Obama co-opting the Governors to promote nationalized health care?
From the New York Times, it looks like President Obama is telling the Governors, including our own, how to explain his nationalized health care program in terms that won’t tip people off that he’s promoting socialized medicine:
In a meeting last week with five governors — including Republicans who may be more sympathetic to health legislation than those on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama privately urged them to serve as his emissaries to Congress. He even coached them on the language they should use with lawmakers, two of the governors said, advising them to avoid terms like “rationing” and “managed care,” which evoke bitter memories of the Clintons’ ill-fated health initiative.
and….
“He’s the president of the United States; he does have to lead and he will,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. “But he’s got to pick his spots.”
As lawmakers struggle to work out their differences, Mr. Obama is courting the governors, an effort that one White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss strategy, said began with last week’s meeting. In interviews, two governors — a Democrat, Christine Gregoire of Washington, and a Republican, Michael Rounds of South Dakota — both said Mr. Obama asked them to talk to members of Congress about their own innovative approaches to health reform. Both said he urged them to be careful about their language.
“I think he said what we have to do is not call it rationing, because clearly there is from H.M.O. days a concern about rationing,” Mr. Rounds said, adding that he sensed Mr. Obama was hoping to have “a bipartisan group of governors working directly with lawmakers to perhaps break a stalemate.”
Ms. Gregoire said the president reminded the governors that “Congress has a bad taste in its mouth from previous experience with managed care,” and suggested they avoid the term. Instead, he spoke of “evidence-based care,” the practice of using research to guide medical decisions. She said the president told them, “I need you to stick with me.”
Read it here. It’s interesting that we’re reading this about the Obama side of the discussion. Because on the Rounds’ side of things, this meeting was billed as:
Rounds opposes a federal effort to take over the industry, which puts him at odds with Obama’s plan to expand government’s role.
and…
“One of the the purposes of the talks out there is to get a feel for the direction this is headed and to provide input from South Dakota’s perspective,” said spokesman Joe Kafka in Pierre. Other staff members are with Rounds to meet Obama, including Kathi Mueller, a senior staff member who specializes on health issues.
Before we jump to judgement, I think we’ll just have to wait and see what the Governor chooses to advocate. If he’s going to be direct, or as Obama advocates – use terminology to obfuscate the truth.
What’s your opinion on this?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Guy right on. If this passes the health care in the world will be over. If you ever get a chance to see Mayo Clinic, it is worth your trip, I saw people from many different Countries there. The reason is simple: we have the best healthcare in the World.
Hopefully Rounds got a little bit of sense into Obama! This is just plain crazy. If you want Gov run healthcare go to Canada-A!
We’ve had very poor results from Mayo. But we were encouraged to go there through our doctor. Now we have a different doctor and go to an excellent hospital. This would not be possible under government controlled health care.
Rounds had better not be buying into this disaster. And typical of Obama to tell the gov’s how to spin it (lie is a better, more fitting word).
Hopefully, Mike Rounds hasn’t been taken by this latest Obama fantasy. Mike all to gladly accepted the millions of stimulus dollars. He seems to buy into any liberal democratic scheme.
PS Do you think we’ll see some of that Daugarrd leadership?
Obama “even coached them on the language they should use with lawmakers”!
That guy obama just doesn’t get it! You would think he would have enough sense to at least take a few good things from the Bush administration! Why can’t obama do it like President Bush did? President Bush and his administration wouldn’t dink around with that stupid “coaching of language” crap. They just sent out a directive as to every exact word that needed to be said. Heck, even FoxNews used the mandatory talking points and charts on their news programs….but of course they tried to hide that fact.
Anyway, a good leader doesn’t try to coach anybody! A good leader says “this is how it is now do it”!
My Goodness! You would think that guy obama would of learned something from Bush administration!
Fishing, I thought he did! Weren’t all these economic problems Bush’s fault!? And if Obama wants everyone to get along, why is he so concerned with Fox News’ “opinion” of him. It seems Obama should take a ‘good thing’ from the Bush administration, like being able to take an opposing viewpoints!
Oh, and by the way…how are Obamas’ solutions working for you?
LOL Gy Smylie!
Actually, Obama’s solutions are working darn good for me! I have three grandkids that are on that stimulus summer youth work program. I don’t care if it benefits them….it benefits me! You know how much darn money spending money I gave those kids last summer because they couldn’t find jobs? Yes, I know…..shouldn’t give them money. But all of us grandparents do stupid things like that! Guess it’s just part of being a grandparent!
Anyway, yes, the stimulus plan is working for me!
LOL
Why do you want to give money to your kids through the government??? They take their share for processing you know!?
Thank’s grandpa! I would have liked ALL the money, but I guess Obama does need to take his daughters to get ice cream, too. 
I remember Rounds on Neal Cavuto talking about how he was in favor of the Auto Bailouts before Obama won. I’m guessing he liked the stimulous (he didn’t complain) allowing him to put off big decisions until he left office. I wonder what he thinks of Health Care? It’s hard for me as a fiscal conservative to understand him.
