Is Obama Setting Health Care Trap for GOP?

(AP)  Even as Republicans publicly welcome President Barack Obama's call for a bipartisan confab on health care, some privately worry that he might be laying a trap to portray their ideas as flimsy.

If so, a shaky showing by GOP leaders could possibly embolden congressional Democrats to make a final, aggressive push to overhaul the nation's health care system, with or without any Republican votes.

GOP Calls for Do-Over
Obama: We Can't Back Off Health Care Reform
Obama to GOP: Lets Talk Health Care
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Some Republicans doubt that scenario, saying Democrats have lost momentum for any plan that's certain to draw fierce criticism. But they noted Monday that the White House has not backed away from its support of legislation similar to what the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed separately in December over strong GOP objections.

"This is a clever tactic by the president to try to put the Republicans on the defensive," said John Feehery, a GOP consultant and former congressional aide. "There's a vast ideological gulf" between the two parties on health care, he said, making it likely that the Feb. 25 half-day meeting will be more showmanship than substance.

The House's top two Republican leaders openly questioned Obama's sincerity and hinted they might skip the meeting if he uses the Democratic bills as the starting point for discussions.

"Assuming the president is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?" said a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel from House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio and GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

"If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," Boehner and Cantor wrote.

They asked Obama to rule out the possibility of using "budget reconciliation" rules, which could allow Democrats to enact some health care provisions with a simple Senate majority, not the 60-vote super majority needed to halt filibusters. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats.

In response to the letter, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs released a statement contending that Obama is "open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny."

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the president will not rule out the reconciliation route but is sincere in wanting to hear Republicans' ideas for improving the health care legislation.

In announcing his call for the bipartisan event in a

CBS News interview with Katie Couric on Sunday

, Obama was vague when asked whether he was willing to start from scratch on health care. But the White House circulated talking points saying the president is "adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate" shortly before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority.

If that's true, Republicans said, what is the point of the Feb. 25 meeting? Some looked to the CBS interview for signs that Obama may use the televised event to depict Republicans' proposals as falling short in key areas.

"What I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there," Obama said. "And I want to be very specific. 'How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don't have health insurance can get it?"'

Watch the Full Interview

Republicans say their health care proposals are frugal and practical. But Obama may be able to cast unkind lights on some details, such as nonpartisan estimates that the House Republican bill would cover 3 million uninsured people while the Democratic version would cover 36 million.

All presidents command a bully pulpit, and Democrats feel Obama was especially nimble in parrying House Republicans' arguments and criticisms at a Jan. 29 televised event. The Feb. 25 setting could offer him a similar chance to spar with his critics.

The Boehner-Cantor letter sought to even the sides a bit. It called on the White House to invite pro-Republican analysts and Democratic lawmakers who voted against the Obama-backed legislation in December.

Liberal groups hope Americans will see the Republicans as obstructionists, possibly encouraging Democrats to use their still-sizable congressional majorities to enact their health care proposals via the budget reconciliation rules, without GOP help.

If the Feb. 25 meeting clarifies the sharp differences between the two parties, "that might be helpful," said Richard Kirsch of the liberal Heath Care for America Now.

But some Republicans said Obama runs the risk of appearing insincere if he convenes the bipartisan gathering without showing greater willingness to shelve or greatly change his party's proposals.

It's a gamble Democrats appear willing to take.

"I think the greatest risk for Democrats is passing nothing," said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va. "There are a lot of things the public may not support in a given moment, but later on, when things have quieted down, they may think of highly."

An overhaul of U.S. health care could fit that description, he said.

[CBSisCommunist5]

He set a trap for the whole country.

[noloyalisti]

I hope he lures the dummies in like John Bonehead. It was great to see the GOP morons stepping all over their own tongues in the press conference after the State of the Union.

And they are sooooo dumb they would do it again. Like the morons on fake Faux News thought they won the debate. Yeah, they won idiots Hannity and O' Liely. They really got Obama. Made him look like he was lying. Touche' GOP. Let's challenge him again. Wheeeeeee!

[noloyalisti]

And all of a sudden, we are concerned about spending on stuff that will help the people (as opposed to the big corporations)? Where were you when the Bushoccio Crime Family was spending us off the cliff. Of course the top 1% did well.

[endurorob_5]

GreatDepression February 9, 2010 2:46 PM EST
anti-global3

Tort Reform and Interstate Competition are old ideas.

In fact, Interstate Competition is already in the Senate bill! All Conservative and Liberal experts report that Tort Reform will only save, at the most, 5% of the total health Insurance cost.


....do you have any NEW idea?



At least tort reform would actually save money. The dems ideas will only cost more.

[GreatDepression]

endurorob_5

"...The dems ideas will only cost more."

Since you can read the future, which Stock should I buy right now?

[retiredgustav]

The conservatives passed tort here in Texas several years ago, my insurance still went up. As for competition I guess I amd supposed to get on the phone and ask "How much for a bypass? as I am having a heart attack.

[anti-global3]

it could be a trap, but I predict like everything else Obama has tried it will blow up in his face.
Here is a scenario, suppose the repubs come out and do present good ideas, like tort reform and allowing competition across state lines. These ideas would save middle class Americans money, but here is the rub, it would not allow the government to give free coverage to illegals and the poor.
What I see happening is some good ideas being called racist and evil because it will not provide people with a handout for free. and lets face it that is what many wanted.
Fortunately for the rest of us the people in MA realized this and put a stop to it for good.

[GreatDepression]

anti-global3

Tort Reform and Interstate Competition are old ideas.

