Hey Valerie Jarrett? Here’s some Bias! Go Declare War On It! snicker sincker

The Only Good Bias
is YOUR Bias, Right Valerie???


So-Called ‘Truth to Power’ speaker, Valerie Jarrett runs when confronted with her slobbering love affair of MSNBC’s Obama Worshiping Bias: Valerie Jarrett Get’s Punked on CNN for attacking FOX News | VotingFemale Speaks!

What say you to actual Bias
Keith Olbermann’s Lying Bias???

Hello??? Hello???
Knock Knock Knock
…Anyone Home?

  • Hat Tip to: tellitlikeitis
    October 29, 2009 at 9:56 am

    The Grating Communicator
    by Ann Coulter

    The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis’ furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing “criminals” passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white. Voters considered it relevant that a candidate for president was so beholden to the ACLU that he backed an idiotic furlough program that released first-degree murderers.

    Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn’t show Horton’s picture. And yet in Keith’s discussion of Bush’s allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.

    I don’t blame Keith personally for this blatant distortion: He gets all his research material from Markos Moulitsas and other left-wing bloggers, so he can’t be held responsible for the content of his show. Keith’s principle contribution to the program is his nightly display of self-congratulation and pompous douche-baggery.

    Remember, Keith, like his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, majored in “communications” in college, not a research-related field, such as political science. In his coursework, he learned such skills as: Dramatically Turning to Camera, Hysterical Self-Righteousness, Pausing Portentously and Gravely Demanding Apologies/Resignations From Various Public Figures.

    Given this background, it’s understandable that Keith will make errors. As viewers witnessed recently, he can’t even pronounce the name of prominent American economist and philosopher, Thomas Sowell. (Although he did spend three weeks at a Berlitz course in Arabic honing his pronunciation of “Abu Ghraib” to razor-sharp prissiness.)

    The bloggers and Keith bring different skill sets to the game. They provide the tendentious half-truths, phony opinion polls and spurious social science, while Keith provides his booming baritone, gigantic “Guys and Dolls” suits and gift for ridiculous, fustian grandiloquence. Keith is far better equipped than, say, the pint-sized, girly-voiced, Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas to deliver the party line.

    But here’s the fly in the ointment: Keith has once again been victimized by left-wing blogs into thinking that the 1988 Bush ad showed Willie Horton’s picture, when in fact, Horton’s race was deliberately scrubbed from the ad.

    Again, in fairness to Keith, he’s never been a “content guy.” He was a communications major. (The agriculture school Keith attended offered a degree in this field.) He lifts the material for his show from liberal blogs, overwrites it, and throws in his trademark smirking and snorts. But that’s all he does because, again, he was a communications major.


Additional Reading…

Michelle Malkin » Look who called out Fox News-basher Valerie Jarrett

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Pathetic: Jarrett backtracks from Fox

Michelle Malkin » Look who called out Fox News-basher Valerie Jarrett

DeathBy1000PaperCuts — Schwarzenegger Hidden Message, Circulation vs. Trust, Series

HuffPo — O’Reilly Goes After Joe Klein: ‘Mr Klein Is Scared’ Of Me (VIDEO)

Valerie Jarrett: ‘Of Course’ Fox News Is Biased (VIDEO)

Look at Valerie Jarrett Fold on Fox News : NO QUARTER

Riehl World View: Valerie Jarrett: Truth To Power? You’re The WH for God’s sakes

Valerie Jarrett, Fox News, MSNBC, Campbell Brown, CNN | I Hate the Media

Maggie’s Notebook: Valerie Jarrett Campbell Brown: Valerie Jarrett

Valerie Jarrett: ‘This Isn’t Anything That’s Simply Directed at

Valerie Jarrett: ‘Of Course’ Fox News Is Biased (VIDEO)

COACHEP » Blog Archive » Posts about Valerie Jarrett as of October 28, 2009

About VotingFemale

I am a female voter, as my blog name implies. I vote for conservatives. I am a political opponent of Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists.
This entry was posted in FOX News, George Soros, Keith Olbermann, MoveOn.org, MSNBC, Obama, Obamaist Communism, Organizing for America | BarackObama.com, Socialist Racism, The Fringe Media, Valerie Jarrett and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Hey Valerie Jarrett? Here’s some Bias! Go Declare War On It! snicker sincker

  1. m2 says:

    Keith Olbermann is such a hack piece of trash. The standards for liberals these days is gutter low….

    they’ve done so much harm to their ideology, it’s inane.

