Congressman Kurt Schrader in health care trouble

Kurt Schrader: Is He A Man of His Word?
By Oregon Republican Party,

Schrader Said That If Certain Aspects of the Original House Bill Are Not Included In The Final Bill, Then He’s Voting No

JANUARY 8: KURT SCHRADER SAYS HE OPPOSED THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL
In January, Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) Pledged In Town Hall Meeting That He Would Not Vote For Senate Bill “If Certain Aspects Of The Original House Bill” Were Not Included In Final Legislation. “Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) drew major criticism and little praise from constituents Thursday night at the Willamette Falls Medical Center for his health care vote last summer “¦ the Congressman added that if certain aspects of the original House bill, including reform on Medicare reimbursement, are not included in the final bill, he would not be voting in favor of it.” (Sarah Ross, “Schrader Town Hall Gets Rowdy,” The Oregon Politico, 1/8/10)

MARCH 3: SCHRADER CLAIMED HE IS UNDECIDED
THE OREGONIAN: Schrader’s office said Wednesday that the congressman has not yet made any commitments on whether he would vote for the Senate-passed version of health-care reform. “Kurt’s commited to moving forward on health care,” said spokesman James Atkin, but he wants to study the bill first before making a commitment. (Jeff Mapes, Schrader, targeted by GOP robocalls, makes no commitment on health-care vote, The Oregonian, 03/03/10)

MARCH 11: THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SAID
YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE BILL
ROLL CALL: The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.” (David Drucker, Ruling Kills An Option For Moving Health Bill, 03/11/10)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): “The Senate Parliamentarian, As You Have Said, Said In Order For Them To Do A Reconciliation Based On The Senate Bill, It Must Be Signed By The President.” (Rep. Pelosi, Press Conference, 3/12/10)

WILL KURT SCHRADER BE A MAN OF HIS WORD AND VOTE NO?
“”¦if certain aspects of the original House bill, including reform on Medicare reimbursement, are not included in the final bill, he would not be voting in favor of it.” (Sarah Ross, “Schrader Town Hall Gets Rowdy,” The Oregon Politico, 1/8/10)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:13 | Posted in Measure 37 | 35 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh good lord come on. With rigged congressional rules, naked shower confrontations and scam CBO numbers that count six years of benefits against ten years of payments and this nonsense still cant get passed?

    It’s like a bad kidney stone.

    Has the paralysis of the Obama administration with health care gone on longer than the Carter administrations paralysis with the Iranian hostages?

    Anyone counting?

    Don’t get me wrong. I am more than happy to have the administration neutered through health care fixation rather than out there making more trouble for everyone. I’m just wondering how at this stage of the game, when congress just last week voted to postpone making Medicare cuts, anyone could consider voting for this albatross. Medicare cuts and the scam of counting ten years of income to pay for six years of benefits are the two biggest lies used to pay for this thing.

    If congress cant support Medicare cuts now, what the hell business does anyone have even considering BO’s nonsense?

    What, Medicare cuts are going to get easier?

    Like angry mobs of cane waving old people will be a prettier sight in the future?

    Oh wait, they might be, Ill be in those mobs by then.

  • eagle eye

    Off-topic, but where is Jerry? It just isn’t the same without him and his (alledged) multiple personae. Is he on vacation, permanently banished, or just biding his time?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Oh, I can tell you where Jerry is.

      Yesterday, the supposedly real BO held a town hall where he claimed under his health care plan employers health insurance premiums would fall by 3000%

      No, that’s not an extra zero typo, he actually said they would fall by three thousand percent.

      I’m not exactly sure how the price of something can fall by more than 100% but BO did make that nutty claim.

      The number is so ludicrous and outlandish, I think one of Jerry’s multiple personalities might be impersonating BO and doing fake town halls.

      • valley p

        “No, that’s not an extra zero typo, he actually said they would fall by three thousand percent.”

        Excuse me if I think you either misquoted him or misread the quote. And given your reading skills, I think I know the answer. Out of curiosity Rupert, where do you get your health insurance? Individual market?

        To the top point, who exactly did Schrader give his word to? And who is saying that the changes he asked for are not being included in the adjustments to the Senate bill?

        As for Jerry….do we really miss him? Watch what you wish for Eagle.

