Where there actions speak so loudly, we have to wonder why the Washington correspondents continue to pay attention to only their words.

It's hard to see what kind of plan the lizard brains are following here. One possibility is that they think this is 1992, and a steady stream of complaints will lead to certain victory in the midterms. But that was then, this is now: Obama is more adept than Clinton, and the public has a certain indifference to wild claims from the GOP.

Did you see this graph of Obama's popularity? It looks like the tea-baggers gave Obama a big boost.

T'aint entertainment, but it'll do.

I just hope this time, if the Republicans continue to refuse to sit at the adult's table, the concessions get pulled.

To get the flavor of today's GOP you have to have seen John Belushi in Animal House. When they say they are ready to sit down and compromise, they mean they are going to cough and say "blow job". If that doesn't work... well, really it's not supposed to work.

Is there a case to be made that when Obama gives them something that he wouldn't otherwise want (curbing malpractice for instance), and the Republicans don't come back with something in kind, that it makes him seem magnanimous and them seem petty.

Is it valuable to throw them a (small) bone just because it makes him look gracious, even if it doesn't get him any votes?

Karen's story doesn't make any sense. Are we talking about a large bill, and Obama said "I'll curb malpractice awards" and then asked them what concessions they would make? It isn't their bill. There aren't any concessions in there for them to make.

And if there isn't a bill that they are talking about, what kinds of concessions does he expect them to make?

Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return?

From the Unabridged Dictionary of RepublicanSpeak:

Bipartisanship - When democrats do exactly what republicans want

True Bipartisanship - When democrats do exactly what republicans want and apologize for being such assholes for not doing it sooner

News Flash: Republicans oppose malpractice award reform!

The problem for the republicans is that they're living in the past. They used to be able to get away with saying any old bullshit lies and slanders. After a few days whatever they said would be forgotten but the effect would kind of stick. Now they can't get away with that nonsense because almost everyone can fact check them insantly.

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

Well, golly, what do you expect. Our wingnut friends have their busy little butts defending the country against King Obama and his Monarchist hordes. There is only so many hours in the day for Heroic GOP revolutionaries to beat back the invasion. Healthcare Smealthcare is for sissies, not hardened insurgent freedom fighters like John Hancock Boener, and Colonelisimo Cantor.

'Compromise' (as defined in the super secret Cheney/Rove undisclosed 'big time' Republican Dick-tionary) - Democrats, you do everything we say. Else you are partisan, bad faith, America-haters who idolize Hitler and want capitalism to fail so that you can...well...actually we haven't thought that far ahead yet.

"Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return?"

A public alternative to private insurance? (Not a substitute, but an alternative RUN by the government, like Medicare, that people can buy into if they can't afford or don't like or don't have local access to private plans.)

A promise to let the thing come to a floor vote?

Similar to their all-tax cuts approach to economic stimulus, I'm guessing that their health care "plan" consists of nothing more than eliminating all medical malpractice claims, along with all other malpractice claims.
Honestly, I haven't heard or seen of any real comprehensive health care reform proposal from the Repubs, and whenever they're asked, the response is nothing more than "well, I know what we don't want to do"--essentially an argument in favor of the unsustainable status quo.

Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return?

How about a government option? Restricted patents? Research grants that come with strings that would give the publica part ownership in the results?

This reminds me of their method of "negotiating" with foreign countries: We will sit down to talk only after you have conceded our major point of the meeting. We will discuss your nuclear rogram only after you have stopped it.

Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return?

It makes sense to anybody who isn't being willfully obtuse. There's a basic outline of a bill, and Obama wants there to be a public option among the choices of insurance. The Repubs don't even need a bill of their own to say that they'd be willing to accept a public option if Obama and the Dems add malpractice limits to the bill.

I don't think anyone else has a problem understanding that the Republicans aren't acting in good faith. They claim to be willing to compromise, but they aren't, and they don't have any alternatives of their own unless you count the status quo.
You'd think they'd at least be in favor of the cost-saving measures, the streamlining of information sharing and all, but they seem to think that's just the first step in Obama's evil plan for a government takeover of health care.

1. Say No to everything

2. ???????????