  2. VotingFemale says:

    I could not have picked a “better” Media Troll than Keith Olbermann to carry the Obama Banner on air!

    He is Media Burp Up and Obama & Valerie Jarrett laps it up off the floor…

  3. m2 says:

    ha ha ha!

    What a “new age” Obama has ushered us into, Highly POST PARTISAN, huh???

    Dumb communist elitists.

  4. VotingFemale says:

    Olbermann Spoof! hahahaha

    CNN likely saw this and considered having Wolf Blitzer do a fact-check on it

  5. m2 says:

    That was funny.

    I can’t believe Obama had a 2 and a half hour meeting with Matthews, Olberman, and Maddow…

    how could he squeeze it in, what with the parties, the vacations, the golfing and the dinners in his honor?

    Obama is disgusting.

  6. tellitlikeitis says:

    Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Advocated ‘Queering Elementary Education’
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009
    By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

    President Barack Obama’s safe schools czar wrote a foreword to a book in 1999 that called for elementary school children to explore their sexual identities, for teachers to incorporate homosexual themes in grades K-5, for discarding a “hetero-normative” approach to education and for “acknowledging children as sexual beings.”

    Kevin Jennings, now the assistant deputy secretary for education who heads the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, began the foreword to Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers) by writing about the Columbine school shooting in Colorado and comparing it to the beating-death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming and, from there, to the issue of intolerance in schools.

    “We remain silent in the face of intolerance,” wrote Jennings, then president of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an organization he founded. “We do little to teach the values of equality and justice. We simply fail to set any kind of expectation at all that these young people must respect each other even (especially?) when differences among them are vast and profound.”

    “Nowhere is this failure more evident than when it comes to antigay prejudice, and nowhere is that particular failure more manifest than it is in our elementary schools,” wrote Jennings.

    The book for which Jennings wrote the foreword includes essays from gay and lesbian educators that advocate teaching acceptance of homosexuality in elementary school and kindergarten. (The book is edited by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, who also wrote essays for the book.)

    In his foreword, Jennings rejects the premise that sexuality should not be taught in elementary schools by arguing that it already is taught, but to instill and promote anti-gay hatred.

    “I often find myself confronted with people who attack me for ‘bringing this issue into our schools,’” he wrote. “How laughable this statement is, I think. The reality is that this issue–anti-gay bigotry–is already in our schools. Little kids are learning to hate, and they’re learning it right now in elementary schools across America.”

    “Face it: ‘That’s so gay’ has become a mantra of elementary-school children, a mantra invoked whenever a child encounters something or someone they do not like or understand or appreciate,” Jennings wrote. “But the hatred and attitudes they express are not the exception–they are the rule. And we shouldn’t be surprised when troubled people vent their rage in murderous fashions on those they learned it is okay to hate.”

    Jennings also criticized conservative political figures in the foreword.

    “I’ll admit that in a world populated by the likes of Jesse Helms and Gary Bauer and Pat Buchanan, we can’t blame our schools for all the prejudice we see visited upon queer people,” Jennings wrote. “After all, when the senate majority leader [Trent Lott] compares us to kleptomaniacs, it’s hard to blame bigotry entirely on one’s third grade teacher (although one wonders exactly who Mr. Lott had for his teachers given the profound level of ignorance that pours forth from his mouth).”

    To accuse any individual who does not share Jennings’ opinion of hate is a means of silencing debate, said Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a pro-family advocacy group.

    “I recall when Matthew Shepard was murdered and a number of people singled out James Dobson as being responsible,” Bauer told CNSNews.com. “Such charges are obscene. The only purpose is to try to silence debate and expression of traditional values.”

