Health Care Transparency and CSPAN

[I_luv_saber]

I thought this was interesting...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...are-cspan.html

The article itself is written from a pretty biased standpoint, but the point it's making is a fair one (I actually heard someone talking about it on the radio and this was one of the first Google hits - should be some less biased ones out there if anyone cares to find them).

Essentially, trying to cater to Obama's pledge of transparency, CSPAN actually sent a letter to congressional leaders (and I believe Obama directly) asking to "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage". This request has apparently been declined. This is very, very disappointing.

Here's a clip of the conference with Pelosi. Unfortunately, I can't find the whole thing...
(Video here)


In another conference with Robert Gibbs, Obama's Press Secretary (which I hate to say, because I actually loved his confrontation with Sean Hannity and had a somewhat high opinion of him) was asked by a reporter: (video can be found here)

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and --

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday...

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself --

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is --

QUESTION: I deal with the information that --

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --

GIBBS: And he'll do so today.

QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

Thoughts?

[Inquartata]

I am reminded of Vice-Pope Eric.

"Look, if you want to create a transparent public policy it's got to be designed in secret!"

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I wouldn't put this on Gibbs' shoulders.

The Obama Administration controls what The White House gives C-SPAN access to. And.... it's been quite a bit. Like, I couldn't watch the actors from Glee singing for the HRC dinner, but Obama's speech was live. Obama can beg the Hill to do things, Rahm can swear at them til his mother****ing blue in the mother****ing face, but they have their own Communications directors, and when there's more than one Communication director involved.........

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why anyone thinks they get to hold a presidential administration to a promise that a Reid-Pelosi join meeting would be televised. Like, it would be nice that it would be televised, I'm with you on that one, and yes, the Obama administration would be key in making that happen, but he's not the one making the decision, as it's not his series of meetings.....

And even if it was, it would be the decision of the White House Communications Director, and not Robert Gibbs.

And I'm *sure* Gibbs has been pestered about this non stop. As he should be. As it's his job to be. But Gibbs didn't make the decision, it's not in his power to make the decision, it's not even really under the control of his branch of government, and probably has no new information. So while I'm torn on this--- On one hand, it's not good it's not on c-span, on the other hand, if it were on c-span, I'd have to watch/listen to it practically nonstop (healthcare policy wonk partner)--- don't blame Robert Gibbs for this.........

[Inquartata]

And yet, if it had been Scott McClellan or Tony Snow, would you be excusing Bush? One suspects not.

I calls situational excuse-making!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Reading Comprehension, dearest.

Reid and Pelosi have a WHOLE BUNCH of explaining to do about why keeping all or most of these meetings in private is in "our" (their?) best interest, as this seems to actually be their decision. In any case, they have to say something, even if it is a half assed pretend justification.

My guess is that either Obama wants c-span covering it and can't get them to do it, and doesn't want that made public (hence being quiet on it), or they've convinced him of some other reason why it's actually in the Dems best interest to keep the meetings behind closed doors, in any case, he has to keep relatively quiet about it. I hope that he is privately pushing them to be more open. Actually, I hope he's privately pushing them to do whatever gets me, personally, the best health insurance option, but that's a bit much to hope for, so I'll go with the first thing. In any case, he's got a whole bunch of responsibilities and politics to juggle, but not a whole bunch of actual choices to make. He can't unilaterally decide to let C-Span in, for example.... I mean, maybe he could.... declare war on Nancy Pelosi and draft the C-Span camera crew???? I don't know. It would be messy.

In any case, I don't know, in the BushII Era, I very well might not "excuse Bush", but I also wouldn't choose to blame McClellan, Snow, or Perino for whatever access Congress was giving to C-Span, either. It's a much easier fight to talk about the access that any particular press secretary is giving to the press in their own briefings, no matter what your political bent, no matter what administration, than to make bizarre leaps through different branches of government.

[erik_blank]

.... I mean, maybe he could.... declare war on Nancy Pelosi and draft the C-Span camera crew???? I don't know. It would be messy.

Scene:

Closed conference room, filled with light blue smoke wafting from ptchuli incense cones, water pipes and the occasional large stogie. Piles of paper, laptop computers and the occasional office staffer lay about the room in general dissarray. A bedraggled Nanci Pelosi and Harry Reid confer in a far corner of the room as nervous committee members hunch near the windows and doors trying to avoid detection.

Pelosi: ....don't care WHAT he says, he can broadcast this meeting when he pries the door handle from my cold dead fingers!

