal for any physician to provide that service.

God forbid any of us get old and need a service that gets denied. Oh and what is the incentive to approve your service again?

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

[RoyalShock]

May?

You folks understand that under Obamacare, that if you are denied coverage on a service that it will be illegal for you to pursue that service and pay for it privately out-of-pocket? It will also be illegal for any physician to provide that service.

God forbid any of us get old and need a service that gets denied. Oh and what is the incentive to approve your service again?

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

Isn't that the Canadian system?

[Kung Wu]

May?

You folks understand that under Obamacare, that if you are denied coverage on a service that it will be illegal for you to pursue that service and pay for it privately out-of-pocket? It will also be illegal for any physician to provide that service.

God forbid any of us get old and need a service that gets denied. Oh and what is the incentive to approve your service again?

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

Isn't that the Canadian system?

Don't know, but I am under the impression that a substantial number of Canadians flock south for healthcare. Where will we go?

[SubGod22]

May?

You folks understand that under Obamacare, that if you are denied coverage on a service that it will be illegal for you to pursue that service and pay for it privately out-of-pocket? It will also be illegal for any physician to provide that service.

God forbid any of us get old and need a service that gets denied. Oh and what is the incentive to approve your service again?

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

Isn't that the Canadian system?

Don't know, but I am under the impression that a substantial number of Canadians flock south for healthcare. Where will we go?

Mexico?

[Kung Wu]

May?

You folks understand that under Obamacare, that if you are denied coverage on a service that it will be illegal for you to pursue that service and pay for it privately out-of-pocket? It will also be illegal for any physician to provide that service.

God forbid any of us get old and need a service that gets denied. Oh and what is the incentive to approve your service again?

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

Isn't that the Canadian system?

Don't know, but I am under the impression that a substantial number of Canadians flock south for healthcare. Where will we go?

Mexico?

Well I do hear you can get a cheap beheading down there if that will help your medical condition.

[Maggie]

This is beyond socialism, isn't it?

No, Obamacare is socialism.