    On page 9, one of the book’s editors, James T. Sears, states, “Acknowledging children as sexual beings or allowing males (particularly homosexuals) to teach in elementary grades dislodges the classroom from the ‘safe haven’ of heteronormativity.”

    Sears, identified as an “independent scholar” living in South Carolina, continues, “Childhood innocence is a veneer that we as adults impress onto children, enabling us to deny desire comfortably and to silence sexuality.”

    He also wrote, “Allowing children freedom to develop their sexual identities absent guilt or conditional love is an important attribute of queer households (and classrooms).”

    “Heteronormative” is described in Chapter 9 as framing education in such a way that heterosexuality is normal while anything else is abnormal. On page 103, the chapter’s author William J. Letts IV, one of the other editors, denounces a text that explains the difference between boys and girls. He writes that schools push for boys to play with G.I. Joe action figures and girls to play with Barbie dolls as part of a larger social push.

    “Boys don’t have to stand to urinate (nor do girls have to sit–they could squat),” wrote Letts, adding, “that’s just how they got conditioned.” Letts is a former elementary school science teacher.

    In Chapter 3, Kathy Bickmore writes, “The first reason to discuss sexuality in elementary school is that it is already present in students’ lives. Assumptions about children’s ‘innocence’ regarding sexuality are outdated.”

    On page 21, Bickmore, who taught education at the University of Toronto, wrote: “Sexuality and homosexuality in particular, is generally seen to be unsafe content for young children’s classrooms. This assumption misjudges what many children already know about themselves and their world, and also misses the point of what helps an ‘innocent’ develop into a self-sustaining ‘citizen.’”

    This month, 53 House Republicans sent a letter to President Obama asking him to remove Jennings from the Department of Education.

    “As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools–an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children,” the letter said.

    “As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students,” the letter said.

    “The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality,” it said. “There is more to safe and drug-free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.”

    Jennings’ foreword indicates what kind of agenda he brings to his government office, said Bauer.

    “A person’s history tells us a lot about what they will do in a position of power,” Bauer told CNSNews.com. “Most parents, including millions of people that voted for Barack Obama, will not be and should not be comfortable with someone like Mr. Jennings’ agenda for elementary school children.”

    A spokesman for the Department of Education could not be reached for comment Tuesday despite repeated inquiries.

    Also, two pro-homosexual rights groups–the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation–did not respond to inquiries from CNSNews.com about Jennings and the book.

    Another essay in Queering Elementary Education says, “Choosing literature for children with explicitly gay and lesbian themes, characters and situations is a direct approach to including part of many children’s’ home lives.”

    This essay by James R. King and Jennifer J. Schneider, both of the University of South Florida, further states on page 131 that, “Teaching homosexuality is precisely about differences, learning from differences and broadening the ways we understand others. The combined fears of sexual taboo and job insecurity (either real or imagined) have proved sufficient to keep homosexuality in the classroom closet. We can no longer afford the heterosexist elitism. Our students already know better (and worse).”

    An essay by Kevin P. Colleary, who was a doctoral student in education at Harvard University, asserts on page 157 that, “Whenever a discussion of family or community occurs–both topics of greater importance in almost all grades K-3 social-studies curriculum documents–there is an opportunity to talk about gay and lesbian families, and/or specific communities or neighborhoods where many gays and lesbians lives in almost every major city.”

    The book’s fourth chapter begins with a scene of kindergarteners reenacting Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It goes on to ask why not envision another reenactment. “Children have made a banner that says ‘Stonewall Inn.’” The reference was to a June 1969 riot by homosexuals outside the Stonewall bar, a riot viewed as a civil rights watershed event among gay activists.

    That chapter was written by Betsy J. Cahill of New Mexico State University and Rachel Theilheimer of Manhattan Community College. The two go on to write: “Teachers can tell children about the lesbian and gay people they know or know about. In the video, It’s Elementary, a teacher and children brainstorm ideas about gays and lesbians. They listen to music by musicians such as Elton John and Melissa Ethridge. In a discussion the teacher points out that the musicians are gay. This is one example of how a teacher might formally teach about gays and lesbians.”