Reid: (nervously) I heard that he's preparing an assault alraedy. Are you sure we have enough press secretaries to give us cover if we're attacked?

Pelosi: He wouldn't dare... not after we got him into the office in the first place!

(Murmers from the people near the windows)
"...trucks comming up...."
"Look at the size of that DISH!"

(Sound of marching feet comes through the barracaded door from the hall)

"Look out!"

(Sound of multiple flash photographs being taken by SLR cameras there is a brief shrill scream then the sound of bodies falling aagains the door and falling.)

Reid: I told you he was going to...

(commotion from the door way. A hand is thrust through holding a microphone. A boom microphone rapidly follows)

Pelosi (making for a back door): Fall Back! We can still meet in the basement!

(Aids and reporters enter into hand to had combat, flash photography flies back and forth, bodies start to pile up.)

Reid (suddenly in a kleig light from a C-Span reporter): I'm caught! Save yourself!

--------------------------
I've GOT to stop taking these cold meds...

[I_luv_saber]

don't blame Robert Gibbs for this.........

Obviously it's not Gibbs decision, nor was I implying that. But the question was answered (or lack thereof) extremely, extremely poorly. That is his fault, and that is his job.

Nor did I try to imply the Obama administration had a hand in the decision. But you'll notice what the reporter is trying to get out (and Gibbs doesn't want him to), is that while it is not a Presidential decision, Obama was urging them to push it through as fast as possible. While it may not be his decision that is going against his promise, his position certainly goes against the spirit of what he promised. Reference this part of my post:

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

I agree he should not be blamed for what is not his fault, but he should certainly be held accountable and called out when he urges others to do that which he promised to work against. Whether it's his direct decision or not.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

It looks like this is an issue they've been covering a lot over the last week or two (I'm guessing, I just skimmed the 1/5/2010 briefing)

Q Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-SPAN question --

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Q Well, you didn't, because you said --

MR. GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --

Q Why do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --

MR. GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.

Q Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-SPAN --

MR. GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate. We've filled your newspaper and many others with the back-and-forth and the details of what's in these bills. I don't want to keep that from continuing to happen. I don't think there's anybody that would say that we haven't had a thorough, robust, now spanning two calendar years' debate on health care.

Q There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-SPAN -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

MR. GIBBS: No.

When people badger you on the same issue for weeks at a time, and you have no new information, it becomes time to try your best to try to move people to other stories. Particularly with the regulars, it makes the most sense to look at press briefings as a serial story, not a one-off.

[I_luv_saber]

Sure, but it still seems poorly executed to me. Gibbs is usually very good at steering conversation the direction he wants it to go, but in these interviews it's like the sharks are circling.

Again, I'm not really blaming Gibbs here, just he's really making things look worse. And there still is of course the issue of Obama's position....

[chase]

They just want to hide the truth. If Americans saw what was happening to our way of life and our future, every one of those traitors would be voted out of office almost instantly.

[erik_blank]

They just want to hide the truth. If Americans saw what was happening to our way of life and our future, every one of those traitors would be voted out of office almost instantly.

I know this is feeding the troll, but I just have to ask...
Chase: Just what IS this "American Way of Life" that you are so interested in preserving? I don't want to put word in your mouth, so I will leave this one up to you.

Exactly what is it that you feel is threatened, and why? Specifics please, with no hyperbole if you would be so kind.

[chase]

I know this is feeding the troll, but I just have to ask...
Chase: Just what IS this "American Way of Life" that you are so interested in preserving? I don't want to put word in your mouth, so I will leave this one up to you.

Exactly what is it that you feel is threatened, and why? Specifics please, with no hyperbole if you would be so kind.

So anyone who disagrees with the liberal paradigm here is a "troll?" Interesting.

I am interested in preserving AMERICAN'S LIVES. Socialist healtcare DOESN'T work. Just go to England, Canada, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, etc. and look at the lines of people waiting for treatment. Many people die while waiting for the big government bureaucracy to act. This is wrong. PLUS, BHO & Co. are RUINING the economy by spending all kinds of money on the socialist takeover, and the stimulus. The dollar is going to become worthless, and our taxes will go way, way up. In case you slept through economics, when taxes go up, the economy goes DOWN.

[jessicasimpson]

So anyone who disagrees with the liberal paradigm here is a "troll?" Interesting.

