Become informed and defend your freedoms.  This is a website for citizens by an independent citizen.

in 2009 there is no bigger issue

Political Strategy: 

 Remember the President’s three part test:

  • A bill should not increase the budget deficit in the short run (the first ten years).
  • A bill should not increase the budget deficit in the tenth year.
  • A bill should “bend the health cost curve down” in the long run.  (More recently, a weaker test that a bill must not increase long-term deficits.)

Thus far none of these criteria or commitments have been or can be met with the Bills thus far.  There still is a chance.

The basic strategy of this administration is continuing to try to convince the American people of the value of Obamacare versus status quo, despite the anger and the data from the polls.  Never mind that there are many better, market based proposals on the table, rather than more status quo.  It is as one reporter put it, taking on religious overtones.  

As the polls showed a declining support the political strategy made another shift.  In mid-August the onslaught on the insurance companies in the "healthcare insurance reform" campaign continued, with one addition.  The public option was putting put on the block again.  The Option of ditching the PO was floated in the media, not by Obama, but by others.   He is trying to hang onto the leftist Democrats, who are expressing chagrin at seeing their prize go away.   Dean is most outspoken in the media in support of the public option.  There are plenty of other hooks in either Bill however to give the government plenty of control.  After all their end goal is to manage the insurance companies and the total budget.  Towards that end there are plenty of ways to achieve those goals, including the so-called insurance coops or exchanges.  Once the requirements for care are defined, prices set, shift in funds away from Medicare, the government is in control of your healthcare, and everyone will be unhappy.

The other leg of the strategy is to make deals with various healthcare groups, such as Pharma, hospitals, AMA, insurance lobbying groups.  As one writer put it:  "It's one thing to accept the Capitol Hill advice that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu."  Each of these groups are just continuing their strategy of gaining market advantage by helping set public policy at the expense of their competitors.   This is one of the core issues as why healthcare is lacking in competitiveness.

The opposition to Obamacare has been characterized as scare mongers, defenders of the status quo, un-American, and so on.   It all  seems rather that the strategy is intended to shift attention away from the basics, to not analyze the costs and benefits, the serious threat to freedoms, and turning the largest industry in America into a publically run Post Office Care.  These concerns do appear real, if only the citizens would ask a few more questions

WILLIAM MCGURN writes in WSJ:  “President Obama says that both sides agree we need to lower costs, promote choice and provide coverage for every American,” says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a free-market health-care think tank. “But he never confronts the simple fact that the measures he’s supporting achieve none of those goals. Instead of debating, the White House attacks anyone who raises a question.”

Of course, when fundamental human rights are at stake, it seems churlish to worry about little things such as the price tag. Or higher taxes. When it comes to the Holy Grail of universality, liberal intentions are far more important than actual outcomes.

“Think of public education,” says James Capretta, a health-care expert at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. “They want to do for health care what they’ve done for education—establish a government-run, universal system. Once in place, they will defend such a system whether or not it delivers the results it promised.”

In his inaugural address, Mr. Obama dinged his predecessor when he asserted that his administration would “restore science to its rightful place.” The implication was unmistakable: In place of rigid religious orthodoxies, Team Obama would be clear, cool and pragmatic.

It turns out that the president has his own orthodoxies. These may owe more to his liberalism than to his faith. But they help explain the tenor of the attacks on those who dare question them—and the growing prospects for a major defeat in Congress on the president’s signature issue.

So was the election victory a mandate to change the fabric of the American society, to establish the public sector as the dominate force?  It appears that the American people are saying NO, in some expressing themselves in a most angered fashion.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ writes in WSJ: The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

There is also a switch in the sell strategy from the Administration.   It is no longer healthcare reform, but rather healthcare insurance reform.  Is this a real shift in content?  No, just trying to find a bad guy to attack, and insurance is the least popular part of the healthcare industry.  See the video below to gain further insight:

There is also a change in Obamacare sell strategy towards healthcare insurance reform that is detailed in News, but is no real change at all.  This attack on the insurance companies will not do anything except remove support from the insurance companies for Obamacare. 

The Bills are now on hold for the August recess it appears.  It remains to be seen just exactly what is in the Senate Bill.  However the House Bill does seem to be moving without quite the mandates it had before, but with the same onerous invasion into individual freedom that it has possessed.   WSJ reports that the levels required for supplying insurance by the employer and acquiring it by the employee have been raised.  Pipes comments on the Bills in a comprehensive manner.

The House Bill was passed from committee, having made the deals to pass through the concern filter.  Does this map into solving the problem, as stated on the Problem page?  No.  It just means that there was a set of conditions that passed through the gauntlet of special interests.   No real specifics were given, but it seems that the public option is alive for now.  If you think this option is a good idea or are unsure, then read the link and articles here.  One thing is certain in making the House Bill be a real healthcare improvement, watch the video on the exercise program below right.

The Senate committee is shut down for August, and the Senate Bill will not come up for a committee vote until the Fall, and be released  to the public for review.  The inner workings of the House committee lead by Waxman were detailed in a WSJ article.. 


Answers are beginning to form. Any of these Bills have details that will shock the public. The longer the time to analyze the better it is for the citizen. It is a messy situation politically. Obama is making statements that are quickly refuted, and seem like he is still campaigning and not leading.