Well they told me at coffee this morning to shut my darn mouth about paying in and getting government money back.
Seems like South Dakota gets a couple of bucks back on every dollars we send in. And we do, like all the other states, elect people to bring home as much as they can from Washington. Every dollars that they get for us results in a press release in all the newspapers. It usually says something like “Look at me….I’m bringing MORE money home from Washington just for you”! And we say “Thank you Tim, John and Steph. That’s why we elected you!”
This coffee group thinks I am biting the hand that feeds us when I complain about this government money. And you know what, here in South Dakota that just might be true!
And I was just thinking. If South Dakota receives more money then it puts in…..if money is taken from other states so more can flow to South Dakota….Isn’t that a form of Socialism. That comment did NOT go over very well at coffee this morning!
That’s the trouble with your coffee group, fishing. They will take all they can from the gov’t without realizing that the gov’t is us! We are paying for the summer stimulus program, the bailouts, the stimulus package etc.
The fallout from all this hasn’t started to hit yet. See what that coffee klatch thinks when the taxes start to rise and be put on various other things, when inflation starts to rise, when they can’t sell their houses because they don’t pass the new cap and tax energy appraiser’s criteria. The trouble is by then it will be too late. People need to wake up NOW, not when it’s too late.
Thanks, grandpa! We feel better now that South Dakota Government gets the money and not the Fed. : (
South Dakota gets more money than we pay in for three primary reasons:
1) Federal Treaty obligations to the Tribes. Without a renegotiation of these obligations, Congress and President have little say on this.
2) Federal Gas Tax Revenues. Because the formula is based on miles of federal roads, we will always get a greater per capita distribution and per/dollar paid ratio contribution of these funds (unless of course the population goes up five times).
3) Social Security and Medicare: In the U.S., 14.39% of the population is over 65 years old. In SD, 16.78% of the population is over 65 years old. Only North Dakota, West Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Maine have a higher percent over 65 years old.
When you look at the distribution of TARP money and stimulus money as well as the discretionary increase in spending in the Omnibus Budget, South Dakota is in the bottom 10% in all areas. In other words, the federal government is spending and borrowing money with the bulk of the funds going to Michigan, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois etc. with only a trickle coming back to us. In fact, the money is disprotionately going to the richest states (measured by per capita income). Now who is that is said to favor the rich over the poor?
Troy, very accurate analysis.
However, you leave one part out at the end. The most stimulus money is going to the wealthiest states, if by wealthiest states you mean those why they biggest economies and most income per capita. But this is not about any philosophic favoring of the rich over the poor.
These states have the biggest economies because it is where most Americans live: California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas, etc. These states are also full of cities, and people in cities generally have higher incomes than those who live in rural areas. So the stimulus money is mostly going to where most Americans live: cities in big states. That makes sense to me.
It’s also going to the states that are the least fiscally responsible for keeping their houses in order. Does that make sense or sound fair? NO.
I have no sympathy for CA either. They should take all the illegals out of jail, put them on a bus, drive them over the border into Mexico, open the doors and let them out. That in itself would save a lot. Then send all the ohter illegals back; would also save a lot. That would have a huge impact on state expenses on both education and welfare and the prison system. Makes more sense than closing state parks. How come that isn’t talked about. And no, I’m not racist. I’m pro LEGAL Americans, period. CA simply can’t afford the illegals anymore, and if they won’t do anything about that fact, then they can secede, be their own little broke country, and do their own thing. At least we wouldn’t be supporting their ineptitude.
“They should take all the illegals out of jail, put them on a bus, drive them over the border into Mexico, open the doors and let them out. That in itself would save a lot. Then send all the ohter illegals back; would also save a lot. That would have a huge impact on state expenses”
Right, because a massive operation like that wouldn’t cost anything.
I’m still waiting for that Republican solution to health care reform. Guy Smylie had some good ideas earlier, but I didn’t hear anything on how they could be accomplished, and the official Republican proposal had zero numbers in it and no specifics. So far, it just seems like Republicans are against whatever Democrats are for. They’ve got to have a viable alternative plan to increase competition and decrease costs (no, not tax cuts) otherwise they will continue to be seen as the G-NO-P if they just oppose anything the Dems want to do. So far, I haven’t heard one.
Who there Braden! You are wrong buddy!
We Republicans submitted a detailed scientific based economically sound four page U.S. Health Care Proposal that any Republican would be proud of!
Now Braden is saying the plan didn’t have any content and wasn’t really a true plan? What a slam against the Republicans that spent months getting the plan together!
Braden, you liberals just don’t get it!
Braden, to dump the illegals from jail back across the border would cost the price of gas, renting buses, some guards, drivers, and maybe a sack lunch. Lot cheaper than housing them in jail.
