American Enterprise Institute: Dean Clancy: 'Three Steps to Patient-Centered Care'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Dean Clancy talking about health care reform at AEI.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:American Enterprise Institute." 

From AEI  

Dean Clancy is talking about 3 ways he would reform health care in America, but he didn't really anything on the table. He was really talking about the health care system in America pre-2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed. 

Mr. Clancy talked about controlling health care costs, without putting anything on the table. 

He talked about expanding individual liberty in the health care market, but without putting anything on the table. 

And then he talked about what he called health care status, which I guess is the right-wing talking point for pre-existing conditions. And said that someone's health status, which could a pre-existing condition that someone was born with, or a woman whose had kids in her life, should be used against them in either denying them health insurance or charging them more for health insurance. 

What Mr. Clancy seems to be talking about but doing it more openly and honestly (unlike the House Republicans and the Tea Party populist wing of the Republican Party) is saying that we should go back to the health care system of 2009 and before that. I would love to see Mitt Romney run for President out in the open on that, as well as House Republicans in swing districts and Senate Republicans in swing states. 

Reagan Foundation: 'Candidacy for Presidency: Ronald Reagans Announcement of Candidacy For President of U.S. 11/13/79'

Source:Reagan Foundation- Governor Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) announcing his run for President, in 1979.

"Ronald Reagan's Announcement of Candidacy for President of the United States on 11/13/79.

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation."

Source:Reagan Foundation

You could make a case that when Ronald Reagan announced that he was running for President in November, 1979 that he won the 1980 presidential election and defeated President Jimmy Carter right there. Because of how different the message that he was giving, then what was being delivered from President Carter. 

President Carter constantly told the country how bad the situation was. Reporting on from one disaster from another, especially economically and even telling the country that they were partially at fault for this. Living too well and that was contributing to the economic problems. The country feeling as bad, or if not worse than the President said we were doing. 

To sound really corny: what Ronald Reagan was saying in 1979-80 is that our best days are still ahead of us, if we change course, go in a different direction, get the economy going again. And he had a plan for all of that. We can argue about how successful he was with the all the economic growth and jobs, but in exchange for high deficits, debt, and interest rates. But he was laying his vision for America being the City on a Shining Hill.

The Daily Caller: Nicholas Ballasy- 'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid- Won't Say if ACA Mandate is a Tax'

Source:The Daily Caller- Nicholas Ballasy is a Washington correspondent for The Daily Caller publication.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wouldn’t say if he agrees with the Supreme Court ruling that the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional as a tax.

“I’m not here to give everyone my limited knowledge of constitutional law. I am here to say that the law has been upheld,” Reid told The Daily Caller Thursday at the Capitol. “It’s good for the country. It’s good for my people in Nevada.”

“It’s something that now we can look at, I don’t have to worry about a child that’s born with a cleft pallet. I don’t have to worry about a child who shortly after birth develops diabetes or as the kids that came to see me today have cystic fibrosis that develops,” he continued. “I don’t have to worry about them anymore and very, very soon all adults, not just those that are under age of 18 will be entitled to insurance even though they have a pre-existing disability.”

In 2009, President Obama told ABC News that the individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance is not a tax. House Minority Leader told The Daily Caller earlier Thursday that the question about whether the individual mandate is a tax is “Washington talk” that doesn’t matter to Americans. (RELATED: Obamacare becomes Obamatax)

“The people can stay on their parents insurance policy, 6 or 7 million of them, are benefiting from this law,” Reid said. “The millions and millions of senior citizens who are having the donut hole filled because of what we did in this health care law. Millions of these senior citizens now can get wellness checks that they could never do before so I’m not about here to give you all a dissertation on constitutional law. The law has been withheld [upheld], and I’m very happy it has been.” 

From The Daily Caller

This just in: Washington politicians lie and career politicians lie a lot. That's a big reason for how they become career politicians and are able to hold onto the same political office for 30 years, as if they have tenure at a college or some place. Of course the individual mandate is a tax and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (Democrat, Nevada) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (Democrat, California) President Barack Obama, (Democrat, Illinois) Vice President Joe Biden, (Democrat, Delaware) all know this. 

But similar to admitting that you are a Socialist, is not popular, (even if you are a Socialist) admitting to a tax increase, even if goes to help fund health insurance for people who can't afford it, is also not popular either. Unless you represent some gerrymandered, left-wing district in the House, or in Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) represents Vermont.  