        • John Fairplay

          Just heard the sound clip on the news. He said 3000 percent. If this premium reduction is refundable, some employers will be clearing $30000 a month per employee. No wonder big business loves ObamaCare.

        • Oh, yes…HE said it!

          virual video if you are not too lazy too look for it. HE said 3000% but then hell, he pulls different numbers out of his butt daily now doesnt he.

          OH, and has he released any of those ECONOMICS grades from either….Occidental College, Columbia or Harvard? Did he take ECO? Why is he keeping his grades a secret? Could it be he was less then a C student?

      • eagle eye

        So where is Jerry?

  • eagle eye

    I heard the 3000% quote too. Kind of like Gore’s statement that a piece of ice the size of Alaska or Texas or something had melted — 20,000 sq. km — when the latter is more like the size of Massachusetts. I heard Gore say this on the radio, thought I had misheard, but there it was later in print, he said it allright. Not a clue about multiple orders of magnitude.

    Kind of puts the lie to the notion that these Dem Ivy League guys are so smart — unlike Republican Ivy League guys like Bush II, who somehow came through an idiot.

    Quantitatively, at least, they are mentally challenged, like most people. Like most of their professors? Where is the retired science prof, what do you think, doc?

    Re Jerry: yes, I really do miss him. Kind of like your insane cousin who really is an embarrassment, but you have learned to love him, and you don’t lock him up at family gatherings.

    • valley p

      “I heard the 3000% quote too.”

      OK. I’ll take your 3 word(s) for it. Can we assume he “misspoke?” The CBO is the arbiter here, and they have weighed in that the Senate bill does reduce the cost of premiums (apples to apples) compared to what they would be with no bill. And given the very recent efforts by insurance companies to jack prices by 40% in California and I think 20% in Oregon, as well as a doubling of premiums over the past 10 years, where are we headed with no bill?

      You really want to save money? Single payer. Watch what you wish for.

      I’d want Jerry back if he would just be Jerry. The multiple personas thing is irritating. And worrisome.

      Jerry. Where are you Jerry?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >OK. I’ll take your 3 word(s) for it.

        OK – So you were wrong….again…

        and cant admit it….again.

        Next time try actually spending a little more time learning something than the lame insults.

        mmmmmmK Dean?

        Thanks

        >The CBO is the arbiter here, and they have weighed in that the Senate bill does reduce the cost of premiums (apples to apples) compared to what they would be with no bill.

        And the CBO is demonstrably wrong once you get past the ten year forecast.

        You might not like that but it is easily proven.

        Fact one – BO care relies on substantial cuts to Medicare to achieve its spending targets.

        Fact two – Last week congress voted to delay lesser cuts to medicare.

        So we know the greater cuts under BO care will never happen and even just with that the bill will go in the red.

        But wait, there’s more.

        Fact three – BO care relies on delaying of benefits but has immediate implementation of taxes. This is how we get the supposedly revenue neutral bill, by counting ten years of income and only six years of pay out.

        Ok, so now we know that even if the Medicare cuts do happen, and even if the taxes come in exactly as forecast, the thing still goes 40% (ten years minus six years) in the red after ten years. Obviously the four year delay can only occur at the start, so the second ten years you have ten years revenue and ten years payout, not six.

        So, even at its most basic level, its not hard at all to grasp how they are lying about the numbers on this thing.

        Which leads to the next fact.

        Fact four – Once people figure out you are lying to them, and they have, it becomes real hard to get them to trust you to mess with their insurance.

        • valley p

          “OK – So you were wrong….again…

          and cant admit it….again.”

          Um…I hate to break this to you, but taking your word for it after doubting your word is an admission of being wrong the first time.

          “And the CBO is demonstrably wrong once you get past the ten year forecast.”

          Demonstratably wrong by whom? You? How do you demonstrate that a future projection is wrong? Your speculation is worth more than the CBO analysis? Sure, why not? You know more than the world’s scientists on global warming, and you are a constitutional law expert, so why not be an expert on the long range finances of health care as well?

          The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, actual experts on this, did a study that found that since 1990, Congress has indeed passed significant Medicare savings on multiple occasions. And the main one proposed in current legislation, reduction of over payments to private insurers, is easy to do because it does not reduce benefits, it only eliminates paying too much for these benefits. And that too much was brought to you by the previous Republican Congress. The so called conservatives who conserve nothing and balance no budgets.