3. Victory in the next two election cycles.

President Obama needs to deal with his own party and forget about the Republicans, who have zero ideas about anything that might actually be good for the nation. There are a number of Dems who are going to be interfering in a strong public health insurance program as well including (but not limited to) Ben Nelson, Bayh, our newest "Democrat," Specter, Bachus and Schumer.

Another glaring typo:

"Karen Tumulty shares an important anecdote about negations over health care reform."

Obama is just playing a little political chess at this point, by making an offer of concessions to the GOP, knowing full well they oppose any additional government intrusion into the health care system.

They don't care that 40 million people are not covered and prices keep going up and care quality down for those who are insured. Their bread is buttered by the Plutocrats who run the current system who are getting rich and are happy as clams.

The wingers are bought and paid for by these same scoundrels and all the talk about capitalist ideology is hogwash, to be believed only by the dim bulbs who attend tea parties and listen to Rush. They will filibuster any health plan the dems put up that takes some or all of the system out or the hands of big business health care.

And the problem for Obama are the relative few dems who are compromised like the GOP. There is no way to pass a bill using regular order in the Senate, and even a majority vote isn't a given without some watering down. But getting a foot in the door, with even a watered down bill will be progress, to be built upon later.

"Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return?"

Aside from what other posters have pointed out, what this meeting illustrates is that the Republicans aren't even talking about compromise among themselves.

The very suggestion of them giving something in exchange for getting something they like took them completely by surprise. It never even occured to them!

No wonder they're looking to the old Bush team for help. They have no clue how politics is even supposed to work, making them nothing more than helpless children trying to comprehend a grown-up world to which they have nothing to offer.

Any further questions?

ross best, i only wish that were a typo. unfortunately, whether Steve intended it or not, that is a perfectly accurate description of the Republican approach in the meeting to Obama's offered bipartisanship.

Whether or not Obama's efforts at bipartisanship are as sincere as he says, I continue to be in awe of the guy's political savvy. I was among those lefty Dems who were critical at his early attempts at bipartisanship when it was abundantly clear that the Repubs hadn't the slightest interest in real compromise. Now it's already showing up in the polls that people believe Obama's bipartisan efforts were genuine while the GOP just kept spitting in his eye. And still he keeps at it, making himself look fair-minded and reasonable while his opponents look more and more like petulant children. He's creating an even stronger position for himself on healthcare with this kind of behavior, adding to his credibility while the Repubs' just keeps shrinking.

Of course, the funny thing is that malpractice insurance costs have more to do with how well the insurance company's investments are doing than it does with actual awards to patients. States that put caps on awards are still seeing premium costs shoot up because the cost of the insurance is unrelated to how much the insurer has to pay out. So even if we got a nationwide cap on malpractice awards, we would still see prices soar on malpractice insurance.

I.Love.That.Guy. in the whitehouse. Everytime I read something like this I just crack up.

Still, hanging around the back of my mind is an even more lovely thought--what if the Dems offered to get rid of the right to sue *for people enrolled in the public option*. Just to see what would happen. I don't think its a good idea. I just want to see the Republicans have to explain publicly why capping malpractice awards, or giving up on the right to sue, is in fact a HIDEOUSLY BAD IDEA for the consumer.

Because you know that if obama and the Dems did put in caps for malpractice in a public option (because it would save money to the public purse) the Republicans would flip out that it was a sign of creeping socialism/fascism and that Obama is only doing it to hurt the American People.

I'd just like to see them have to make that argument publicly--that malpractice awards have an actual function in keeping doctors and hospitals honest--when it comes to state run medical services but mysteriously lose that function when it comes to private industry.

aimai

The ridiculous thing about Tumulty's story is that once she tosses off the anecdote about Republican unwillingness to compromise she completely drops that little matter and spends the rest of her time complaining about how Obama isn't involved enough in health care negotiations, like it's all his fault things are moving so slowly:

"Thus far, Obama has largely stayed out of the negotiations that are going on in the House and Senate over health care. Studying the failure of the last effort to overhaul the health system in 1994, the Obama Administration has styled its approach to be the opposite of that of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who presented lawmakers with a complex bill that was more than 1,000 pages long. Obama has spelled out broad goals — expanding coverage and bringing down costs — but has pretty much left it up to Congress to decide how to do it."

...