I think the real question here is how much do Republicans, especially hyper-partisan Republicans want to play this. Do they really want to run on ObamaCare repeal by saying that it should be repealed simply because taxes were raised to fund it. Do they think Independent voters, especially if they're currently benefitting from the Affordable Care Act, want to see ObamaCare repealed, simply to get the taxes that were raised to pay for the ACA eliminated. Or would they rather keep their ACA benefits as they stand. This is a political question that Republicans are going to have to answer themselves.

CSPAN: 'Minority Leader Pelosi Reaction to Supreme Court Health Care Ruling'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) talking about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

"Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) reacted to the Supreme Court decision that upheld the the health care law, the Affordable Care Act, saying the decision was a victory for the American people. She answered questions from reporters.." 

From CSPAN

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laying out the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today. 

The ACA was actually saved by Conservative Republican Chief Justice John Roberts. Going in, it looked like Justice Anthony Kennedy looked like the best shot at saving the ACA, because even though he's definitely a Conservative, he's not as right-wing and partisan as Justice Clarence Thomas. (To use as an example) 

But Chief Justice Roberts ruling that this isn't the law he would've written, but that the ACA is constitutional (according to him) because the individual mandate is a tax, even though it's not called a tax in the actual law that Congress passed in 2010. 

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act: Right Wingers React to the Roberts Court Decision to Uphold The ACA

Am I surprised that the US Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, of course I am but as I blogged on Monday. I predicted that the Supreme Court would uphold the ACA except for the Individual Mandate, on either a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. And that Chief Justice Roberts was more likely to vote in favor of this then Justice Kennedy. What I'm surprised by is that the whole law gets upheld not only 5-4, I predicted that it wasn't going to get upheld and if it. Would get upheld it would be 6-3 with both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy voting in favor of it, as it turns out Roberts being more Conservative then Kennedy votes in favor of the ACA. And votes in favor of the Individual Mandate and if you are a Conservative first and a Republican second and you look at things based on what's good for the country and for Conservatism in general. Then you should like this decision especially from the Chief Justice, who by the way wrote the Majority Report lets call it, that he and the four Liberals voted for. He voted for the Supreme Court and the US Constitution, by ruling that its not the job of the Supreme Court to save voters from their own politicians.

The Supreme Court didn't vote in favor of the ACA on policy, just the Constitutionality, Right and Left Wingers asked for the Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality. Of the ACA and made their arguments for and against and I believed the Right did a better job of making their case then the Left. Even though I disagreed with the Right and thats what they got from the Supreme Court and if Congress and the President whoever that is next year, doesn't like the ACA. They can vote to overturn it but that its not the role of the Supreme Court but of Congress, because they aren't Legislatures, thats why we have Representatives an\d Senators. So if you are a real Conservative you should like this decision at least based on that, they ruled in favor of the Constitutionality of the ACA and explained why and didn't write new law. Because thats not their job.

If you are just a Right Wing Partisan and of course you are on the Right or Far Right politically. And you feel the main job is to defend the Republican Party at every turn, until it hurts you politically and attack Democrats at every turn and not allow them to have a victory on anything, even when they clearly win. Like today at least on policy, which is basically the State of the Republican Party right now, then of course you hate this decision. The guy who was appointed by President George W. Bush and voted for Citizens United and the Patriot Act and other things, is now a Liberal and a Traitor, no facts to that argument. But why let facts and reason get in the way of an argument.

HBO: Ronald Reagan (2011)

Source:HBO- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) I believe his daughter Maureen is in the background there.

"Reagan examines the enigmatic career of one of the revered architects of the modern world—icon, screen star, and two-term president Ronald Reagan. This HBO documentary, which premiered this year on Reagan's 100th birthday, traces the 40th president's meteoric rise from B-movie actor to General Electric salesman to California Governor to the most powerful office in the world, examining how an impassioned anti-Communism fueled an unexpected but seismic political career, one whose reverberations still shape Americanlife. It also explores how a self-proclaimed group of modern-day Reagan acolytes have come to repackage his legacy, seeking to turn a deeply textured human being into an oversimplified marble icon for their own contemporary political purposes. Who is selling Ronald Reagan and to what end?" 

From Roco Films 

I just saw the Ronald Reagan documentary last night on HBO and I thought they did a pretty good job. Jumped through his California governorship, focused on the student protests at Berkley and his brief presidential run in 1968. Yes, Ron Reagan ran twice for president before being elected. I would've like to of seen more of Governor Reagan and see what type of Governor he was, even though I already have a pretty good idea from other films I've seen. I would've like to have seen how he worked with the Democratic legislature. How he defeated Governor Brown in 1966, how he got reelected in 1970.