          “So, even at its most basic level, its not hard at all to grasp how they are lying about the numbers on this thing.”

          The only thing you are grasping at is straws. The CBO does not “lie.” It projects based on verifiable assumptions.

          “Once people figure out you are lying to them, and they have, it becomes real hard to get them to trust you”

          Yes Rupert. Take that under advisement.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Demonstratably wrong by whom? You? How do you demonstrate that a future projection is wrong?

            Well, for one catching accounting practices that skew income

            It’s done all the time. You are unaware of this? We have whole branches of government devoted to exactly this.

            One of them is called the SEC – Look it up. I shouldn’t have to be teaching anyone over thirty what they do. Clearly you have no idea, since catching people cooking the books to skew future revenue forecasts and inflate stock values is pretty much job one for them.

            Im amazed that anyone over thirty could be unaware that fraudulent stock valuation is based quite often on catching phony accounting practices to inflate future projections

            Thats exactly what I did above. Counting ten years of income against six years of expense is fine if the expense is limited to the six years. It’s a scam if it is an ongoing expense, as any entitlement such as BO care would be.

            >Your speculation is worth more than the CBO analysis?

            I speculated?

            Wait a second, are you saying that the fact that the taxes start from the get go and the benefits don’t start is speculation?

            Sorry my friend, thats not speculation, its simply a fact.

            Ok, so now we know that you don’t even know what you are talking about when it comes to the basic funding of this bill.

            Let’s move on to my other point, which sure, is somewhat speculative.

            You want to argue that the Medicare cuts will actually happen?

            You are saying it is more speculative that they will not happen, which is what I am arguing, than they will, which is what the CBO has to base their assessment on?

            Please, don’t make me laugh.

            I just gave one solid reason to think they will not happen – the fact that they just decided to defer Medicare cuts last week.

            Sure, their have been Medicare cuts in the past.

            But lets remember, BO care relies on Medicare cuts as iron clad that they will happen. Now that’s speculation my friend.

            >reduction of over payments to private insurers, is easy to do because it does not reduce benefits, it only eliminates paying too much for these benefit

            Really?

            So if I hire you to do a windmill site report, and I say I am willing to pay you less than your going rate, you are saying that would not reduce what you were willing to do?

            Or does this only work with doctors?

            Can you tell me a doctor where I can walk in and say I am going to pay him 10% less than his normal rate and he is just going to say okie dokie?

            Or is it only insurers?

            Ok, fine – Name one insurance company I can call right now and tell them I am going to pay them less than the price they quote me for my car insurance.

            Name one.

            >The only thing you are grasping at is straws. The CBO does not “lie.” It projects based on verifiable assumptions.

            Where in the world did it pop into your head that I claimed the CBO lied?

            I never claimed CBO was lying, they always state clearly their forecast on this is only for the initial ten years. Its when you don’t make clear to people that being revenue neutral is only true for the first ten years, and after that its a budget buster that it becomes a lie. CBO hasn’t done that, BO sure does though.

            Sorry – The accounting of this on the tax side is not speculation, It’s fact and its verifiable.

            So once again – Even if we accept that the Medicare cuts will happen, BO’s health care bill is 40% in the red starting on year eleven.

            Got it?

            The first decade, which is all CBO is scoring, we have four years of taxes, benifits dont kick in until the last six years.

            The second decade you cant do that trick. You have ten years of each. You lose those four years of taxes you had in decade one. Thus the 40% deficit.

            If you can’t understand that you really don’t have a lot of business commenting on this.

            >Yes Rupert. Take that under advisement.

            For a guy who just got caught looking like an idiot trying to insult me over the 3000% thing, you might want to try and avoid stepping in it again.

            Just a thought.

      • eagle eye

        I don’t believe the CBO for a minute. But let that pass I mean as in “pass by”.

        That he could say that ANYTHING that is inherently a positive number could decrease by 3000% is pretty telling. As in he is as mathematically challenged as probably 90% of the population. Not a crime, but hardly what you expect from an Ivy Leaguer/University of Chicago law professor.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >hardly what you expect from an Ivy Leaguer/University of Chicago law professor.

          Well, his formal title was senior lecturer but who’s counting. Although he was never formally a law professor at UC, he does like to refer to himself that way.

          Law professor, lecturer, 3000% what’s the difference?