"Meanwhile, time is running short. Both the House and Senate have set an extraordinarily ambitious timetable that would have the legislation passing each chamber by the time Congress adjourns for its August recess. Increasingly, the President's allies worry that they simply cannot get there that quickly without a much bigger investment of Obama's enormous political capital."

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Just to piggyback on Mnemosyne's comment, the additional problem is that at the same time that putting a cap on malpractice awards doesn't hold down premium costs in a market downturn it has the potential to further harm the complainants while not being sufficiently punitive to curb bad medical service providers.

Aside from what other posters have pointed out, what this meeting illustrates is that the Republicans aren't even talking about compromise among themselves.

Well of course that is what it illustrates. Why else would "insiders" leak this information.

And I'm not being willfully obtuse. I just don't trust what insiders leak, whether those insiders are Bush insiders or Obama insiders. They leak the information because they want their side to look good, and they want the other side to look bad.

I'm not saying the Republicans have any ideas. They have made it very clear the have no ideas. However, from the point of view of bargaining, I don't think the story makes sense.

Obama has all of the power here. The question isn't "What are the Republicans willing to give up?"

The question is "What needs to be in the bill (or out of the bill) to make you not obstruct it?"

And I'm sure they don't have an answer to that, either. But offering them "Tort reform" up front seems to be a gimmick.

One of the worst confusions about HCR, is those who pretend that what we'd pay for national HC is just a "cost", when of course it's the net cost (difference) that matters because we'd pay for the NHCS instead of to private insurers etc.

Is there a case to be made that when Obama gives them something that he wouldn't otherwise want (curbing malpractice for instance), and the Republicans don't come back with something in kind, that it makes him seem magnanimous and them seem petty.

Yes.

Is it valuable to throw them a (small) bone just because it makes him look gracious, even if it doesn't get him any votes?

Yes. He's not doing it because he thinks he can get their votes. He's doing it to show the voting public exactly what he's dealing with. And based on the polls, the voting public understands perfectly well -- despite the best efforts of the mighty Wurlitzer and the hideous screams of every Republican member of Congress -- who the grownups are in this situation.

Can somebody who thinks this conversation makes any sense give me some examples of what the Republicans should have offered in return? Posted by: DR on May 5, 2009

Votes to end debate and get it to an up or down vote.

2 or 3 votes to pass it with some Repub support the way the stimulus bill passed.

I wouldn't connect reduced malpractice risk with having a public option, but with adherence to 'best practices'.

OTOH, I think the public option for anyone who can't get insurance via normal means has to be available to get everyone covered. And that is important.

I know some people are afraid of a public option because private insurers couldn't compete with the power of the government. That's why I suggest government run it's option through private insurers instead of handling the insurance part itself. Just use a bidding process of some kind to get low costs, as a company taking bids from private insurance companies does. Government could split up it's monies among several insurers if there was a problem with too much business going one way.

The idea of gov't running the insurance itself isn't appealing to me. I don't see an insurance agency as governance.

How many more ways can the say "screw you": before Obama stops expecting anything but obstruction from this voter opposed minority.

Without a "public" option like Medicare for all, there is no health care reform.

The private ins. companies will spend millions and use every lobbyist and the MSM to keep this from happening. It would be the best thing for the people but it would also end the ins. comp. profiteering tyranny. Obama hopefully will not back down or back up on the most important issue of our times. It will do for the American people what social security has done for retirees. The majority of the voting public is demanding a not for profit single payer national health care ins. program. It is the change we believe in.

btw...beware the dems trying to find a way to keep this from going through the senate by the reconciliation process which requires a 51 vote majority...like it's supposed to be. They've been bought by the desperate ins. lobby.

Today some for-profit (anyway major) health care organization offered to stop charging women more than men. A couple of weeks ago they made some other proposal toward fairness (no age related rates, no preexisting conditions, I don't remember...hey do your own research) By the way I think in NY and a couple of other states age related rates are not permitted ....once again, sorry, no time, HDYOR. Anyway, obviously the public plan is doing what it was intended to do way before it actually happens. Which of course shows just why it is so totally essential in the context of the way O wants to go with universal health care.

The reason Republicans don't compromise, and yet at the same time always expect Democrats to do so, because compromising is for LOSERS and Republicans are always the WINNERS. It's right in their rule book.