I would also like to know how Governor Reagan closed the budget deficit, Welfare reform, all issues he focused on as Governor of California. As well as how he dealt with President Nixon in the 1970s. The fact he considered himself to be a Libertarian up until 1975 and then became more of a Classical Conservative like Barry Goldwater. His failed 1976 Presidential run against President Gerry Ford, what he did when out of office before he announced he was going to run for president in 1979. His involvement in 1978 California Proposition that would have allowed California employers to fire homosexuals because of their sexuality, that Reagan came out against, when he knew he was going to need the Religious-Right to be elected president in 1980.

There are so many aspects about Ron Reagan, that doing an hour and forty-five minute film about him, doesn't really do justice as far as telling the story of Ron Reagan the man. Someone because of his conservatism, couldn't win national office as a Republican today. The Religious-Right, as well as the Tea Party Nationalists wouldn't allowed that to happen. They would've treated him like Ron Paul. Accusing him of being a Liberal or Libertarian, which is one reason why he still remains one of our most popular former president's. Because except for maybe leftists, who still go out of their way to speak against him, he has broad support.

Conservatives love Reagan because he's against big government across the board, for the most part. George Will being an excellent example of that. Libertarians like him because he believed in low taxes and didn't want to tell Americans how to live their lives. Liberals such as myself and others respect him because he's a real Conservative and could work with Democrats. Centrists like him because he made government work and was practical. Reagan has support almost across the board. 

What you get with the HBO film, is a look at certain targeted aspects of his life, intended to appeal to a broad audience of people. Who don't follow politics and history very closely and feel the need to be entertained, which is one reason why this movie focused a lot on his Hollywood career and his two marriages, as well as his kids and Nancy. And there should be a movie about him, which is how LBJ and FDR have been covered where you get a big picture. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Charles Krauthammer: 'On Wisconsin: Smaller Government Is Still Alive & Well'

Source:Real Clear Politics- Fox News political contributor and Washington Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer.

"It's clear that this was about the most energized electorate; there were no undecideds," FOX News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Wednesday. "If you look at the polls, everyone decided. Just about 86% decided a month ago. If you were undecided, you weren't paying attention. And it was extremely polarized; the issues were black and white."

"I'm not sure that you'd expect this, but you would expect that intensity and the divisions," Krauthammer said on the panel portion of FOX News' "Special Report" broadcast this evening. "But I think the lesson for the presidential campaign is for Romney, that he is extremely risk-averse by nature. There is nothing wrong with that but I think this is showing him that you don't have to be to win this election. You can try to win by going minimal, by running against Obama's stewardship on the bad economy and your credential as a businessman."

"But there's another option," Krauthammer explained. "And that is to do as well to add on to that the ideological element of it. This election showed, in Wisconsin, that kind spirit of 2010, the kind of if you like Constitutional conservative philosophy; smaller government is still alive and well and can be used in this election."

"And I think there are elements of the Ryan plan that Romney might want to highlight, either tax reform or entitlement reform, but something that is risky and bold and strong. I'm not sure he would do it but it would help him and Wisconsin is saying this is going to work. The electorate has grown up and they can take it," Mr. Krauthammer said." 

From Real Clear Politics

I think I agree with most of what Charles Krauthammer is saying here. But I take issue with Governor Scott Walker and the rest of the Wisconsin Republican Leadership as being Constitutional Conservatives. 

I'm sure there are a few Constitutional Conservatives in Wisconsin (or is it Wiscansin) but we're really talking about the Phyllis Schlafly, Christian-Right, populist, economic libertarian, but socially fundamentalist, wing of the Republican Party. 

Yes, the Populist-Christian-Right wants big government out of big business's and wealthy individuals wallets (as long as those wealthy individuals and businesses aren't Democrats) but they want big government in our homes. And to a certain extent in working people's wallets by taking workers right on whether they should join a labor union or not, away from them and having big government to that for them. 

The Wisconsin Republican Leadership, led by Governor Scott Walker, does not represent the Barry Goldwater Constitutional Conservative wing of the Republican Party. More like the Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Christian-Populist wing of the Republican Party. It's not big government that they oppose. They just don't want big government intruding on businesses and wealthy individuals that vote Republican.