          And yes, I would like to state that it does appear I was wrong. In several recent posts I have seen you criticize Democrats so clearly I was completely wrong when I stated in the past that you never do so.

          • valley p

            “Counting ten years of income against six years of expense is fine if the expense is limited to the six years. ”

            and

            “Wait a second, are you saying that the fact that the taxes start from the get go and the benefits don’t start is speculation?”

            Maybe you didn’t speculate. Maybe you simply erred yet again. Here are just some of the benefits that go into place right away, year one, Senate plan:

            1) Eliminates lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits.

            2) Eliminates rescissions.

            3) Provides interim $$ for people who have preexisting conditions until exchanges kick in.

            4) Requires insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations immediately.

            5) Allows young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26.

            6) Forces insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

            8) Creates an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

            9) Develops a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

            10) Creates an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

            11) Bans discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that’s not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

            12) $5 billion in immediate support for affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions.

            13) $11 billion in immediate and investment in Community Health Centers to expand access to health care where it is needed most.

            14) prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

            15) begins to fill the “donut hole” by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the hole in 2010.

            16) tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

            “So if I hire you to do a windmill site report, and I say I am willing to pay you less than your going rate, you are saying that would not reduce what you were willing to do?”

            The answer is it depends. Rates in my business are always somewhat negotiable. If I need or want the work bad enough, I might say, fine, I’ll give you the initial product for less money. If I have plenty of other workr I might not. Its a competitive world. WallMart is famous for dictating prices to suppliers and they seem to keep on supplying.

            “Got it?

            The first decade, which is all CBO is scoring, we have four years of taxes, benifits dont kick in until the last six years. ”

            No. I don’t got it. The exchanges don’t fully kick in for several years, but multiple benefits do kick in right away. See above.

            “If you can’t understand that you really don’t have a lot of business commenting on this.”

            Once again we agree. This is becoming a habit.

            “For a guy who just got caught looking like an idiot trying to insult me over the 3000% thing, you might want to try and avoid stepping in it again.”

            For a guy that makes an average of 6 factual flubs a day, thinks Bush was a good economic manager, thinks 0.6 million is the same as 1.6 million, thinks a year = about 6 months, thinks every scientific body in the world is on the take, and thinks Bush did not lie when he said he was “certain,” and thinks he is a constitutional scholar, you might want to take your own advice.

            Just a thought.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            OK – First of all, good to see you dodge that you had no idea what the SEC did.

            Your statement one cannot demonstrate that future projections are wrong, when that is a pretty major function of the SEC was really embaressing

            Ok now that that is out of the way, lets move on to the first section, where you try and obfuscate the basic fact that CBO scores the bill for a ten year period, and after that it is in the red big time.

            >Maybe you didn’t speculate. Maybe you simply erred yet again. Here are just some of the benefits that go into place right away, year one, Senate plan:

            We are talking about the main expense here, not $250 credits or insurance regulations.

            We are talking about the expense and CBO scoring of adding the uninsured onto the federal roles.

            We are not talking about things that are not expenses. Allowing someone to stay on their parents insurance is not an expense, it doesnt count in the CBO scoring, which is what we are discussing.

            Requiring insurers to do this or that is not an expense, at least not to the federal government. To the individual, like me, it will result in a big increase in rates.

            If you have to constantly obfuscate like this maybe you should consider that since I constantly call you on it, it isnt very effective. It just simply makes you look evasive, unsure and ill informed.

            Sorry – There is simply no way to argue that having the taxes kick in when the expenses (sorry Dean, the major expenses, got it now?) don’t start until four years later is any kind of honest accounting.

            >No. I don’t got it. The exchanges don’t fully kick in for several years, but multiple benefits do kick in right away. See above.

            Yep, well, if you couldn’t figure out that we were talking about the benefits that cost the real money, the ones that were the bulk of the CBO scoring, then all you have proven here is that you probably haven’t thought out your position that well. That’s why you are obfuscating.

            We are talking about the major expenses of the bill Dean.

            We aren’t talking about insurance requirements about 20 somethings staying on their parents policy, which are not an expense to the government and which I doubt the CBO bothers to score.

            We arent talking about $250 credits, which arent much of an expense.

            We arent talking about eliminating lifetimes caps, which are not a government expense.