In fact, Interstate Competition is already in the Senate bill! All Conservative and Liberal experts report that Tort Reform will only save, at the most, 5% of the total health Insurance cost.


....do you have any NEW idea?

[anti-global3]

GreatDepression,

At least 5% is something, the ideas in the house and senate bills will actually end up costing average middle class Americans more, all so we can hand out free coverage to illegals, poor people and deadbeats.
This is America, if you need something or want something work to get it. Nothing is free in this world, if I have to pay for it so should you.

[endurorob_5]

jenmead February 9, 2010 2:33 PM EST
The Republicans have a lot to worry about. Like the camera for instance. They don't want the public to see them at their finest. They have nothing, they want nothing. If they support reform then they are letting down the Insurance Companies that bank roll their existence. If you don't believe that, then I have a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.



Actually most republicans support reform. They just do not support another entitlement program which is what this current legislation is. It will do nothing to bring down costs and only increase the burden to tax payers.

[GreatDepression]

endurorob_5

"... only increase the burden to tax payers."

According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office website http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10068, the Effective Federal Income Tax Rate for the last tabulated period 2006 was 9.1%.

The Effective Federal Income Tax Rate is what the Average American pays AFTER all Deductions and Credits.

If you include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Gasoline and many other Federal Taxes, the Effective Combine Federal Tax Rate is 20.7%. This is the lowest of all the Industrial and Developed Nations.

In fact, according to the former House Majority leader Dick Anmey, R-Texas, whose conservative group FreedomWorks setup Tea Parties around the country this past April 15, 2009, said to the Washington Post that "...the tax rate right now is at a good level."

Half of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm?cnn=yes

Rich Americans do not pay Taxes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/30/60minutes/main6038169.shtml?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

We can pay down our $13 Trillions Federal Debt by just increasing our Effective Tax Rate to the world's Average.

SO, Americans are the most Selfish, Greedy, Irresponsible, Shame, Lazy (Obese), Uneducated and UnPatriotic Taxpayers of the World.

[endurorob_5]

GreatDepression February 9, 2010 2:25 PM EST
endurorob_5

bla bla bla and bla.

Reconciliation means the House takes out the provisions in the Senate bill that some Democrats in the House do not like and pass it separately with a simple majority. Democrats have a 43 seats majority in the House, so they only need to take out enough provisions in the Senate bill to please just all Democrats in the House minus 21.

Your beloved Nancy Pelosi already said publicly the votes exist for Reconciliation.

Next rebuttal....



Reconcilliation is a senate procedure. It means they forgoe the other procedures and avoid a fillibuster and vote. No matter what bill it is the house and the senate must vote on it. If the bill generated by the senate is modified in any way before the house votes on it then it must go back to the senate to be voted on again. The way it sits right now the house will not have enough votes to pass the senate version and the senate does not have enough votes to pass the house version. They will need to come to an agreement where they will have enough votes in the house and then aslo have the 51 needed in the senate to use rconcilliation. But keep in mind using reconcilliation may only be legal for some small parts of the bill because that procedure is reserved for budgetary items. And if the dems use reconcilliation on an item theis big they need to be prepared for the repubs to use it in the future. The also need to be prapared for the backlash from the majority of voters who appose this legisaltion.

[jenmead]

The Republicans have a lot to worry about. Like the camera for instance. They don't want the public to see them at their finest. They have nothing, they want nothing. If they support reform then they are letting down the Insurance Companies that bank roll their existence. If you don't believe that, then I have a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.

[endurorob_5]

GreatDepression February 9, 2010 1:21 PM EST
apuan777

The House and Senate have already passed Health Care Reform. Using the Reconciliation process, the House can pass the Existing Bill as is for President Obama to sign. They do not need the 41th Senator vote for the Reconciliation.

However, our very smart President Obama loves to play balls with Republicans. He wants to solidify Republicans with the 'No-Party' perception for Democrats to use in Campaigning in this year.



Actually the house can pass the senate bill without rconcilliation as long as they do not change it. The problem is that there are not enough dem reps that would vote for the senate bill. If you paid much attention to what is going on you would know that the pres' first preference after they lost the 60 vote majority in the senate was for the house to vote on the senate bill. Obama talks of bipartisanship but those are only words. All he really cares about is passing his government growing agenda.

[GreatDepression]

endurorob_5

bla bla bla and bla.

Reconciliation means the House takes out the provisions in the Senate bill that some Democrats in the House do not like and pass it separately with a simple majority. Democrats have a 43 seats majority in the House, so they only need to take out enough provisions in the Senate bill to please just all Democrats in the House minus 21.

Your beloved Nancy Pelosi already said publicly the votes exist for Reconciliation.

Next rebuttal....

[GreatDepression]

One thought I wish to share with all Conservatives and Republicans...

In the history of this planet and in all Hollywood Movies, the little (good) guy always win the Big (bad) guys in the end. So, I feel sorry for those who are on the side of the Big guys (Corporate America). Yes, Corporate America creates jobs but that does not means they have my permission to eat me.

[apuan777]

What has corporate America done to you or done to anyone? I guess you could argue environmental impact. Other than that, I'm not sure what they have done to anyone. They don't have to make products, or insure anything, etc. They don't have to create jobs. They don't have to even be in America. They don't even have to exist!

Most complaints I hear are speculation and rhetoric with little factual detail. Most large corporations are very good companies, employ tons of people, pay a huge amount of tax, innovate, give to charity, progress society, etc. etc. There are bad apples as with anything.

[endurorob_5]

And we all know hollywood is reality right? And Obama and his socialist cabal are the good guys and those evil, job creating corporations are the bad guys.