I am interested in preserving AMERICAN'S LIVES. Socialist healtcare DOESN'T work. Just go to England, Canada, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, .

I have been to most of these countries, I have never seen any lines for healthcare. Have you been to any of these countries? Since you live very near to it, I will not count a border town in Mexico.

[I_luv_saber]

So anyone who disagrees with the liberal paradigm here is a "troll?" Interesting.

No, a troll is:

troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

So, yes, by definition you are a troll. Unless you are trying to say "Prosecuting Obama for Treason" is not deliberately provocative?

[downunder]

I am interested in preserving AMERICAN'S LIVES. Socialist healtcare DOESN'T work. Just go to England, Canada, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, etc. and look at the lines of people waiting for treatment. .

Speaking as an Australian who grew up in sydney with private healthcare, and now live in the UK under the NHS I'm very happy with the treatment. The queues for the dentist are smaller than my private practice at home.

I don't dispute if you have a lot of money or perfect insurance the heathcare in the USA is the best on the planet. However what concerns me is the disregard to the tens of millions of uninsured or underinsured that you end up paying for anyway because they go into the ER and create longer queues than we get here!

It just seems like a '**** you i've got mine' attitude.

[Fencergrl]

Socialist healtcare DOESN'T work. Just go to England, Canada, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, etc. and look at the lines of people waiting for treatment.

As others have pointed out, you are way off base and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[erik_blank]

So anyone who disagrees with the liberal paradigm here is a "troll?" Interesting.

I am interested in preserving AMERICAN'S LIVES. Socialist healtcare DOESN'T work. Just go to England, Canada, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, etc. and look at the lines of people waiting for treatment. Many people die while waiting for the big government bureaucracy to act. This is wrong. PLUS, BHO & Co. are RUINING the economy by spending all kinds of money on the socialist takeover, and the stimulus. The dollar is going to become worthless, and our taxes will go way, way up. In case you slept through economics, when taxes go up, the economy goes DOWN.

OK, you are interested in preserving american lives... but you specifically stated that you are concerned that the "american way of life" is disappearing...
I will simply ignore the non sequitur about the economy, and the issue of health care that you keep trotting out.

What IS this "Way of Life?" What EXACTLY is/was the bucolic vision that you see that is being threatened? Is it the pursuit of Happiness? The ability for a person to found a new business and accumulate wealth? Is it the vision of the solitary agrarian statesman? The Mountain man who hunts and traps all by himself, bringing in his catch to the trading house at the end of each spring? The nuclear family living in the suburbs on the single income of the father while his wife and two and half children sit comfortably in the fallout shelter that their grandfather built in case the russians decide to drop the bomb on them?

What is REALLY threatened here Chase?

[chase]

OK, you are interested in preserving american lives... but you specifically stated that you are concerned that the "american way of life" is disappearing...
I will simply ignore the non sequitur about the economy, and the issue of health care that you keep trotting out.

What IS this "Way of Life?" What EXACTLY is/was the bucolic vision that you see that is being threatened? Is it the pursuit of Happiness? The ability for a person to found a new business and accumulate wealth? Is it the vision of the solitary agrarian statesman? The Mountain man who hunts and traps all by himself, bringing in his catch to the trading house at the end of each spring? The nuclear family living in the suburbs on the single income of the father while his wife and two and half children sit comfortably in the fallout shelter that their grandfather built in case the russians decide to drop the bomb on them?

What is REALLY threatened here Chase?

What non-sequitur? Do you label everything too complex for your liberal brain to be a non-sequitur?

All of the above are threatened, because of the economic impact. Also, lives are impacted, because when the bumbling federal bureaucracy is standing between doctors and patients, people die. Is that so difficult to understand?

[migopod]

What non-sequitur? Do you label everything too complex for your liberal brain to be a non-sequitur?

All of the above are threatened, because of the economic impact. Also, lives are impacted, because when the bumbling federal bureaucracy is standing between doctors and patients, people die. Is that so difficult to understand?

Yet when private insurance stands between doctors and patients 45000 people a year die and hundreds of thousands others are reduced to bankruptcy.

[chase]

Yet when private insurance stands between doctors and patients 45000 people a year die and hundreds of thousands others are reduced to bankruptcy.

REALITY CHECK: People are going to die either way. Thousands of people die in socialist systems every year, due to RANDOM rationing. I admit that healthcare is currently rationed today, but at least if you work hard and earn money, you can get care for you and your family. The liberal plan is basically like drawing straws. That's not fair.