            You clearly cant keep on track of what we are talking about, which is the CBO scoring

            You are evading the issue, which makes its clear you dont have much of an argument to support your position.

            So now you are moving onto the insult portion.

            You don’t have facts on your side, or logic so you try to obfuscate with the fluff you threw up above.

            Now, since you have no way to argue against the fact that BO care goes into the red in year 11 you move on to just a stream of insults.

            So then you move on to insults.

            >For a guy that makes an average of 6 factual flubs a day

            I do make mistakes, far less than you but I do make them

            The difference between me and you is I own up to them.

            However I have never made six in one day on this blog.

            So, you are wrong again on that one. Sorry

            >thinks Bush was a good economic manager

            Please give a quote where I said that.

            I dont think you have one as I think you are making that up simply to be insulting because you are frustrated.

            >thinks 0.6 million is the same as 1.6 million

            Wrong again. Name one time I ever claimed that.

            Again, you are simply making this up to be insulting. Show me the quote where I said 0.6 million was the same as 1.6 million.

            And if you dont have the quote you can forget any response.

            I am done taking the blame for the fact that you used 1.6 million jobs one day then used 2 million jobs the next for the stimulus package and then trying to blame me for your screw up.

            >thinks a year = about 6 months

            Name one time I ever claimed that.

            Again, your screw up on the stimulus numbers does not amount to a mistake on my part

            As an aside, did you ever get out your calculator and figure out the cost per job, using your own numbers as I advised you to?

            Trust me, you brag about the stimulus again and Ill be banging you over the head with that embarrassing figure again so you might want to check it.

            >thinks every scientific body in the world is on the take

            Wrong again Dean.

            Name one time I ever claimed that. I corrected you on this same erroneous assertion just a few days ago.

            I asked you at the time to point out where I have ever said that.

            You probably still can’t

            I have never in my entire life claimed every scientific body was on the take.

            >and thinks Bush did not lie when he said he was “certain,

            That much is true. The evidence shows Bush did not lie, as had he lied he clearly would have planted WMD’s to not look like an idiot when they weren’t found. Any president willing to lie to get us into a war, clearly would have planted evidence to back it up.

            Bush was also in agreement with every major intelligence agency in the world when he expressed his certainty. So again, his actions at the time were directly the opposite of those of a liar.

            You simply insisting Bush lied with no evidence and Bush’s behavior being in direct contradiction to that of a liar tends to indicate more that you are a nut rather than Bush is a liar.

            >and thinks he is a constitutional scholar

            Correct, at least in regards to the Supremes interpretation, which is not the quite the same thing. I do study the subject with some regularity and can cite Supreme court precedent with some facility so that actually does make me a scholar.

            I cannot believe you, of all people, are bringing this up.

            You are one who asserted that illegal aliens had no standing in the Supreme Court.

            I was the one who lined you out on that by citing precident.

            Sorry if my better knowledge of these sorts of things is so threatening to you.

            >Just a thought.

            Well, if you ever actually have some constructive thoughts let me know.

            If all you have to argue your points is this sort of obfuscation and lame insults then leave me out of it.

            Look, you simply dont have an argument here.

            You cant refute the fact that the major expense of BO care takes place four years after the taxes kick in.

            You have to bring up idiocy like insurance regulations and $250 rebates when you know that is not the major expense.=, which is what we are talking about.

            Then you have to stoop to insulting me after I cleaned your clock this morning on the 3000% thing.

            All you know is a Democrat wants it, so its follow the leader time and you are for it.

            The day you actually ever question a Democrat and think for yourself is the day you bring something of substance to the table.

            I wont hold my breath on that one though.

          • valley p

            Here is the thing Rupert. Much if not most of the taxes that pay for expanded health care (in the Senate bill) come from the so-called Cadillac plan tax. And as it turns out, this tax is also phased in over time. So benefits and taxes are both phased in. Are they equally phased in? I don’t know.

            You scoff at the early expenditures. You managed to ignore 11 billion for community health centers. You pretend $250 PER GEEZER amounts to nothing. You missed 5 billion for interim health insurance for high risk folks.

            Secondly, the CBO estimate is that the bill saves much more money the second decade than the first. They admit projections that far ahead are of less certainty, but nevertheless, based on what they have, there are more savings down the road. Total government expenditures on health care will be LESS a decade down the road than they would be with no bill, yet 31 million more people will have insurance. That is the estimate, and their track record is a bit better than yours.