Love it Grudznick. If O’s health plan passes, it will be survival of the fittest. You wouldn’t want to get sick when the money for certain tests ran out, when there were not enough doctors, etc. You’d have to be fit to survive!
Braden said: ” The most stimulus money is going to the wealthiest states, if by wealthiest states you mean those why they biggest economies and MOST INCOME PER CAPITA. But this is not about any philosophic favoring of the rich over the poor.”
Braden, as you correctly said, it is going to the richest states (those with the MOST INCOME PER CAPITA). I am not defining “rich” by the size of their economy or the size of the population. I’m defining it as those states with the most income per person. Reverse Robin Hood at its finest? Maybe Obama’s motive isn’t to help them because they are the richest states. Maybe it is because they are blue states. Cronyism at its finest?
Jason Williams:
A myriad of sources.
The federal government spends $7.41 Billion in South Dakota or $9,400 per person. The national average is $7,400.
If I recall correctly, the federal government spends approximately $20,000 for the Health, Education and Welfare per Native American. South Dakota has 62,000 Native Americans (8th largest population in the nation despite us being one of the least in the country). By itself, fulfilling the treaty obligations is what puts us above the federal average expenditure.*
Social Security and age: google it. Easy to find.
Highway Expenditures: Google it. The primary criteria for the distribution of gas tax moneys is miles of highways.
* For the record, I do not begrudge the magnitude of this expenditure. Our country entered into a treaty freely and we are required to provide “health, education and welfare” in perpetuity. I do question the efficacy of the expenditures for improving the lots of our Native American neighbors but that is not the subject of this discussion.
Jason W.; do you remember that old white haired guy named Einstein? God put the theory of relativity into his head so we could all get it too and at the perfect time to help the world. Watch out for God is going to be doing that with Troy Jones too and we are all in for it. 
Charlie (and Jason): Or maybe it will be lint that God puts in my head.
“People who don’t Think probably don’t have Brains; rather, they have grey fluff that’s blown into their heads by mistake.” Winnie the Pooh
Fish and Braden want their kids operated on with rusty saws and dirty equipment….
OK, so I don’t know that, but THEY don’t know what it’s going to be either. All I do know is that every version has one poor aspect – it has to go through the government!
Whether that means quality or funded…I thought these guys were talking about it costing too much! Obama is trying to add another drain to the budget(whichever budget you want to relate it to!)
But if you think, $800 billion worth of jobs are being created with his stimulous package, I’m sure you’d let you kids take a rusty knife for Obama too!
” I am not defining “rich” by the size of their economy or the size of the population. I’m defining it as those states with the most income per person.”
OK, but like I said earlier, the big states, where most people live, are states full of cities. People in cities generally have higher incomes than those in rural areas. So the money is going to where the most people are.
“Maybe Obama’s motive isn’t to help them because they are the richest states. Maybe it is because they are blue states. Cronyism at its finest?”
That would be awfully stupid. New York, California, Hawaii-all the solidyly blue states are a lock to go for Obama unless he reveals himself as the AntiChrist. It would make little sense to reward them for that. If he was really playing politics with it, the money would go to battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virgina, North Carolina or to slightly red states like Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, Georgia in the hopes he could flip them.
Braden, people in big cities may have (in general) higher incomes, but often the higher pay doesn’t truly offset the higher cost of living.
As to your point:
“Blue states are a lock to go for Obama unless he reveals himself as the AntiChrist.”
Do you think NBC, CBS, Newsweek & The New York Times will still support and promote Obama when he DOES reveal himself as the Anti-Christ?
Braden, Why don’t you think he’s going for power? He could have taken $800 billion and given it to the public to pay off their bills. Isn’t that the good-hearted thing to do? Isn’t that the democrat manifesto – help the poor? Wouldn’t that have created jobs and created spending? Isn’t THAT what you were expecting screw the banks/special interests and help the people?
Did he screw the banks/special interests or the people?
BTW Braden,
The crack about the Anti-Christ was a joke, you just left an opening I couldn’t resist =|;)
Herseth-Sandlin and Johnson are in SD this week talking to people about health care. http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/34645/
Where’s Thune?
the U.S. health care system is already rationing, in the most unproductive ways.
“In America, we strictly ration health care. We’ve done it for years,” says Dr. Arthur Kellermann, professor of emergency medicine and associate dean for health policy at Emory University School of Medicine. “But in contrast to other wealthy countries, we don’t ration medical care on the basis of need or anticipated benefit. In this country, we mainly ration on the ability to pay. And that is especially evident when you examine the plight of the uninsured in the United States.”
Thanks for posting this!
I think Obama is trying to say ‘Look I’m just like these Republicans. It’s a good plan!’ Then when the bill is written anything could be in it(sacrificing your first born, the kings men will have first shot at your wife).
I’m not trying to scare anyone. I’m just illustrating what leaders have done without anyone to correct them.
“Single-payer” health care should be tested, then re-tested, then re-tested to work out ALL of the problems before it is implimented. Everyones life IS at risk.