    In Chapter 8, Eric Rofes, who taught at Bowdoin College, writes about whether he influenced any of his elementary students to become gay. He was only able to locate eight former students from an elementary class he taught 20 years earlier. He found that these students were not gay.

    But he said an openly homosexual teacher can encourage a new generation of activists. “Finally, the greatest influence of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers may be on students’ relationships to political activism, and social movements,” he wrote. “By witnessing up close the importance of political advocacy on a teacher’s job security and social position, children’s understanding of the importance of activism and its relevance to their lives might be enhanced.”

    In an essay addressing how universities can work with school districts, Kate Evans, a professional writer, wrote on page 245, “University administrators can place student teachers only in schools that include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policies. If university allies discover local districts without such policies, they can work toward change by speaking at school board meetings and talking with professional contacts.”

    In the book’s final chapter, Margaret Mullehern and Gregory Martinez, both of Boise State University, write about the challenges of including homosexuality in school multicultural programs.

    “As teacher educators, we feel responsible for educating pre-service elementary teachers about how they can help children understand the damaging effects of homophobia and the positive contributions of gays and lesbians,” they wrote on page 255. “Thus, the decision to include sexual orientation in our multicultural education courses was easy.”

    “However, as this chapter details, teaching queerly required more than a conviction,” they continue on page 255. “Confronted with a lack of knowledge and remnants of the homophobia we had grown up with, we had to peel back layers of fear and discomfort and educate our selves.”

  7. m2 says:

    you know… I’ve been ponderin’…

    since we aren’t doing anything to create new domestic energy, not even the stuff the stimulus was *cough* for (which went to growing corrupt and bloated federal gov’t power over states)…

    no Nuclear, no Oil, no Coal…
    natural gas maybe.

    I am wondering if the communists will take us out first by killing the dollar,

    or if we will turn into a anarchist society fighting over energy resources to keep our current non-existent economy from falling off the cliff.

    it’s a scary thought, which will it be?

  8. tellitlikeitis says:

    I want to repost this. This is great!

  9. VotingFemale says:

    Ok dear!!! Comming up!

  10. Foxwood says:

    M2 said:
    “Jarrett. Throw that radical communist out on the street or put her on a boat to Cuba.”

    Along with Sean Penn!

    XM carries Glenn, M2. Too bad they don’t carry Rush. I have to change channels on my AM when I move around the state.

  11. m2 says:

    Grayson… lol…
    “a whore” he sounds like another Al Franken and they made a big deal about Joe’s “you lie”… at least Joe was right.

    I hope the people on the inside are helping the americans right now. We know there are people on the inside who see this Communist takeover.

  12. m2 says:

    Oh as you can see, I got Flip4Mac plugin which plays Windows Media Player, so I’m streaming on some AM station’s website.

  13. samiam60 says:

    Another “FAILED” Obama “O” Stimulus “O” Butt Us Program.


    Report: Cash for Clunkers Auto Program Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Vehicle
    A report conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales were incremental.

    Report: Cash for Clunkers Auto Program Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Vehicle
    A report conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales were incremental.

    American taxpayers doled out $24,000 per vehicle sold under the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” auto program, according to a study released Wednesday.

    The report, conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, Calif., found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of the sales could be credited directly to the Cash-for-Clunkers program.

    The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, despite the government program, the report said — raising questions over its effectiveness.

    The report also said that the average cost for a vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 — minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

    Cash for Clunkers — officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System — was a $3 billion program intended to provide economic incentives to Americans to purchase a new, more fuel efficient cars when they traded in an older, less efficient vehicle.

    The program was touted for giving a boost to auto sales while increasing the sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

  14. samiam60 says:

    C’mon America, wake up and smell the Wilted Obama Rose’s already.

    This Thug will Bankrupt our Country.

  15. samiam60 says:

    I am on briefly this morning and it sure seems I am missing a lot. I need to go back and catch up on the comments and such but will have to do so sparingly. I will try as much as possible to be on here more and more as time goes on.

    God Bless all of you and God Bless the United States of America and all those who Stand Firm for our Freedom.