            Thirdly, take a moment to contrast how Democrats enact legislation versus how Republicans do it. Democrats actually attempt to pay for the benefits, Republicans, as in Medicare Part D, do not bother. So it may be that these estimates are wrong, or that some things will turn out differently, but out of the gate, Democrats more than balance the budget on this. They run a surplus. When was the last time we had a government budget surplus? Also under a Democrat. Coincidence? No. Responsible adults who know how to govern.

            As for the rest of your defensive rant, why bother with it? You are so deep into denial on things you have written, and so delusional about what you think you are expert on, I could spend half my life clipping and pasting your flubs in front of your nose and it would have no measurable effect. Deep down there might be a spark of self reflection, but only very deep down. I’m through with that. Your delusions belong to you. I’m washing my hands of them.

            But I’ll continue to call BS on you, which is good sport and almost too easy. G-night.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Ok – So you had no argument, then stooped to a bunch of insults and when you get called on them you cant give a single example.

            That’s pretty weak, but you already revealed yourself as a weak guy when all you could do was devote half your post to nothing but insulting me and when your initial post was just to insult me.

            Now you are trying the same thing. You try an absurd shift in argument (Democrats pay for what they pass) followed by more insults.

            You really are going to try and argue that Democrats pay for what they pass? Nice try, you guys were low by an order of magnitude with Medicare.

            Please, its Basic Argument 101 when you are a Democrat, avoid your track record on things costing way more than you forcast.

            So – lesson learned for you.

            When you started off with nothing but an insult to me about the BO 3000% thing, I wound up using you as a floor mop on that one. You were wrong, and of course couldn’t apologize. Dean the classless.

            In the future if you are going to insult someone by claiming they said something outrageous, don’t run away when they ask you for a single citation of it.

            Makes you look nutty and childish, we already know you are classless.

            Thanks.

          • John in Oregon

            Hi Rupert, see my comment below.

    • retired UO science prof

      Most people are challenged when it comes to things quantitative or mathematical, including a good many professors who don’t do quantitative work. Talk to some humanities types about academic budgets some time. Try using math while teaching science to non-science students, yikes.

      Perfectly believable that a law professor or instructor like Obama might come up with a howler like this. A little scary that he’s the mouthpiece for something he doesn’t really understand. But he’s the Pres, he can’t just use his budget people to cover for him. Interesting that he doesn’t realize his own limitations on this kind of stuff.

      • valley p

        No argument Rupert? Wrong again. I offered an argument you chose to ignore. Let me reprise for you:

        1) Taxes AND benefits are phased in. Do you dispute that?
        2) There are billions of dollars in expenditures in year one. Do you dispute that?
        3) The CBO estimate is that there are more savings in the 2nd decade than in the first. Do you dispute that this is their estimate?
        4) The benefits, on paper at least, are more than paid for according to CBO. Do you dispute that?
        5) The Republican Medicare Part D bill was not paid for. Do you dispute that?

        “In the future if you are going to insult someone by claiming they said something outrageous”

        I insulted your reading skills Rupert. No apology is warranted because you more than earned the critique.

        Science prof:
        Isn’t it logical to think that BO meant 3000 DOLLARS in projected savings on insurance bills as opposed to 3000 PERCENT savings? And if this is the case, do we have a math problem or simply a verbal error? I mean, if someone was going to lie about something they would fudge believable numbers. They would not present a number that is mathematically impossible. I mean, a law professors math may indeed be bad, but not likely THAT bad.

  • Davis

    According to AFP leaders in D.C. and Oregon, Schrader could be actually considering voting “No” on the bill. Given the amount of opposition to the bill expressed by those attending his most recent Town Halls (i.e. Stayton and Oregon City this last weekend), as well as at earlier meetings in Salem and (again) Oregon City, applying more pressure by phone, e-mail, and FAX could finally convince him that we — his constituents — really mean “NO” this time.

  • Jack

    Just sweep Kurt Schrader out the door along with all the other OPPRESSIVE Socialists Nov.2 2010

  • John in Oregon

    For those who didn’t hear, the telephone trunks into Washington DC are overloaded due to the high call volume. Phone and Fax aren’t getting through.

    Yesterday I hand carried a letter to Congressman Schrader’s Oregon City office. The experience was interesting. There was a contingent in support of health care liberty on the corner. And lots of horns honking in rejection of the health care take over.

    There was no mob in Schrader’s office which I was happy to see. Staff was clearly aware of what was being said out side.

    One or two vehicles were circling the block honking which isnt easy in that part of Oregon City. Most however were just moving through. I also noticed that the two or three block circulars were taking care to keep traffic moving and not jam up the area.

    Schrader’s office is across from the Clackamas Co. court house. As I was leaving I happened to overhear three gentleman in suits chatting as they walked ahead of me. One commented something like the power of the people united can not be resisted.

    At first I took that comment as one of cynicism. But as I thought about it there may have been an element of cynicism but there was also an element of awe. Now I wish I had inquired about the thinking of the gentlemen. Sometimes simple questions produce great insights.

    Thinking back on the last year, we began the year with Congress passing legislation without reading it, now Congress is passing legislation without voting for it.

  • Jack

    Just sweep Kurt Schrader out the door along with all the other OPPRESSIVE Socialists Nov.2 2010

    🙂

  • John in Oregon

    UO science prof I find I am reluctantly forced to agree with you. I say reluctantly as I would expect that any high school graduate SHOULD have mastered basic arithmetic. As you say sad commentary.

    Your surmise that Obama doesn’t understand the math as a mouthpiece for budget people appears consistent. I have a some what different take that may fit more of the facts. A wider prospective as I agree that Obama appears math challanged. Some comments I heard recently will shed some light but requires a bit of background.

    For those not familiar with John Lott, he is a Ph.D. in economics with a strong grounding in statistics. Some years ago a student in one of Professor Lott’s classes turned in a paper which Professor Lott graded A for process and mastery of the mathematics. The paper used only a few obscure data sources so received an F for research. Overall the students paper that gun laws deter crime received a C.

    The student challenged the grade and said he used all the data available. To his credit, Dr. Lott checked the research and confirmed little if any actual research data of gun laws impact on crime.

    Thus Dr Lott began a data collection project compiling data from local, state and federal sources. The facts of that data resulted in the book “More Guns, Less Crime”.

    This matters because in 1992 Dr. Lott was a Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School when Barack Obama became a lecturer. A few weeks later Lott saw Obama at a faculty gathering and went to welcome him to the school. The conversation went like this;

    LOTT: Hi I’m John Lott, welcome to the University of Chicago.
    OBAMA: Lott, you’re the gun guy.
    LOTT: Yes.
    OBAMA: I believe the American people should not be allowed to own guns.
    Obama then spun on his heel and walked away abruptly ending the conversation.

    Lott said that he often had Cass Sunstein over for dinner and they would debate one issue or another. Engaged debate was fairly typical at the University of Chicago. In contrast Obama displayed little intellectual curiosity and a great deal of ideology while rebuffing any attempt to engage with any but a true believer.

    Obama’s TelePrompTer speeches are tightly scripted yet contain frequent departures from fact. I suspect Dr. Lotts observations explain why.

    Rupert. From a technical prospective VP is somewhat more correct. However I agree more with your general thinking.

    The current situation in the Senate requires engaging at least one Republican to gain cloture. The alternative is Reconciliation which is a simple up / down process to streamline amending existing budgetary legislation.

    The senate health care impairment bill is being considered in the house. (I refuse to call it reform.) The House cannot amend the Senate bill as that would require the Senate to vote again on the bill.

    This is where reconciliation comes in as a way to back door amend the Senate bill. That’s also a problem as congressman have no guarantee that once the Senate bill is passed it will be amended.

    Sooo, now we add Deem and Pass to the mix. Things are fluid but the general form would work like this.

    The reconciliation legislation would include a rule that passing the rule would be deemed as passing the Senate Bill. (BTW the reconciliation bill also contains an attachment that all loans for college would be controlled by the government.) Then if the reconciliation bill failed in the Senate, the Senate bill would also fail in the House.

    Thus we have a catch 22. We have a reconciliation bill that purports to amend a statute that does not exist. At the same time the amendment would deem the statute that does not exist to have passed without a vote.

    I am persuaded that the current situation is close to a constitutional crises. Discussing the Speaker enveloped in the fog of war Dan Perrin said:

    “Dem staffers report having repeated circular discussions with Leadership and Committee staff: we [the staff] say the language of the bill says and means this, and the leadership staff and committee staff say, no it does not say and mean this, and we are not changing it.”