  16. m2 says:

    hope you are getting better, sam!

  17. VotingFemale says:

    forget about catching up, Samiam!

    this stream is swift

    take my hand and hold on for life!

    almost done with next blogpost

  18. Foxwood says:

    Busy day, VF. Are your fingers smoking yet?

  19. tellitlikeitis says:

    I’ll Pass on “Opting Out”
    by Ann Coulter

    The Democrats’ all-new “opt out” idea for health care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health care system.

    Democrats tell us they’ve been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the “opt out” provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can’t figure out what’s going on.

    The most important fact about the “opt out” scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can’t “opt out” of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they’re paying for.

    It’s like a movie theater offering a “money back guarantee” and then explaining, you don’t get your money back, but you don’t have to stay and watch the movie if you don’t like it. That’s not what most people are thinking when they hear the words “opt out.” The term more likely to come to mind is “scam.”

    While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to “opt out,” other liberals are being cockily honest about the “opt out” scheme.

    On The Huffington Post, the first sentence of the article on the opt-out plan is: “The public option lives.”

    Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, “Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O’Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere.”

    But the only reason government health insurance will be more “affordable” than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That’s something that can’t be opted out of under the “opt out” plan.

    Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets.

    So, naturally, liberals aren’t sure. In Democratic circles, the jury’s still out on free market economics. It’s not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they’d like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health care system on a European socialist model.

    Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals’ own obtuse reporting.

    In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors’ appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper’s entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd.

    As the Times reported: “In some dermatologists’ offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees.”

    As the kids say: Duh. This is the problem with all third-party payor systems — which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care.

    Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.

    In 1960, 50 percent of all health care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government’s share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance.

    The reason you can’t buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance — or a million other products and services available on the free market — is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn’t bid for employees with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package.

    Although employees were paying for their own health insurance in lower wages and salaries, their health insurance premiums never passed through their bank accounts, so it seemed like employer-provided health insurance was free.

    Employers were writing off their employee insurance plans as a business expense, but when the IRS caught on to what employers were doing, they tried to tax employer-provided health insurance as wages. But, by then, workers liked their “free” health insurance, voters rebelled, and the IRS backed down.

    So now, employer-provided health insurance is subsidized not only by the employees themselves through lower wages and salaries, but also by all taxpayers who have to make up the difference for this massive tax deduction.

    How many people are stuck in jobs they hate and aren’t good at, rather than going out and doing something useful, because they need the health insurance from their employers? I’m not just talking about MSNBC anchors — I mean throughout the entire economy.

    Almost everything wrong with our health care system comes from government interference with the free market. If the health care system is broken, then fix it. Don’t try to invent a new one premised on all the bad ideas that are causing problems in the first place.


  20. VF, We still need to ruin CNN.LOL~~~ They are just running for cover. Fox news,their ratings are going thru the roof. CNN is below MSNBC.

    The truth is that the internet is replacing the media. Ppl are coming to the blogs.

    Even mousey libs are getting their azzes kicked on the internet. Ppl are rejecting their looney,incompetent agenda. Except for CNN. You know how ireports is. The goal is to allow a few conservatives/independents to several far left kooks.

  21. tellitlikeitis says:

    House to Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax (Update1) Share Business
    By James Rowley and Kristin Jensen

    Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. House leaders today plan to unveil legislation that would create a government-run health- insurance program, require employers to offer coverage to their workers and impose a new tax on the wealthiest Americans.

    The legislation comes after three months of negotiations by House Democrats and represents the most sweeping changes to the nation’s health-care system since the 1965 creation of the federal Medicare program for the elderly. The measure would overhaul the insurance market, encourage greater use of preventive medicine and help Americans buy coverage.

    “We think we’ll have the votes,” said California Representative George Miller, who runs the House Education and Labor Committee, after meeting with fellow Democrats yesterday. Formal debate is planned for next week, Miller said.

    Lawmakers said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a compromise over one of the most divisive issues facing Congress — the establishment of the government insurance program to compete with private insurers try to and drive down costs.