    “Part of this Groupthink pattern is that the delusionals listened to Chairman Waxman and Chairman Miller to craft their bill — and rejected writ large the suggestions of moderate Dems and completely locked out the GOP. The fact is, they have made a habit of not listening to their own members, the GOP and the public. When the Committee staff met with various factions of the Dem House, they did not take notes, they did not follow up, and universally rejected their suggestions. ”

    Lefty blogger Jane Hamsher has come out in opposition to Obamacare:

    “The claims made by the administration about the virtues of the health care bill are outright fabrications. As Marcy Wheeler has documented in her post entitled “Health Care and the Road to Neufeudalism,” it does not control either insurance premiums or health care costs. Forcing 31 million people to buy a product they don’t want and can’t afford to use does not constitute health care reform. Once again, the poor get used as human shields so corporations can be the beneficiaries of massive government bailout.”

    “Rather than actually helping the poor, this bill is a dangerous and unprecedented step on the road to domination of government by private corporate players who use it to suppress competition and secure their profits – the textbook definition of fascism.”

    While Jane and I would not agree which has control, the Government or the Corporations, Jane does have a point.

  • Jack

    Lefty blogger Jane Hamsher has come out in opposition to NObamacare: Good for her now stop SOCIALIZED MEDICINE in its tracks and sweep Kurt Schrader out the door along with all the other OPPRESSIVE Socialists Nov.2 2010

    🙂

  • Mark Sanderson

    I think Jerry left us for good due to the childish name-callling and the fact that nothing is ever accomplished by posting on these blogs.

  • retired UO science prof

    To vp: I have no idea whether he meant what you said. Maybe the White House should issue a clarification, not that I would believe it.

    To John: It’s not so shocking if he is that quantitatively incapable. Most people are, even those who have “mastered” ninth grade math. Ask the average adult over age 30 to add two fractions (without a calculator). They’re lost.

    Quantitative literacy is just not something most people have. It doesn’t come very naturally to most people.

    I don’t even fault Obama that much, except for not knowing his limitations and pretending to talk about things where he’s beyond his depth.

    Perhaps it was just a verbal slip, we all have them, especially under pressure. But then let the White House clarify, if they like.

    • valley p

      I just found this on Associated Press Fact Check:

      “Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

      “Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent,” said the president, “which means they could give you a raise.”

      *A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000* .”

      So as usual, it was ll much ado about nothing. I think you should give me an A in logic.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe he misspoke, maybe not. What else was his press spokesman supposed to say, that the Pres really is an idiot?

    But if I believe that health insurance premiums are going to go down by $3000 because of this stupid plan, then I’m the idiot.

  • John in Oregon

    Jack I think expressed some of the feelings of most of us when he said > *Lefty blogger Jane Hamsher has come out in opposition to NObamacare: Good for her now stop SOCIALIZED MEDICINE in its tracks and sweep Kurt Schrader out the door along with all the other OPPRESSIVE Socialists Nov.2 2010*

    Its best to keep in mind the immediate battle is defeating the senate health care impairment bill in the House. To do that we need to face some ugly facts. First and foremost is that while every Republician is voting NAY that will NOT stop the health care take over. While the votes opposing the bill are a bipartisan collation of Democrats and Republicans we the people must accept a simple fact. *The people can not stop this takeover without the help of members of the Democratic party.*

    This is a must win battle. This bill, like no other in history, will be an unalienable alteration of the relationship of the American People with the Government. Government panels of nameless bureaucrats will make the decisions that are today are the most intimitant personal and family decisions that we make as individuals.

    There is another battle going on in which the public cannot engage. At the same time it is a battle that the people can exploit. That battle is going in within the hierarchy of the Democratic party. In the quest for this bill and the power is cedes to the government the Speaker has made it clear that nothing, bribery, coercion, black mail, nothing is off limits, absolutely nothing.

    It is between the irritable force of the Pelosi machine and the hard place which is the People with their backs against the wall that some 40 Democratic Congressmen and women find them selves today. It is on those few that we the people now depend.

  • Pingback: fitflop singapore()

  • Pingback: discount fitflops()

  • Pingback: cheap christian louboutin()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)