    Lacking votes for a program that would tie the program’s reimbursements to doctors to the lower rates paid by Medicare, Pelosi settled on a plan that would instead negotiate rates with providers, as private insurers do, lawmakers said.

    Obstacles Ahead

    Pelosi’s office scheduled a news conference for this morning in Washington to announce the legislation. The measure would cost $894 billion over 10 years and extend coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, according to a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate, House Democrats said.

    The campaign to revamp the health system still faces major hurdles. The Senate is also considering legislation, and Majority Leader Harry Reid is struggling to reach consensus on a host of issues including a public option that would allow states to opt out of the program.

    If both the House and Senate pass their own versions of the bill, lawmakers must work together on a compromise before a new round of votes, a process that may take months.

    The House measure, which lawmakers said the Congressional Budget Office estimated will cost less than $900 billion over 10 years, is the product of work done by three committees and White House officials. President Barack Obama has made health care his top domestic priority and said he wants to sign a bill into law by the end of the year.

    Legislative Goals

    The legislation aims to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while curbing rising medical costs and cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Proposals in both the House and Senate would require all Americans to get insurance, creating purchasing exchanges and increasing government aid to help lower-income Americans.

    The measures also encourage greater use of preventive care, electronic records and research on the effectiveness of treatments. Under all the plans, insurers would have to accept new clients, regardless of preexisting conditions.

    Miller said House leaders favor an expansion of the government Medicaid program for the poor, which could cost the federal government less than providing subsidies to help people buy insurance. The plan would expand eligibility to people whose incomes are 150 percent of the official poverty level, a congressional aide said, up from 133 percent in the original House proposal.

    House lawmakers have also backed a requirement that employers offer insurance or pay a penalty. That is a subject of debate in the Senate, where the health committee included a mandate and the finance panel rejected it.

    Millionaire Tax

    To finance the bill, House Democrats plan a surtax on couples who make more than $1 million a year. Leaders are also planning fees on medical-device makers that will add up to $20 billion over 10 years, according to another congressional aide. The Senate has proposed $40 billion in fees on device makers, as well as levies on drugmakers and insurers.

    Pelosi said in an Oct. 21 interview with Bloomberg Television that the measure has more than $500 billion in savings. Lawmakers said that comes in part from reducing fraud in Medicare and from initiatives such as electronic records.

    Democrat Marion Berry of Arkansas, a member of the self- described fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said he still hasn’t decided if he’ll support the overhaul because he wants to see the changes in the bill. He said his biggest concern is how the plan is paid for.

    “I don’t think we’re getting near enough out of the drug companies and the insurance companies,” he said.

    Republican Opposition

    In the Senate, Reid has been melding legislation passed by the health committee in July with an $829 billion plan approved by the finance panel on Oct. 13. The health panel included a public option; the finance committee rejected it.

    The public option is opposed by Republicans and some Senate Democrats, who say it would undermine the market for insurance dominated by such companies as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. and Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.

    Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent who organizes with the Democrats, said he will oppose the public option. At least four Senate Democrats have criticized the idea and won’t commit to backing their party.

    Two Maine senators seen as possible supporters of health- care legislation, Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, said they won’t support a public option. Snowe favors a plan to trigger the program if the private market fails to lower costs.


  22. VotingFemale says:

    Good Morning Susan!

    CNN will never get off the hook! 😉

    too late for dat!

  23. Foxwood says:

    Morning Susan! 🙂

  24. Ann Coulter is one smart cookie~ I can’t stomach Keith but “Dailykos” sounds about right.As Keith’s source for leftwing,looney BS~ Or the huffington post.

    I’ll never forget reading both of those blogs for the first time. It is litterally shocking what these anti American, azzes think.

    When scumbag,Ted Kennedy died.The Huffington post blogged about how Mary Jo Kopechene was lucky to have known Ted Kennedy & how no one would’ve known who? she was.

    Are these morons serious?! I’m a native New Englander. The name “Kennedy” is/was a bad word
    in our home. Ted Kennedy
    left that poor woman to drown in a sinking car.While he went off to party more.

  25. Good mornin’ lovely ppl~

Comments are closed.